Why Everyone Should Be an Anarchist

#51
#51
Orange_Crush said:
Anarcho-capitalism depends on a legal code that everyone agrees upon. It relies upon paid judicial systems and hired law enforcement. So, you've added "richest" to the list of "strongest", and done little else. So, when you're held down by the not-so-horny oaf so that the rich old man can rape you, you'll be crying for a government-run police officer to come save you.
Click to expand...

No it does not. It works just like the market does. People behaving out of self-interest creating order.

You seem like a smart guy, but you're in over your head on this one. Your entire post suggests you have no idea how anarcho-capitalist theory works. I can suggest a few books.
 
#52
#52
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Anarchy simply means no rulers.

Government is an institution of coercion, theft, and violence. Anything, and I do mean anything the government can do, the market could do it better.
I would love to see the government go away, but I don't think it will ever happen as statism is practically the worlds largest religion.
Click to expand...

No ****. Failure all over the world, and even here despite our level of education and wealth, but people still believe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#53
#53
n_huffhines said:
Anarcho-capitalism

Now run along and go read all about it so you understand what I mean.
Click to expand...

Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchy as your thread title suggested. It is privatized (sometimes micro-) government. It would most likely put control of government duties in the hands of the wealthy, which is exactly what the liberal left complains about with our current traditional capitalist government.
 
#55
#55
Orange_Crush said:
Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchy as your thread title suggested. It is privatized (sometimes micro-) government. It would most likely put control of government duties in the hands of the wealthy, which is exactly what the liberal left complains about with our current traditional capitalist government.
Click to expand...

It's not government. It's not privatized government. There may be forms of close-knit community government, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.

Regulation and government puts the power in the hands of the wealthy. Laissez faire puts power in the hands of the people who have the best product or service. Name one giant corporation that pushes for laissez faire? They don't give money to Ron Paul, they give it to Obama.

Second, go read a book about anarcho-capitalism.
 
#56
#56
n_huffhines said:
No it does not. It works just like the market does. People behaving out of self-interest creating order.

You seem like a smart guy, but you're in over your head on this one. Your entire post suggests you have no idea how anarcho-capitalist theory works. I can suggest a few books.
Click to expand...

I have a good idea, thanks.

But by your own admission, it is a theory that would enforce a legal code that everyone doesn't agree on, based on the enforcers and interpreters seeing the person(s) paying them as their boss.

Sounds splendid. Go buy some islands and see how that works out for you. Or... I guess if you can afford to buy the islands, let's see how it works out for everyone else.
 
#57
#57
n_huffhines said:
It's not government. It's not privatized government. There may be forms of close-knit community government, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.

Regulation and government puts the power in the hands of the wealthy. Laissez faire puts power in the hands of the people who have the best product or service. Name one giant corporation that pushes for laissez faire? They don't give money to Ron Paul, they give it to Obama.

Second, go read a book about anarcho-capitalism.
Click to expand...

For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray N. Rothbard et al. For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto: Murray N. Rothbard, Murray Rothbard, Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.: 9781478280712: Amazon.com: Books
 
#58
#58
n_huffhines said:
It's not government. It's not privatized government. There may be forms of close-knit community government, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.

Regulation and government puts the power in the hands of the wealthy. Laissez faire puts power in the hands of the people who have the best product or service. Name one giant corporation that pushes for laissez faire? They don't give money to Ron Paul, they give it to Obama.

Second, go read a book about anarcho-capitalism.
Click to expand...

For the record, I'm for a smaller government.

You are apparently not a proponent of anarchy as your thread title suggests. You are for privatizing government functions, which would only make things worse. Again, I would be interested to see your theory played out as long as I was insulated from how it actually played out and could watch it on closed caption.

Perhaps you're on to a reality TV show idea to prove out the theory on a large scale. Maybe find a small country that would allow you to suspend their government and see how well you make out after 5 years.
 
#59
#59
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray N. Rothbard et al. For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto: Murray N. Rothbard, Murray Rothbard, Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.: 9781478280712: Amazon.com: Books
Click to expand...

So, short of buying the book, explain to me what in the theory keeps one of these close knit groups from arming up and brutalizing their neighboring community? Or the individual that isn't a part of the community? What keeps the wealthy close knit community from hiring their better armed police force and running amok?

