The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

[volinbham]

Same as your position. What's the difference? If we don't know how an unfettered market would perform, you don't know that a regulated market outperforms it. Your position is based on faith.

The underlying assumptions of the market system directly suggest that growth and scale in particular are key to profit maximization.

Likewise, we already see that some are capital accumulators while others are not.

Market systems directly encourage the seeking of competitive advantage which could come in any number of ways including outright removal/destruction of competition.

The forces of the market and capitalism directly incentivize capital accumulation and scope.

You only have to "win" customers when competition is robust yet the incentives of the market drive you towards reducing your competition. Regulatory frameworks (regardless of your opinion of them) act to limit the pathways to "eliminating" competition.

This is not faith - this establish theory on markets, capitalism and empirical evidence from history. Markets do not remain perfectly competitive. Disruptive innovation may reset sectors to this state (over a period of decades, generations) but the cycle repeats. Bottomline, in AnCap there will be continual times of non-free markets and all the associated problems that come with that.

I'm all for capitalism, free markets and limited government. Assuming the absence of government means free markets will remain perfectly free (perfect competition) is fantasy.

 

[n_huffhines]

We do know or at least have a dang good idea of how an unfettered market would preform. That's what you continue to ignore.

We have no idea. We've had a lot of regulation for 100+ years. The arguments for regulation were shaky at the time, and we live in a different world, now. Technology has shrunk the world and lessened the potential threat of monopolies.

 

[volinbham]

Here's another way to look at it Huff.

You (rightly) point out government failure. Most of your examples are cases where government in practice differs from an idealized theory of governance in a society.

For some reason you reject that free markets in practice differ from the idealized (and static) theory of what a free market is.

In the end you would still prefer the non-government option but that is a different issue than believing in the magical powers of the market (just as others believe in the magical powers of the government) to handle all and work just as envisioned in theory.

 

[n_huffhines]

The underlying assumptions of the market system directly suggest that growth and scale in particular are key to profit maximization.

Likewise, we already see that some are capital accumulators while others are not.

Market systems directly encourage the seeking of competitive advantage which could come in any number of ways including outright removal/destruction of competition.

The forces of the market and capitalism directly incentivize capital accumulation and scope.

You only have to "win" customers when competition is robust yet the incentives of the market drive you towards reducing your competition. Regulatory frameworks (regardless of your opinion of them) act to limit the pathways to "eliminating" competition.

This is not faith - this establish theory on markets, capitalism and empirical evidence from history. Markets do not remain perfectly competitive. Disruptive innovation may reset sectors to this state (over a period of decades, generations) but the cycle repeats. Bottomline, in AnCap there will be continual times of non-free markets and all the associated problems that come with that.

I'm all for capitalism, free markets and limited government. Assuming the absence of government means free markets will remain perfectly free (perfect competition) is fantasy.

LMAO. I am not disputing any of that. I am saying it takes faith to believe government will improve on this problem. Can we at least agree on that?

 

[volinbham]

We have no idea. We've had a lot of regulation for 100+ years. The arguments for regulation were shaky at the time, and we live in a different world, now. Technology has shrunk the world and lessened the potential threat of monopolies.

Monopolies have always been geographically bound and typically region/local.

Regardless of what causes a local monopoly those in the area will still suffer the consequences.

 

[volinbham]

LMAO. I am not disputing any of that. I am saying it takes faith to believe government will improve on this problem. Can we at least agree on that?

perhaps but that is a different issue than what you've been arguing where you say these things will not happen in the absence of government.

 

[n_huffhines]

perhaps but that is a different issue than what you've been arguing where you say these things will not happen in the absence of government.

If I said that, I misspoke. I try my best to clearly state problems don't go away under ancap, just the biggest problem-maker does. Even if I say it as clearly as possible, it doesn't get communicated.

It's not a utopia. It's not a perfect system. I readily admit I don't know for sure that it's a better system. I realize it takes an element of faith to say it would work better, but I also recognize the same is true if I take the other position.

 

[volinbham]

fair enough.

Would you agree that if there were a system that could preserve the good of free markets (choice, innovation, growth) while limiting the bad (dislocation, anti-competitive behavior, market-failure (eg. public goods not existing)) that would be an improvement on what we have now and AnCap?

 

[n_huffhines]

Well yeah, but now we're talking about utopia epper:

 

[hog88]

If I said that, I misspoke. I try my best to clearly state problems don't go away under ancap, just the biggest problem-maker does. Even if I say it as clearly as possible, it doesn't get communicated.

It's not a utopia. It's not a perfect system. I readily admit I don't know for sure that it's a better system. I realize it takes an element of faith to say it would work better, but I also recognize the same is true if I take the other position.

Getting rid of people under AnCap?

 

[PKT_VOL]

But, you do advocate for a government right?

So, I'll ask you a few more questions.

Can TWO people delegate to a third person a right that neither of the first two have? In other words, can two people, neither of whom had the moral right to commit a certain act, give to someone else the moral right to commit that act?

Can ANY number of people delegate to any person or persons a right which NONE of the people possessed to begin with? In other words, can any number of people who do NOT have the moral right to commit a certain act, give to someone else the moral right to commit that act?

