The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

#1,151
#1,151
n_huffhines said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well we're in a standoff since I knew you'd attribute wealth and influence accumulation to the presence of government. I contend these things occur regardless of government.

We also disagree on the power of the invisible hand to immediately slap down anyone who exhibits "bad behavior".

In the broadest sense where we disagree is along a couple fronts as i see it.

1) the inherent evil (immorality?) of any form of government where people cede any power
2) the wonder benefits that accrue from removal of all government
3) the efficiency of enforcement squads to keep everyone in line where in line means you are not infringing on others
(the reality is humans always infringe on each other)
4) the require sameness of world view necessary for an Ancap system to work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,152
#1,152
Given so many AnCap proponents - why isn't someone buying an island somewhere and putting these theories to work? Clearly the collective of individuals could pool resources and create the government free zone where freedom can flourish and markets can smack down people that say bad words.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,153
#1,153
volinbham said:
Given so many AnCap proponents - why isn't someone buying an island somewhere and putting these theories to work? Clearly the collective of individuals could pool resources and create the government free zone where freedom can flourish and markets can smack down people that say bad words.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure every island/nation that starts that... evolves into a government run one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,154
#1,154
volinbham said:
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?
Click to expand...

I honestly find it utterly hilarious that people simply cannot envision a world without the state. I didn't attack you, I attacked your false argument. I highlighted the violence inherit in the current system, which you failed to deny.

Again, anarchy isn't about no rules, it's about no rulers. If some people within a community, in an ancap society wanted to band together and form their own government, I've got no problem with that. As long as that government is voluntary, but, you really couldn't call it a government, could you? Because it's voluntary. A true measure of your freedom is the ability to opt out without reprisal.

You say that market corrections aren't perfect? Pray tell, is government regulations perfect? You left that rather open ended.

About your "immoral statist" comment, I think theft is universally condemned as immoral. So there is that...

There is no unity of thought. It's simply living your life as you wish, provided you harm no one else in the process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,155
#1,155
volinbham said:
Given so many AnCap proponents - why isn't someone buying an island somewhere and putting these theories to work? Clearly the collective of individuals could pool resources and create the government free zone where freedom can flourish and markets can smack down people that say bad words.
Click to expand...

That's an Intelligent way of saying love it or leave it lol

Kudos
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,156
#1,156
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I honestly find it utterly hilarious that people simply cannot envision a world without the state. I didn't attack you, I attacked your false argument. I highlighted the violence inherit in the current system, which you failed to deny.

Again, anarchy isn't about no rules, it's about no rulers. If some people within a community, in an ancap society wanted to band together and form their own government, I've got no problem with that. As long as that government is voluntary, but, you really couldn't call it a government, could you? Because it's voluntary. A true measure of your freedom is the ability to opt out without reprisal.

You say that market corrections aren't perfect? Pray tell, is government regulations perfect? You left that rather open ended.

About your "immoral statist" comment, I think theft is universally condemned as immoral. So there is that...

There is no unity of thought. It's simply living your life as you wish, provided you harm no one else in the process.
Click to expand...

You started with the claim I believed "the world would fall apart" without safety standards.

That is absurd and not at all what I've stated repeatedly.

I pointed out the false arguments in your link (the notion that without the FAA airlines would INTENTIONALLY CRASH THEIR PLANES!). No one who critiques AnCap believes that.

My view is that the problems that AnCap creates are on par with the problems we have with government and thus the critique is against what I consider the utopian view of AnCap.

My critique of your link is that it was amateurish and contained an inordinate amount of false arguments and strawmen (see above). I'm quite sure there are better defenses of AnCap than that piece of sophistry.
 
#1,158
#1,158
volinbham said:
No it's a way of saying put your money where your mouth is.

Why force an existing country to live by your non-rules? Sounds like you want to take people's freedom away.
Click to expand...

I don't want to force anyone to do anything. I find it astonishing that you find the laws this government enforces as freedom.

Again, a true measure of your actual freedom is the ability to opt out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,159
#1,159
volinbham said:
Well we're in a standoff since I knew you'd attribute wealth and influence accumulation to the presence of government. I contend these things occur regardless of government
Click to expand...

Government protects monopolies thru regulation. It creates tax code that benefits the wealthy. Etc. You can't say "wealth is more concentrated now" and hold that against an-cap. The point is as a society we are wealthy enough that it's very hard to opress us.

Ask Capitol if the record industry influence is more concentrated now. Ask CBS if the broadcast news industry influence is more concentrated now. Ask the Republican party if their influence is more concentrated now.

We also disagree on the power of the invisible hand to immediately slap down anyone who exhibits "bad behavior".
Click to expand...

Who said immediately and any bad behavior? You're misrepresenting my statement and holding an-cap to a standard government doesn't meet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,160
#1,160
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I don't want to force anyone to do anything. I find it astonishing that you find the laws this government enforces as freedom.

Again, a true measure of your actual freedom is the ability to opt out.
Click to expand...

If the majority of this country doesn't want AnCap then your best option is to create your own. That's not love it or leave; that is practice what you preach.

I see why you get frustrated talking about this - you continue to put words/views in the conversation partner's mouth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,161
#1,161
n_huffhines said:
Government protects monopolies thru regulation. It creates tax code that benefits the wealthy. Etc. You can't say "wealth is more concentrated now" and hold that against an-cap. The point is as a society we are wealthy enough that it's very hard to opress us.