Or is it just working off of the theory that... How was it put earlier? "People behaving out of self-interest creating order"? Does the theory provide anything beyond self interest to provide just order? Anything beyond self interest to provide common courtesy and human dignity?

It seems to me, in my experience, "self interest" is exactly what gets us in trouble.
 
#60
#60
So if this anarchy is so much better, why isn't there a major society or area or people somewhere significant around the world functioning? Is there any anarchical society with all the technological and monetary things we have now? Waiting...
 
#61
#61
Orange_Crush said:
So, short of buying the book, explain to me what in the theory keeps one of these close knit groups from arming up and brutalizing their neighboring community? Or the individual that isn't a part of the community? What keeps the wealthy close knit community from hiring their better armed police force and running amok?

Or is it just working off of the theory that... How was it put earlier? "People behaving out of self-interest creating order"? Does the theory provide anything beyond self interest to provide just order? Anything beyond self interest to provide common courtesy and human dignity?

It seems to me, in my experience, "self interest" is exactly what gets us in trouble.
Click to expand...

This does a pretty good job of explaining.

High school student objects to stateless society - YouTube
 
#62
#62
darkgable said:
So if this anarchy is so much better, why isn't there a major society or area or people somewhere significant around the world functioning? Is there any anarchical society with all the technological and monetary things we have now? Waiting...
Click to expand...

It seems to me, as huff admitted, anarchy by definition could not order itself to become a reality. It would in essence be like burning down a house in expectation of a better one spontaneously producing itself.
 
#63
#63
Godfatha said:
There will always be a government of some sort. If the government went away, some person or group, whoever proved to be the most powerful, would fill the power vacuum.

Anarchy is like the communist theory to me. Both if we lived in a perfect world, have some appealing aspects. But we don't live in a perfect world, and those that desire power and are stronger, end up ruling.

Believe me, I wish there was no government, I certainly wish there was no massive federal government. But government is a necessary evil, although I would like to see more federal power shifted to the state and local levels where one is better represented.
Click to expand...
This
 
#65
#65
darkgable said:
So if this anarchy is so much better, why isn't there a major society or area or people somewhere significant around the world functioning? Is there any anarchical society with all the technological and monetary things we have now? Waiting...
Click to expand...

Anarchy isn't capable of having society in todays world. I remember reading about one in Russia in the 1920s iirc. Had 5 million plus until the Bolsheviks defeated them because they were a threat to power.
 
#66
#66
LittleCat said:
Anarchy isn't capable of having society in todays world. I remember reading about one in Russia in the 1920s iirc. Had 5 million plus until the Bolsheviks defeated them because they were a threat to power.
Click to expand...

That's just it, the state always crushes human action. Once you realize we are nothing more than wage slaves to a blood hungry leviathan government that seeks only our enslavement, you begin to think about how to bring about it's demise.

If interested in reading on the topic, I can recommend several books from Murray Rothbard, Albert J. Nock, Lysander Spooner and many more.
 
Last edited:
#67
#67
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
This does a pretty good job of explaining.

High school student objects to stateless society - YouTube
Click to expand...

That link in no way states how my projected outcome would be prevented. It blatantly stated that there is nothing to prevent person-on-person, or community-on-community oppression from happening. Instead it makes the bold leap of logic that the totality of criminals in our society are in the government, and without government, there would be few, to no criminals.

He then continues to reinforce the fact that the theory hinges upon universal acceptance of non-aggression, nonviolence, which is a theory that doesn't seem to prove out in real world application.

However, if a group of people get tired of being brutalized and oppressed, then they can hire their own defense force (market-driven as he puts it). But he actually ignores the concerns that I raise, and that you propose his response explains. What happens to the group of people who can't afford a defense force? What if they can afford an incompetent defense force, and the brutalizers, due to the profitability of their brutalization, can afford an awesome offense-force? What if the market is bypassed by just the existence of the best-armed group and they have the run of the land due to their unique combination of ruthlessness, talents and arms? (Hitler had to bypass governmental controls to get his armed defense/offense. It seems to me under your structure, all he had to do was become better armed than everyone else. Oh. Wait. That's what he did.)

It still seems to me that "justice" will be defined by "whatever the richest/strongest says is best". Doesn't sound like a moral society. Capitalism, as much as I am a proponent, doesn't necessarily speak to "moral/just". That's why we need something above the market to define justice.