You are starting off with the premise that people start with rights which are not given or recognized by other people.

 

[Carl Pickens]

We do know or at least have a dang good idea of how an unfettered market would preform. That's what you continue to ignore.

This dude must have failed history something awful.... Damn

 

[n_huffhines]

This dude must have failed history something awful.... Damn

History was always my best subject.

You guys can't even tell me the horrible results of the unfettered market. That's why you just say "it was bad" without backing it up. I'm sure you might be able to vomit out something like, "Rockefeller!!" but I am equally sure you have almost no knowledge of how the robber barons actually impacted consumers.

 

[hog88]

History was always my best subject.

You guys can't even tell me the horrible results of the unfettered market. That's why you just say "it was bad" without backing it up. I'm sure you might be able to vomit out something like, "Rockefeller!!" but I am equally sure you have almost no knowledge of how the robber barons actually impacted consumers.

Dude you need to go way further back. There is a reason feudalism continues as a common theme.

 

[n_huffhines]

Dude you need to go way further back. There is a reason feudalism continues as a common theme.

That is not a valid comparison. You want to compare an economy with smart phones to an economy where gun powder was the hottest new thing?

BTW, if I understand feudalism correctly, the land owners were of noble birthright. It's not like they were savvy businessmen keeping everyone down. It was government granted power that resulted from dividing up empires, essentially. Most people couldn't own land. Hardly an unfettered free market. Not a fair comparison to ancap, at all.

 

[hog88]

That is not a valid comparison. You want to compare an economy with smart phones to an economy where gun powder was the hottest new thing?

BTW, if I understand feudalism correctly, the land owners were of noble birthright. It's not like they were savvy businessmen keeping everyone down. It was government granted power that resulted from dividing up empires, essentially. Most people couldn't own land. Hardly an unfettered free market. Not a fair comparison to ancap, at all.

No, not all. Several were smart ruthless businessmen who were able to seize power. Some were ruthless warriors who were able to do the same.

Technology is all fine and dandy but it doesn't negate thousands of years of history repeating itself and human nature.

 

[n_huffhines]

No, not all. Several were smart ruthless businessmen who were able to seize power. Some were ruthless warriors who were able to do the same.

Technology is all fine and dandy but it doesn't negate thousands of years of history repeating itself and human nature.

Could everybody own land?

No, but it clearly changes human behavior.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

How is this thread still alive?

 

[hog88]

Could everybody own land?

No, but it clearly changes human behavior.

If they could take it they could, where was I not clear? Under AnCap, can everyone own land and if so who will enforce ownership rights?

 

[n_huffhines]

If they could take it they could, where was I not clear? Under AnCap, can everyone own land and if so who will enforce ownership rights?

So no. There were basically no property rights from the get go. All you had to do to own property was conquer people.

I feel like we've been over your 2nd question, ad nauseam.

 

[hog88]

So no. There were basically no property rights from the get go. All you had to do to own property was conquer people.

I feel like we've been over your 2nd question, ad nauseam.

You have never answered the second question outside of your "protection agency" standard answer.

 

[n_huffhines]

You have never answered the second question outside of your "protection agency" standard answer.

I "never answered" a question outside of the answer we've been debating for 20 pages. Really?

Aside from the ridiculousness of the statement, I actually have mentioned something other than protection agencies. The community is a societal control. As a community we stand up for property rights, whether there is government or not.

So I have 2 answers to the question (that we've been arguing for 20 pages). Why keep asking the same question?

 

[n_huffhines]

There has never been a better reason for the abolition of government (except for prohibition).

Yep, it turns out if you total up all the taxes “levied on the production, distribution and retailing of beer,” according to the Beer Institute, they add 44% to the retail price. My Altbier pack could have cost just $6.60, which definitely would have made it even more delicious.

For craft brewers and beer drinkers in Florida, this bad situation is about to get much worse. That’s because there’s a bill making its way through the Florida state legislature right now which would force all breweries to sell their beer to distributors and then buy it back again before selling it to customers.

Here

 

[MG1968]

There has never been a better reason for the abolition of government (except for prohibition).



Here

Craft beer regulation dead in House, Rep. Young says | TBO.com and The Tampa Tribune


nice try, but sometimes government realizes it's about to screw up and doesn't

interesting to note, the rare story you linked is slightly newer than my link, yet the rare story doesn't include this additional information

Senate Bill 1714 (2014) - The Florida Senate

died in the FL house on May 2nd, 10 days before the Rare story was written.

I think you can do better than this, huff.

 

[n_huffhines]

Craft beer regulation dead in House, Rep. Young says | TBO.com and The Tampa Tribune


nice try, but sometimes government realizes it's about to screw up and doesn't

interesting to note, the rare story you linked is slightly newer than my link, yet the rare story doesn't include this additional information

Senate Bill 1714 (2014) - The Florida Senate

died in the FL house on May 2nd, 10 days before the Rare story was written.

I think you can do better than this, huff.

Wow, you got me. I made a comment in jest in conjunction with a link to an old article and now everything I've ever done is discredited.