• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Anarchy

Kelzie said:
Get your head out of the clouds galen. People KNEW that Nike used child labor that amounted to slave labor. People still bought from them. Who's going to risk their life to rescue a kid next door when the guys got his own private security force?

You mean like seantors and offical leaders involved in child sex rings? WHo stops them?

ALL these worst case scenriors you imagine ARE ****ING HAPPENING RIGHT NOW BY STATE OFFICIALS, in the West and around the world.


ALso, don't imagine a dirt poor country can keep kids idle for 18 years. Used to be, EVERYWHERE kids were in the fields, shops, or worse, mines with their parents. Only when a country develops enough can they afford to put kids in school. Without someone to be their benefactor (and it doesn't sound like you are) these kids have to work. It's that or someone starves.

If you really don't want kids working their little hands to the bone, YOU PAY FOR THEIR EDUCATION EBCUASE THEIR PARENTS CAN NOT. put your money where you mouth is.
 
Kelzie said:
I am absolutely not being rediculous. You think a lot of people would run into a burning building to save someone else's kids? Think again. A firemen cannot always stop a fire from spreading, especially when they're not allowed to put out the source of the fire, since the people didn't pay for it.

The private fire company may VERY WELL put out a fire, because it may spead to someone else who is a paying customer. Or even, a nieghbor or group of neighbors may pool their funds and buy blocks of protection, even if not all nieghbors are willing or capable of contributing.

Kelzie said:
It seems? How do you figure? Do you think the people that bitch about paying taxes to poor people would pay it if they didn't have to? Good things aren't going to get you a functioning society. Law and order does that. And you cannot have either law or order without someone to enforce it.

People bitch about paying taxes for many reasons. 1) the state PROMOTES poverty and dependancy. 2) they are FORCED to pay. Which causes resentment. 3) you'll often find, people that bitch about paying taxes, like MYSELF, also donate and do charity work. I've built houses (and I am NOT tooting my horn here) with Habitate for Humanity, and I bitch constantly about taxation. You on the otherhand, appearntly do not bitch about taxation (and even support it), do you build houses for poor people?

ORDER PRODUCES LAW, not the other way around (I have said it a lot in this thread, and you may not have had time to read it yet, but I am saying it constantly because you keep spouting this MYTH). LAW requries ORDERLY LANGUAGE, Written Language, and some variant or tools, paper, printing presses, display methodology (book or actual post), Display location, etc. ALL THESE ORDERLY THINGS CAME ABOUT BEFORE LAW DID.

Kelzie said:
And yet socialist countries today enjoy the highest living standards EVER. In history. Including any anarchist society you can think of. Government got us there. Not anarchy.

Because of government of in spite of government? The Industrial revolution and the Enlightenment were NOT commissioned by the state, in fact they were REPRESSED by the state. But human ingenuity and market agility OVERWHLEMED THE STATE and they had to capitualte, frequently enough through VIOLENT revolution.

Kelzie said:
As you point out, uncertainty is a part of life. Big deal. At least now I know that if someone kills my mom, every effort will be made to bringing her killers to justice. And it won't matter how big of a "private army" her killers hire.

If someone kills your mom, you mom will be dead, and the person isolated so people might not have to worry about them killing again. The LOSS of you mother, the monetary loss of her income, the social loss of her presence will NEVER BE RECOUPED UNDER OUT SYSTEM. The visage of Lady Justice is the Woman with the Scales in her hand. The scale repsrents balance, and Justice is, at least, the attempt toreturn to that balance. Putting a person behind bars, and even their death, DOES NO SUCH THING. In fact, you, as a secondary victim, have further injustice done to you, because you must now subsized the killer's life during incarceration, or death through execution, by means of your taxation.

Western isolation (as incarceration) is more about CONVEINIENCE than Justice. Stop lying to yourself about that one.
 
galenrox said:
What? You're not even close to making sense. Once again, you're talking about chaos, not anarchy. I'd reccomend reading the thread before posting on it.

You should get an education, a real one. Once that is accomplished, you can look back at your posts here and realize just how "special" you are.
Why don't you fess up to the situation that you are in that drives your desire to want a totally unrealistic form of "government"?

Anarchy is not the same as chaos, but it begets chaos. There are no instances of anarchy existing for any reasonable length of time. It begins to self destruct upon implementation.

Humans are selfish by nature, we are born that way and learn as we grow up (well, most of us do) that there are benefits to participating in a society with limits and controls. Granted, what we have is sometimes corrupt, with a few politicians seeking power to satisfy their greed. Apparently they didn't learn the kindergarten lessons about sharing. Perhaps they were home schooled.

In anarchy, those with the most power will soon rule, and those with no sense of community, or morals, will ruthlessly take charge. Some people are unable to be satisfied with what they have, no matter how much they have. History is full of stories where one person raised an army and attempted to take control of the world. Some of us even join that army, and follow like sheep the one who promises us power and wealth, even tho we know that having it means taking it from others, by force, without justification. See how stupid people are?

