The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

#1,126
#1,126
but-who-will-build-the-roads.jpg
 
#1,138
#1,138
n_huffhines said:
Well, who is commanding the security company to conquer humanity in your statist fantasy?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be one - it would be repeated all over the place just like warlords or the mob. The new peasants would be at the mercy of powerful conglomerations of enforcement groups. There may be a uneasy balance among roughly equal sized forces (again like the mob) but the individuals will never be able to pay for and organize large enough competing forces unless they (gasp) form some type of government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,140
#1,140
volinbham said:
It wouldn't be one - it would be repeated all over the place just like warlords or the mob. The new peasants would be at the mercy of powerful conglomerations of enforcement groups. There may be a uneasy balance among roughly equal sized forces (again like the mob) but the individuals will never be able to pay for and organize large enough competing forces unless they (gasp) form some type of government.
Click to expand...

When society is ready for it, it will work.

Look at it this way...democracies fail all over the world. There are revolutions, coups, seizures of power, etc. When democracy was first proposed, the arguments against it were based in the disbelief that a ruling party would peacefully hand over power....but eventually some societies developed to a point where they were ready for that type of government to work.

What you are arguing is essentially the same thing. No way will that work. Someone(s) will seize power. I am saying that at some point society will be developed enough where it will work.

Technology, wealth, education, and influence will be so widely available that the only thing that could keep people down is a government.
 
#1,141
#1,141
n_huffhines said:
When society is ready for it, it will work.

Look at it this way...democracies fail all over the world. There are revolutions, coups, seizures of power, etc. When democracy was first proposed, the arguments against it were based in the disbelief that a ruling party would peacefully hand over power....but eventually some societies developed to a point where they were ready for that type of government to work.

What you are arguing is essentially the same thing. No way will that work. Someone(s) will seize power. I am saying that at some point society will be developed enough where it will work.

Technology, wealth, education, and influence will be so widely available that the only thing that could keep people down is a government.
Click to expand...

A form of government will always be necessary in some fashion. However, ours is entirely too big. So an extremely small government, consisting of mainly state and local governing bodies would be a step in the correct direction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,142
#1,142
n_huffhines said:
When society is ready for it, it will work.

Look at it this way...democracies fail all over the world. There are revolutions, coups, seizures of power, etc. When democracy was first proposed, the arguments against it were based in the disbelief that a ruling party would peacefully hand over power....but eventually some societies developed to a point where they were ready for that type of government to work.

What you are arguing is essentially the same thing. No way will that work. Someone(s) will seize power. I am saying that at some point society will be developed enough where it will work.

Technology, wealth, education, and influence will be so widely available that the only thing that could keep people down is a government.
Click to expand...

Bolded is all simply faith.

Technology and education are as widely available as ever yet wealth and influence are increasingly concentration.

I know, your answer will be that's governments' fault but it is a historic pattern repeated over and over. Human nature perhaps.

Hard to imagine that 350 million people are like minded enough that they agree on principles of living so completely that no formalized laws and law enforcement works.

Singapore is about as far down the capitalism spectrum as you can go but it is highly enforced by a powerful government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,143
#1,143
n_huffhines said:
When society is ready for it, it will work.

Look at it this way...democracies fail all over the world. There are revolutions, coups, seizures of power, etc. When democracy was first proposed, the arguments against it were based in the disbelief that a ruling party would peacefully hand over power....but eventually some societies developed to a point where they were ready for that type of government to work.

What you are arguing is essentially the same thing. No way will that work. Someone(s) will seize power. I am saying that at some point society will be developed enough where it will work.

Technology, wealth, education, and influence will be so widely available that the only thing that could keep people down is a government.
Click to expand...

So your utopia will work as long as everyone wants it and is on board with it?

Good luck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,145
#1,145
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Good read.

Why Does Anarchy Make Everyone Fill Their Pants in Fear? by Bill Buppert | ZeroGov
Click to expand...

Lot's of false premises here.

First of all, I don't fear AnCap and I doubt many other critics do. Conflating critique with fear is a classic tactic.

Label any critic as having irrational fear or being a "statist". Ironic that this philosophy depends on a relatively shared world view of trusting in your fellow man (as evidenced by the banner at the bottom of the article) yet anyone who disagrees with AnCap is portrayed as an irrational fearful dunce or statist.

These statements are strawmen that Obama would be proud of

Absent he FAA, would corporations go out of their way to ensure that their aircraft plummet out of the sky to attract customers?


So people would die of food poisoning because the state wouldn’t police restaurants? Food interests would go out of their way to drive customers from favorite brands by doing shoddy business?
Click to expand...

Of course neither scenario is likely. However that doesn't preclude the very real scenarios that without some agreed upon standards of safety that some airlines would cut corners or restaurants would (happens even in the regulated world).

The rest is hyperbole and false choice as far as the eye can see.

So we are back to the faith argument. You have so much faith that the bad of AnCap would be less bad than the bad of some form of government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,146
#1,146
volinbham said:
Lot's of false premises here.

First of all, I don't fear AnCap and I doubt many other critics do. Conflating critique with fear is a classic tactic.

Label any critic as having irrational fear or being a "statist". Ironic that this philosophy depends on a relatively shared world view of trusting in your fellow man (as evidenced by the banner at the bottom of the article) yet anyone who disagrees with AnCap is portrayed as an irrational fearful dunce or statist.