"The one unifying (moral) rule is the non-aggression principle", which everyone is to accept. I'm sorry, but history does not prove out the acceptance of the 'non-aggression principle'. It proves out just the opposite, at the corporate and individual level, when it comes to self-interest. That is basically the definition of 'self-interest'.

No authority "as opposed to the authority that is the truth [pointing finger at his own brain]..." What does that even mean? How can his personal views be equated as an authority over everyone else's personal views, short of a mandated objective authority that is implemented and enforced?

"What is your response to localized tyranny forming after the elimination of a federal government?"

Answer:

"A change in paradigm will prevent that from happening in the first place."

That was easy, apparently.

Except for: "That is a potential threat. That is a real possibility."

Oh. OK. That took care of my previous concerns. Thank you for providing the link to answer them.

[Second dialog that government is a cancer/tumor that must be cut out, so the concerns are fallacious because you can't refuse to remove the tumor in fears that the tumor may return.]

This may sound like a great argument against a high school student, when the high school student can't respond to call him out on his logic. But it's not.

What he has just done is show that the government isn't actually the tumor. If the symptom is there within the government, and the symptom returns without the government, then perhaps the tumor isn't the government. Perhaps the tumor is something else. What could it be?

If self-interest oppression is there with a government, and self-interest oppression is there without a government, what is the unifying factor in the symptom? Human self-interest-- the very thing that the theory uses as the basis for a peaceful society.

The tumor isn't government. The tumor is human nature. The reason you see oppression in government is because people are in government. Sans government, you'll still have human nature and self-interest. It will just probably run more rampant and unchecked.

Closing minute:

There are "basic laws of physics and basic laws of human interaction by which non-violence is preferable to coercion"?

I'd like a reference to these basic laws of physics that prevent person-on-person coercion and oppression. It seems humanity has defied this basic law of physics since the first human found the first club-length stick in the woods. That was as good for a laugh as his farting analogy.

His response was probably favorable when given to 'the choir', as a monologue sans debated responses, and to a person who doesn't consider it critically. But it basically boils down to: "In theory, I believe human nature is inherently good. It's just when that human nature is organized that it becomes evil and oppressive. If we disorganized and removed corporate oversight/enforcement of the greater good, then human nature would win out."

It ignores the fact that human nature is what makes government oppressive when it becomes oppressive. If that is indeed the case, then his safeguard of "self interested market" vanishes and we are back to "oppression by the strong/rich/etc..." It points straight back to the reality that government is not inherently the problem; people are. So the best we can hope for is the best style/size of government oversight to constrain human nature while assuring corporate human dignity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#68
#68
n_huffhines said:
Well, we do as a society, but I think what you're asking about is law enforcement and a justice system. We have private courts and private security, even in the face of government. Instead of paying taxes for subpar police protection, you pay a monthly premium to a protection agency and they'll actually treat you like you're the boss.
Click to expand...

No they will treat you like subjects much they way they do now.
 
#70
#70
As long as you have people in power over other people, there will be abuses, no way around that. The fallacy that is "small government" is an impossibility as government can only grow. Taxation is the robbery government uses to fund it's unchecked growth because they have a monopoly on violence.

Anarcho capitalism doesn't claim to be a perfect system, it is simply an understanding that violence in any form other than defense is unacceptable.
I have read some on the influence of insurance companies in an anarcho capitalist system and they could possibly provide protection to individuals that needed protection. I find that acceptable. But, what about the people that can't afford the protection right? Well, I suppose you'd still have churches and charities and such.

It's not a perfect system, but it's most likely better than what we have now, as we won't have a lying, thieving, murdering, federal government breathing down our necks.
 
#71
#71
Orange_Crush said:
The tumor isn't government. The tumor is human nature. The reason you see oppression in government is because people are in government. Sans government, you'll still have human nature and self-interest. It will just probably run more rampant and unchecked.
Click to expand...

This is the problem. People. Until we start to have the majority of people who are just decent people with a not-for-sale integrity and immune to temptations of personal wants, needs, desires, and satisfaction of these personal temptations things will never be better.

