EPTOn July 01 2011 17:15 brain_ wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
You're offering a laughable apples and oranges comparison. Refer to my previous posts.
You seem to think that contracting people to do things in a free market, means that you have the power to stop the big guys from getting too big. Newsflash, thats not how it works. If they wanna stay big, theyll get people on their side, until theyre too big for you to take down. Its the nature of the beast.
There are a lot of viable counterarguments here, so I'll let you google them instead of staying up to type them myself.
You also seem to think the government offers nothing. Life is simpler with everything the government does for us. I dont want to be responsible for hiring people for every little thing that needs to be done. I want people to do that for me. I have no interest in wasting my time with interdependance, communism, etc... I want to wake up, put in my 8 hours, spend time with my fiancee, my family, and my friends, and enjoy the fruits of my labour on my spare time. Rules, regulations, social services, schools, etc... are all conveniences that allow me to not have to worry about shit 24/7. I can live a comfortable life, not worry about kidnappers, murderers, pillagers, or anything of the sort. I cant count on a steady paycheck, and I can just enjoy my life. I would rather kill myself than live in Somalia.
You're right that government does provide some things: what you're speaking of is a collection of services. Services that government has a monopoly on. If there was an entire market full of people who stand to make money by finding the most efficient and effect way to take care of all those other things for you, for a fee, don't you think the end product would be better than what we get by granting the government a monopoly on those services? Break this down into individual parts and it becomes common sense: people simply have trouble seeing it because they've been brainwashed into thinking that government is good (in many cases by [i]government education... imagine that!]/i]).
You don't need rules, regulations, and intrusive government to enjoy the things you mention. In fact, I guarantee you that government intrusion is cutting into your ability to enjoy them by creating an economically inefficient system that ends up wasting huge amounts of our labor.
Please explain to me how that is different from government. If I stop paying my taxes, say, because I don't support America's occupations overseas, I will be arrested (kidnapped) and thrown in jail (held against my will) until I pay, and then I'll probably be charged for their trouble.
You're paying for security right now. Cops don't work for free. The difference between government monopoly and market anarchy is that if I had a choice of security providers, I doubt I'd choose one that uses my money to extort me in the form of traffic tickets for driving a few miles over the speed limit. I doubt such a firm would last long on the open market.
+ Show Spoiler +
On July 01 2011 17:04 Focuspants wrote:
Brain would you pull a boat with your family on it into a port in somalia? Would you pull a boat with your family on it into any port in the entirety of Canada or the USA? You can sit there and try to rationalize how amazing Somalias system is, and hhow it would be great for us. The increase in prosperity only looks good, because there was no prosperity prior. Anything is better for the people than a dictatorship. You dont do anything to prove that life here is worse than life in Somalia, because we have a government. All you can offer are hypothetical situations, and idealistic world views, that ignore the basic human desire for success and power.
Brain would you pull a boat with your family on it into a port in somalia? Would you pull a boat with your family on it into any port in the entirety of Canada or the USA? You can sit there and try to rationalize how amazing Somalias system is, and hhow it would be great for us. The increase in prosperity only looks good, because there was no prosperity prior. Anything is better for the people than a dictatorship. You dont do anything to prove that life here is worse than life in Somalia, because we have a government. All you can offer are hypothetical situations, and idealistic world views, that ignore the basic human desire for success and power.
You're offering a laughable apples and oranges comparison. Refer to my previous posts.
You seem to think that contracting people to do things in a free market, means that you have the power to stop the big guys from getting too big. Newsflash, thats not how it works. If they wanna stay big, theyll get people on their side, until theyre too big for you to take down. Its the nature of the beast.
There are a lot of viable counterarguments here, so I'll let you google them instead of staying up to type them myself.
You also seem to think the government offers nothing. Life is simpler with everything the government does for us. I dont want to be responsible for hiring people for every little thing that needs to be done. I want people to do that for me. I have no interest in wasting my time with interdependance, communism, etc... I want to wake up, put in my 8 hours, spend time with my fiancee, my family, and my friends, and enjoy the fruits of my labour on my spare time. Rules, regulations, social services, schools, etc... are all conveniences that allow me to not have to worry about shit 24/7. I can live a comfortable life, not worry about kidnappers, murderers, pillagers, or anything of the sort. I cant count on a steady paycheck, and I can just enjoy my life. I would rather kill myself than live in Somalia.
You're right that government does provide some things: what you're speaking of is a collection of services. Services that government has a monopoly on. If there was an entire market full of people who stand to make money by finding the most efficient and effect way to take care of all those other things for you, for a fee, don't you think the end product would be better than what we get by granting the government a monopoly on those services? Break this down into individual parts and it becomes common sense: people simply have trouble seeing it because they've been brainwashed into thinking that government is good (in many cases by [i]government education... imagine that!]/i]).