These statements are strawmen that Obama would be proud of



Of course neither scenario is likely. However that doesn't preclude the very real scenarios that without some agreed upon standards of safety that some airlines would cut corners or restaurants would (happens even in the regulated world).

The rest is hyperbole and false choice as far as the eye can see.

So we are back to the faith argument. You have so much faith that the bad of AnCap would be less bad than the bad of some form of government.
Click to expand...


It speaks volumes in your "critique" that you propose that absent "standards of safety" the world would fall apart. Well, dear sir, that standard is the market forces that would guide that business to the better. Or, it shall perish to exist. As a libertarian, I would think you would know this.

You speak of a faith argument, isn't that all your argument really is? Faith? Faith in a system that gains it's lifeblood from the production of the victims who dare call themselves citizens? Then proceeds to fine, beat, maim, kidnap, or even murder with the slightest hint of resistance? You may say that the mayhem and violence of anarchy is inevitable, that argument is entirely conjecture. All the while the violence and mayhem of the current system is factually obvious and horrendous.

At the end of the day immoral means will never result in a moral end. Now matter how you try to spin it.

The most frustrating thing in my conversations with statists is when I tell them that they should be free, the most common response is "No, I shouldn't!"

Or, is it just hyperbole.... Stop paying your taxes and see....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,147
#1,147
volinbham said:
Lot's of false premises here.

First of all, I don't fear AnCap and I doubt many other critics do. Conflating critique with fear is a classic tactic.

Label any critic as having irrational fear or being a "statist". Ironic that this philosophy depends on a relatively shared world view of trusting in your fellow man (as evidenced by the banner at the bottom of the article) yet anyone who disagrees with AnCap is portrayed as an irrational fearful dunce or statist.

These statements are strawmen that Obama would be proud of



Of course neither scenario is likely. However that doesn't preclude the very real scenarios that without some agreed upon standards of safety that some airlines would cut corners or restaurants would (happens even in the regulated world).

The rest is hyperbole and false choice as far as the eye can see.

So we are back to the faith argument. You have so much faith that the bad of AnCap would be less bad than the bad of some form of government.
Click to expand...

After having worked at a handful of restaurants, family owned and national franchise, it gives my great comfort to be able to look up a restaurants health inspection score as performed and scored by government.
Otherwise, the ground beef in your taco may have unauthorized hamburger helper in it such as dog, fly blown horsemeat, etc.

Having faith that Ancap will work, even stating categorically that it will based on modern man's acceptance and benevolence toward one another, requires as much faith as in a diety. It's never happened,...anywhere.

What is more likely, with the downfall of a central gov't is that regional militias with 'warlords' or 'generals' or 'shining path leaders' will seize power, destroy certain critical transportation structures at their border for some defense...such as river bridges... and we'll decend into a longterm cultural craziness such as is in "The Postman", and probably not with such a felicitous outcome.

No change from the current direction traveled by the USSA ship of state will occur without significant number of deaths, and a long dark age of violence. City dwellers will have it worst. The technical infrastructure will collapse. Huff's dream is no more than philosophical academia scratching philosophical academias back.
Of course, he can "walk the walk" ... but only as long as he stays off the radar of the existing democratic republican government's law enforcement agencies; local, state, federal. So, in fact, he's walking the walk inside the existing cultural strictures. Like is often said of criminals, if they'd put as much energy into a business within the law, they'd make a fortune.
 
Last edited:
#1,148
#1,148
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
It speaks volumes in your "critique" that you propose that absent "standards of safety" the world would fall apart. Well, dear sir, that standard is the market forces that would guide that business to the better. Or, it shall perish to exist. As a libertarian, I would think you would know this.

You speak of a faith argument, isn't that all your argument really is? Faith? Faith in a system that gains it's lifeblood from the production of the victims who dare call themselves citizens? Then proceeds to fine, beat, maim, kidnap, or even murder with the slightest hint of resistance? You may say that the mayhem and violence of anarchy is inevitable, that argument is entirely conjecture. All the while the violence and mayhem of the current system is factually obvious and horrendous.

At the end of the day immoral means will never result in a moral end. Now matter how you try to spin it.

The most frustrating thing in my conversations with statists is when I tell them that they should be free, the most common response is "No, I shouldn't!"

Or, is it just hyperbole.... Stop paying your taxes and see....
Click to expand...

Dude - your very first statement is a blatant exaggeration of what I said and the rest follows suit.

Proves my point though about the unity of thought required for your world view - any deviation is attacked.

Ironic.

One more try - it's not that the world falls apart without "safety standards"; it's the blind faith that the market is fully sufficient to render safety standards (or other agreed upon standards) as completely moot. Market corrections are not perfect nor are they timely.

I view AnCap like any other purist form of human governance - fun in theory but far from the perfect system when put in practice.

There I go being an immoral statist again.

Hmmm, I wonder what determines moral vs immoral in an anarchy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,149
#1,149
volinbham said:
Technology and education are as widely available as ever yet wealth and influence are increasingly concentration.
Click to expand...

Influence is concentrated? Maybe in terms of influence over the government. Wealth is concentrated? That wouldn't have anything yo do with the existence of government, would it.

Everybody has a voice. Not only that, but bad behavior doesn't go unnoticed anymore. OJ beat his wife so much that there were 11 9-11 calls and general public was almost totally in the dark. 1 call now and your rep is dead. Donald Sterling was a billionaire who got his NBA team taken away because he said a bad word. Times have changed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top