Those in power are supposed to be held to higher standards, they are supposed to be almost infallible and immune to the disposition of greed/avarice/vanity and the measure of personal gain to which their service is open to.

The people we need in power are those who would be completely indifferent to the money and temptations of power and self service.

Why is it that the politician, is incapable of being bought by lobbyists?

Why is it that they can't say no to playing the game that is played in D.C.?

Why should it be that any man or woman there can't stick to doing what is best for their constituents without being bought? Until you have people who live by a higher standard, a code of humanity that makes them impervious to the personal temptations that drive our problems, things will never be better.

There used to be things like dignity, character, and integrity that made things more important than yourself.

You had a place in the universe, not you are the universe. Not my party is better or is right and yours is wrong, it is about common sense and making the decisions that are right for your constituents that gave you their vote.

Your obligation is to your community, your state, not D.C. and making a life out of being a politician. Rather, it is about being a public servant and doing your part, and then going back home to your life and leaving it for the next person to come in.

When politicians are incapable of becoming millionaires and making a career out of just being a politician, things will be better.
 
#72
#72
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
As long as you have people in power over other people, there will be abuses, no way around that. The fallacy that is "small government" is an impossibility as government can only grow. Taxation is the robbery government uses to fund it's unchecked growth because they have a monopoly on violence.

Anarcho capitalism doesn't claim to be a perfect system, it is simply an understanding that violence in any form other than defense is unacceptable.
I have read some on the influence of insurance companies in an anarcho capitalist system and they could possibly provide protection to individuals that needed protection. I find that acceptable. But, what about the people that can't afford the protection right? Well, I suppose you'd still have churches and charities and such.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... It would seem that your ideals are finally breaking down into the great big question mark that it deserves. (Actually, it doesn't even deserve a question mark because the pragmatic proof of human nature is on display throughout human history.)

You're trading taxation for a coerced 'protection scheme' on a massive scale.

DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
It's not a perfect system, but it's most likely better than what we have now, as we won't have a lying, thieving, murdering, federal government breathing down our necks.
Click to expand...

No, we will have thieving, murdering individuals and groups who won't even have to lie about it. Your ideal society basically breaks down to Dusty Bottoms against El Guapo, and you're too caught up in your ideals to recognize it'll end badly.
 
#73
#73
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
As long as you have people in power over other people, there will be abuses, no way around that. The fallacy that is "small government" is an impossibility as government can only grow. Taxation is the robbery government uses to fund it's unchecked growth because they have a monopoly on violence.
Click to expand...

And therein lies your fallacy.

Thank you. Game over.
 
#74
#74
Orange_Crush said:
Hmmm... It would seem that your ideals are finally breaking down into the great big question mark that it deserves. (Actually, it doesn't even deserve a question mark because the pragmatic proof of human nature is on display throughout human history.)

You're trading taxation for a coerced 'protection scheme' on a massive scale.



No, we will have thieving, murdering individuals and groups who won't even have to lie about it. Your ideal society basically breaks down to Dusty Bottoms against El Guapo, and you're too caught up in your ideals to recognize it'll end badly.
Click to expand...

So anarcho capitalism will end badly? How on earth do you think the current system will end? You support a system that spies on it's own people, kills it's own people, steals from it's own people, creates class warfare through the rigged political system, the list is honestly endless of government atrocities.

I am surprised you didn't bring up a "Somalia" or "who will build the roads" reference, Kudos
 
#75
#75
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
So anarcho capitalism will end badly? How on earth do you think the current system will end? You support a system that spies on it's own people, kills it's own people, steals from it's own people, creates class warfare through the rigged political system, the list is honestly endless of government atrocities.

I am surprised you didn't bring up a "Somalia" or "who will build the roads" reference, Kudos
Click to expand...

I thought it would be obvious that I don't believe a utopia is possible. The best we can hope for is a system that continues less badly. With the inherent flaws in human nature, we need organized oversight.

I just don't suffer from the fallacy of the excluded middle, nor do I build my outlook on obviously flawed premises. (1) Our best bet is to continue striving for a government that does not promote the things that you listed. (2) I recognize that human nature is inherently damaged, and thus can't be blindly trusted as the fix in and of itself.

But please feel free to dissect my dissection of the link provided that was supposed to explain my concerns away, as opposed to just falling back to an emotional, excluded-middle ploy.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top