The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

#776
#776
hog88 said:
No, no, you don't get off that easy after making claims that everyone would be fair and be on their best behavior.

Oh and nice using a John Stossle video.
Click to expand...

I didn't make those claims. People cheat, especially if they can get away with it, but they generally play fair because it pays to play nice.
 
#778
#778
Basically, every argument you make against an-cap can be made against government.

- people are mean

so why risk giving mean people top down power to control society?

- people are dishonest

so why risk giving dishonest people top down power to control society?

- people are greedy

so why risk giving greedy people top down power to control society?

The question is whether or not the government creates more issues than it resolves. Who is the biggest polluter? Government. Who is the biggest thief? Government. Is it out of the realm of reason to think maybe they aren't the right body to turn to to protect society against pollution, theft, etc.?
 
#779
#779
hog88 said:
In what world?
Click to expand...

The world in which Wal-Mart replaces a TV they are not obligated morally, ethically, legally, etc. to replace. They just do it because it pays to play nice.

It's sad that you don't recognize that, and if you had a failed business, it's probably because you didn't play nice.
 
#781
#781
n_huffhines said:
Basically, every argument you make against an-cap can be made against government.

- people are mean

so why risk giving mean people top down power to control society?

- people are dishonest

so why risk giving dishonest people top down power to control society?

- people are greedy

so why risk giving greedy people top down power to control society?

The question is whether or not the government creates more issues than it resolves. Who is the biggest polluter? Government. Who is the biggest thief? Government. Is it out of the realm of reason to think maybe they aren't the right body to turn to to protect society against pollution, theft, etc.?
Click to expand...

Does this mean that your protection service will be driving around in Priuses and Volts? Or does protecting the environment take a back seat to making sure people pay their debts to you?
 
#782
#782
n_huffhines said:
Basically, every argument you make against an-cap can be made against government.

- people are mean

so why risk giving mean people top down power to control society?

- people are dishonest

so why risk giving dishonest people top down power to control society?

- people are greedy

so why risk giving greedy people top down power to control society?

The question is whether or not the government creates more issues than it resolves. Who is the biggest polluter? Government. Who is the biggest thief? Government. Is it out of the realm of reason to think maybe they aren't the right body to turn to to protect society against pollution, theft, etc.?
Click to expand...

Our form of government as designed in the constitution is the best design ever, it has been perverted since. What we have now isn't perfect but 100x better than AnCap.

Under AnCap the only rights a person has are ones they can buy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#783
#783
n_huffhines said:
The world in which Wal-Mart replaces a TV they are not obligated morally, ethically, legally, etc. to replace. They just do it because it pays to play nice.

It's sad that you don't recognize that, and if you had a failed business, it's probably because you didn't play nice.
Click to expand...

But I do not want my protectionists to play nice. Just like the VOLS O-line. Playing nice gets you beat. I want unequivocal loyalty. You can hire nice guys, and I'll kill all of them before my oatmeal is done.
 
#784
#784
MG1968 said:
Does this mean that your protection service will be driving around in Priuses and Volts? Or does protecting the environment take a back seat to making sure people pay their debts to you?
Click to expand...

I don't think society would stand for a protection agency that forces everyone to drive a certain car, so it's just not going to happen. Only government has the power to mandate something so stupid.

My protection agency will prevent you from dumping toxic sludge in my river.
 
#786
#786
n_huffhines said:
I don't think society would stand for a protection agency that forces everyone to drive a certain car, so it's just not going to happen. Only government has the power to mandate something so stupid.

My protection agency will prevent you from dumping toxic sludge in my river.
Click to expand...

A clever answer to a question I didn't ask.
 
#787
#787
SpaceCoastVol said:
But I do not want my protectionists to play nice. Just like the VOLS O-line. Playing nice gets you beat. I want unequivocal loyalty. You can hire nice guys, and I'll kill all of them before my oatmeal is done.
Click to expand...

And this is why governments go to war with the people's consent. We are fine with sending pitbulls to negotiating tables.
 
#788
#788
n_huffhines said:
I don't think society would stand for a protection agency that forces everyone to drive a certain car, so it's just not going to happen. Only government has the power to mandate something so stupid.