Ask Capitol if the record industry influence is more concentrated now. Ask CBS if the broadcast news industry influence is more concentrated now. Ask the Republican party if their influence is more concentrated now.



Who said immediately and any bad behavior? You're misrepresenting my statement and holding an-cap to a standard government doesn't meet.
Click to expand...

On the first point - yes people can take advantage of government to enhance their wealth but in free capitalism wealth accumulation occurs as well.

On the latter, you are the one that said you can't get away with bad behavior anymore due to communications technology I presume and how everyone instantly knows about it. I was just following off of that.

I'm not arguing government is problem free - I just disagree with the assumed efficiency gains of ZERO government.

There's a big leap between government as is currently exists in the US and no government whatsoever.
 
#1,162
#1,162
volinbham said:
If the majority of this country doesn't want AnCap then your best option is to create your own. That's not love it or leave; that is practice what you preach.

I see why you get frustrated talking about this - you continue to put words/views in the conversation partner's mouth.
Click to expand...

All I'd like is to be able to live my life in peace, without having my money stolen from me to support some political megalomaniac's war machine. Is that so bad?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,163
#1,163
volinbham said:
On the first point - yes people can take advantage of government to enhance their wealth but in free capitalism wealth accumulation occurs as well.

On the latter, you are the one that said you can't get away with bad behavior anymore due to communications technology I presume and how everyone instantly knows about it. I was just following off of that.

I'm not arguing government is problem free - I just disagree with the assumed efficiency gains of ZERO government.

There's a big leap between government as is currently exists in the US and no government whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that, though. I said "bad behavior doesn't go unnoticed anymore". I probably should have said, "it's harder to get away with bad behavior", but either way I don't know how you translate that into "..the invisible hand immediately to slap down anyone who exhibits 'bad behavior'."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,164
#1,164
n_huffhines said:
I didn't say that, though. I said "bad behavior doesn't go unnoticed anymore". I probably should have said, "it's harder to get away with bad behavior", but either way I don't know how you translate that into "..the invisible hand immediately to slap down anyone who exhibits 'bad behavior'."
Click to expand...

I guess i don't know what you were getting at - I assume you meant that because you bad behavior is instantly known then the "market" can react quickly.

Honestly I don't know what you were trying to say with that in the context of what we were talking about.
 
#1,166
#1,166
volinbham said:
I guess i don't know what you were getting at - I assume you meant that because you bad behavior is instantly known then the "market" can react quickly.

Honestly I don't know what you were trying to say with that in the context of what we were talking about.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's not really about immediacy, necessarily. Like look at the Stanford swimmer. He didn't get just punishments from the courts but social media is ruining his life forever.

If the Koch brothers are using slave labor (somebody brought this up earlier), we will find out about it and it will hurt their business to the point that it wasn't worth doing it. We won't deal with people saying the N word, forget about slave labor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,167
#1,167
n_huffhines said:
Yeah, it's not really about immediacy, necessarily. Like look at the Stanford swimmer. He didn't get just punishments from the courts but social media is ruining his life forever.

If the Koch brothers are using slave labor (somebody brought this up earlier), we will find out about it and it will hurt their business to the point that it wasn't worth doing it. We won't deal with people saying the N word, forget about slave labor.
Click to expand...

How would that information about the Koch brothers be disseminated? I'd think the first thing the wealthy would do in the absence of regulation is grab control of the media, Internet and especially social media.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,168
#1,168
n_huffhines said:
Yeah, it's not really about immediacy, necessarily. Like look at the Stanford swimmer. He didn't get just punishments from the courts but social media is ruining his life forever.

If the Koch brothers are using slave labor (somebody brought this up earlier), we will find out about it and it will hurt their business to the point that it wasn't worth doing it. We won't deal with people saying the N word, forget about slave labor.
Click to expand...

But isn't all that happening with government?
 
#1,170
#1,170
hog88 said:
How would that information about the Koch brothers be disseminated? I'd think the first thing the wealthy would do in the absence of regulation is grab control of the media, Internet and especially social media.
Click to expand...

How would they grab control of all the media? The government isn't omnipotent enough to pull that off, let alone the Kochs. Seizing control of all the media is another thing that would hurt their business to the point that it wouldn't be worth it.

There was social backlash when the Kochs legally bought the LA Times, for hell's sake.
 
Last edited:
#1,173
#1,173
n_huffhines said:
How would they grab control of all the media? The government isn't omnipotent enough to pull that off, let alone the Kochs. Seizing control of all the media is another thing that would hurt their business to the point that it wouldn't be worth it.

There was social backlash when the Kochs legally bought the LA Times, for hell's sake.
Click to expand...

They seize control of the media by seizing control of the internet. That can be done without the average Joe even knowing about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,174
#1,174
All you guys worried about warlords, just think about it this way. The only people rich and powerful enough to even attempt a takeover like you are fearing would be someone like the Kochs.

The Kochs are obsessed with money. This makes you afraid of them. I am telling you that they will make the most money by being relatively good citizens, so they will more than likely be good citizens. Seizing power would be a huge cost that would be extremely risky. To maximize profit, you must minimize cost.

So say there is a crazy rich guy like Trump who has bad ideas, $, and not a lot of real business sense and he thinks it is a good idea to seize power...OK, that's a bit scary, but....there are still the Kochs, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos, Zuckerberg, Bloomberg, etc. who are all rich and powerful and would team up with us to prevent the takeover. It's not happening.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top