You don't need rules, regulations, and intrusive government to enjoy the things you mention. In fact, I guarantee you that government intrusion is cutting into your ability to enjoy them by creating an economically inefficient system that ends up wasting huge amounts of our labor.
On July 01 2011 17:11 teekesselchen wrote:
Success of anarchy, lulz. I hope all of this is irony, seeing the actual living conditions in Somalia. It's quite ridiculous to just say "oh they got mobile network, they must be a great society".
Security firms boom? It's more like Mafia if you look at it. You pay or you get robbed because you are not safe without paying. Not so cool for everyone without a buttload of money.
Success of anarchy, lulz. I hope all of this is irony, seeing the actual living conditions in Somalia. It's quite ridiculous to just say "oh they got mobile network, they must be a great society".
Security firms boom? It's more like Mafia if you look at it. You pay or you get robbed because you are not safe without paying. Not so cool for everyone without a buttload of money.
Please explain to me how that is different from government. If I stop paying my taxes, say, because I don't support America's occupations overseas, I will be arrested (kidnapped) and thrown in jail (held against my will) until I pay, and then I'll probably be charged for their trouble.
You're paying for security right now. Cops don't work for free. The difference between government monopoly and market anarchy is that if I had a choice of security providers, I doubt I'd choose one that uses my money to extort me in the form of traffic tickets for driving a few miles over the speed limit. I doubt such a firm would last long on the open market.
I'm wondering if you believe that the system your suggesting can actually work in the real world or can work in a ideal world? To me there is very little difference between a government and a firm beyond scale of control. If i work for a firm, they tell me what i can and cannot do and what i have to do, if i obey i get paid if i don't i get fired. If i belong to country as a citizen, the government tells me what i can and cannot do, and what i have to do, if i obey i get to reap the benefits a government provides if i don't i go to jail. If i belong to a family, the family decides what i can and cannot due and what i have to do, if i obey i get to reap the benefits of being in a family and if not i get kicked out, if i belong to a village, the village decides what i can and cannot do and what i have to do, if i obey i get the benefits of being in a village if not i get kicked out. In all of these cases the greater majority decides the rules and i must follow them. This is fine because belonging to a society provides greater certainty of survival, i also always have the personal option of not participating and leaving on my own. Does this mean i must give up personal liberties, of course, but in exchange for something. I Mean the reason humanity rose to dominate the planet was because we are social in nature.
From what i can tell your problem is with the benefits of a government being out weighed by the cost as well as the essentially forced participation( you could just pack up and move into the wild but good luck with that) and that you would like there to not be a government and instead have everything be run by firms as you believe that it would be more efficient.
If i am correct than i have a few problems. The first is money, exactly where does money come from without a centralized government since all money is currently fiat and has absolutely no inherit value and with no central body who will regulate its creation and its use. Currently we all trust in money really simply because everybody trusts it and accepts it. This is a huge problem if there is no governing body since why should i trust it now?
next is law, who enforces and creates the laws? Id would be nice if we didn't need em but as long as resources are limited and the future uncertain people will always take from others in order to increase their own certainty of survival. Really as long as survival is uncertain in anyway for pretty much anyone within the general populace people will not over come their selfishness because survival comes before society which means a governing body will always be needed to ensure that the least moral members of our society are least selfish thereby placing society before individual.
(As a side note there is something to altruism, if you want to try and use that against my statement, but i think its only when the person being altruistic is in some way increasing the chance of survival of an individual with some sort of genetic connection, whether actual or perceived, thereby increasing the survival of his genetic mater, kinda like why its considered normal to want to have kids even though it decreases our own chances of survival in the process)
And then lastly why is it that a government must be worse than firms? would it not be better and more realistic to fight to improve the government such that it becomes as good or better than the firms and still get all of the positives of having a central government without the downsides of not having a central government? i mean the only reason a monopoly is bad is because the power is central to only one entity. the difference between a firm having a monopoly and the government having a monopoly is that the government is designed initially for the general populace such that the monopolistic entity is all people, while the firm is design initially for those few people that run the firm (mostly anyway, obviously the firms want to keep the investors happy and what not but those are only the people that have, the people that don't have, work for the firm and get fucked over so that those that have, can have more). If the power is central to the government which serves all people than all people share all power. hard to do in real life, as in failure of communism, but i believe easier than having firms either fight each other not in the desire to take all power from all people and horde it within the few but instead just to work really hard to benefit society (yah right,), or to have all the firms essentially cancel each other out such that power is still spread relatively equally, also not really realistic as in life there is always a winner and always a loser in competition.