My protection agency will prevent you from dumping toxic sludge in my river.
Click to expand...

Not if they play nice they wont.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#790
#790
n_huffhines said:
And this is why governments go to war with the people's consent. We are fine with sending pitbulls to negotiating tables.
Click to expand...

And what does that have to do with the argument against your little pro-anarchy stance? I think in a way we really do want a version the same thing. I want state's rights, but you are more an advocate for a feudal system. Either way we want less centralized .gov, but I am not sure we are ready to go back to the 8th century
 
#791
#791
n_huffhines said:
If a neutral 3rd party finds you owing, your protection agency gladly walks and leaves you on your own. They are not obligated to cover you when you are at fault. In fact, they may have an arrangement in dealing with other protection firms that they pay for your damages, and then it's up to them to collect from you. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Which part of "they will continue to protect me because I'm paying them the most" don't you understand?

Or the unscrupulous behavior of some out there that just don't care about the rules?
 
#792
#792
SpaceCoastVol said:
And what does that have to do with the argument against your little pro-anarchy stance? I think in a way we really do want a version the same thing. I want state's rights, but you are more an advocate for a feudal system. Either way we want less centralized .gov, but I am not sure we are ready to go back to the 8th century
Click to expand...

Honestly, if you are worried about small factions going to war with each other, many would say the federalism you propose would result in just that. Not my opinion, but it's kind of the whole theory behind a strong central government.
 
#793
#793
Grand Vol said:
Which part of "they will continue to protect me because I'm paying them the most" don't you understand?

Or the unscrupulous behavior of some out there that just don't care about the rules?
Click to expand...

You can't pay them enough. Why do you think that you can?
 
#794
#794
n_huffhines said:
Honestly, if you are worried about small factions going to war with each other, many would say the federalism you propose would result in just that. Not my opinion, but it's kind of the whole theory behind a strong central government.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about complete independence of the states. I am talking about their ability to govern themselves with their unique needs, (comma) under the umbrella of a centralized government "framework" that would provide for the common needs of the collective. Since I apparently have to spell this out for you, the .gov would provide for the common defense of all the states in the event of an invasion by an outside group. (Hmmm.. why does that sound so familiar?) What the .gov does NOT do is steal and pillage from the members of those states to provide health care and welfare plans for those in less industrious states.

A strong central .gov does NOT mean a BIG central .gov.
 
#796
#796
SpaceCoastVol said:
I'm not talking about complete independence of the states. I am talking about their ability to govern themselves with their unique needs, (comma) under the umbrella of a centralized government "framework" that would provide for the common needs of the collective. Since I apparently have to spell this out for you, the .gov would provide for the common defense of all the states in the event of an invasion by an outside group. (Hmmm.. why does that sound so familiar?) What the .gov does NOT do is steal and pillage from the members of those states to provide health care and welfare plans for those in less industrious states.

A strong central .gov does NOT mean a BIG central .gov.
Click to expand...

It kinda does mean that, if you are willing to face reality.
 
#798
#798
n_huffhines said:
It kinda does mean that, if you are willing to face reality.
Click to expand...

No, not really. You advocate a complete dismantling of the .gov whereas I do not. I just want to see it in the role it was designed to play, not a cradle to grave nanny.

And you talking about "facing reality" is humorous at a minimum if not downright hilarious.
 
#799
#799
SpaceCoastVol said:
Define "enough".
Click to expand...

At best, someone might be rich enough to buy a small army and try to buck the system, but they will be crushed by protection agencies.

A protection agency is profitable because it minimizes costs. Part of minimizing cost would be minimizing the cost of enforcement. Playing by the rules is easily the best way to minimize cost. Instead of your agents arresting my clients, I will have my clients turn themselves in, and you would do the same. It lowers the cost of business for all parties involved.

Once you start bucking the system and fighting just claims, your entire cost structure will change. You are no longer a protection agency. You are a mercenary force, and protection agencies will wipe you out.
 
#800
#800
Grand Vol said:
Which part of "they will continue to protect me because I'm paying them the most" don't you understand?

Or the unscrupulous behavior of some out there that just don't care about the rules?
Click to expand...

What rules? It's Anarchy remember.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top