Kelzie, I thought you were smarter than you are showing yourself in this thread. Arguing with idiots is not a sign of intellect. Wait, I get it, finals are over and you are really, really bored. :smile:
I know, I am arguing as well, but I am retired, so it is a given that I will waste a lot of time.
 
UtahBill said:
You should get an education, a real one. Once that is accomplished, you can look back at your posts here and realize just how "special" you are.
Why don't you fess up to the situation that you are in that drives your desire to want a totally unrealistic form of "government"?

Anarchy is not the same as chaos, but it begets chaos. There are no instances of anarchy existing for any reasonable length of time. It begins to self destruct upon implementation.

Humans are selfish by nature, we are born that way and learn as we grow up (well, most of us do) that there are benefits to participating in a society with limits and controls. Granted, what we have is sometimes corrupt, with a few politicians seeking power to satisfy their greed. Apparently they didn't learn the kindergarten lessons about sharing. Perhaps they were home schooled.

In anarchy, those with the most power will soon rule, and those with no sense of community, or morals, will ruthlessly take charge. Some people are unable to be satisfied with what they have, no matter how much they have. History is full of stories where one person raised an army and attempted to take control of the world. Some of us even join that army, and follow like sheep the one who promises us power and wealth, even tho we know that having it means taking it from others, by force, without justification. See how stupid people are?

Kelzie, I thought you were smarter than you are showing yourself in this thread. Arguing with idiots is not a sign of intellect. Wait, I get it, finals are over and you are really, really bored. :smile:
I know, I am arguing as well, but I am retired, so it is a given that I will waste a lot of time.


So let me get this, the biggest problem with anarchy, is someone will become government? So, you then admit, government is the problem right?

So, we need government to protect us from government, because without government, there will be government.

Of course man is selfish and self-interested: That's how all life is, not just human life. However we are also social animals as well, and that is as depply ingrained in Man as our self-interest.

Oh, government is not the same as tyranny, it begets tyranny.

Also, "arguing with idiots," that's the best you've got? Ad hominem based in fantasy? I'm sure my measures of intellect will smoke yours.
 
libertarian_knight said:
So let me get this, the biggest problem with anarchy, is someone will become government? So, you then admit, government is the problem right?

Of course man is selfish and self-interested: That's how all life is, not just human life. However we are also social animals as well, and that is as depply ingrained in Man as our self-interest.

Oh, government is not the same as tyranny, it begets tyranny.

Also, "arguing with idiots," that's the best you've got? Ad hominem based in fantasy? I'm sure my measures of intellect will smoke yours.

No, I don't admit that government is the problem, but acknowledge that no government is perfect since imperfect beings are running it. Some forms of government are certainly less perfect than others. It is not a given that government begets tyranny. Perhaps you can tell us how our republic tyrannizes you?
It is my experience that a libertarian can have intellect, but typically doesn't use it very well. The ability to do that comes with age and experience. Then it is called wisdom. On the path to wisdom, it is the journey that is most important, because we can never know if or when we have reached the destination. That does not matter to anarchists, Utopians, or even extreme left/right democrats/republicans. People with closed minds who stubbornly cling to their own ideas in the face of the collective better judgemen ts of the rest of the world will never gain wisdom. They aren't even on the path.
I suppose you can name a few well known persons, tho, who are exceptions to that concept? Or perhaps an example of a successful anarchy in the history of the world?
 
UtahBill said:
No, I don't admit that government is the problem, but acknowledge that no government is perfect since imperfect beings are running it. Some forms of government are certainly less perfect than others. It is not a given that government begets tyranny. Perhaps you can tell us how our republic tyrannizes you?
It is my experience that a libertarian can have intellect, but typically doesn't use it very well. The ability to do that comes with age and experience. Then it is called wisdom. On the path to wisdom, it is the journey that is most important, because we can never know if or when we have reached the destination. That does not matter to anarchists, Utopians, or even extreme left/right democrats/republicans. People with closed minds who stubbornly cling to their own ideas in the face of the collective better judgemen ts of the rest of the world will never gain wisdom. They aren't even on the path.
I suppose you can name a few well known persons, tho, who are exceptions to that concept? Or perhaps an example of a successful anarchy in the history of the world?

I would submit to you, that the "collective better judgement" has not been manifestly expressed, rather institutions of power of have been merely tolerated.


Furthermore, discuss with me, about my ideas, not mythical people you make up to pretend to make a point. My mind is one that would hardly be closed, at least not anymore. It's Receptive and active. I used to hold the same false beliefs that Man cannot exist without the state, and the state served as benevolant benefactor to Humanity. I even used to be a Marxist Socialist. Then some people argued their points, I did some reading, and came to another conclusion: Volitional cooperations makes civilizations, not thugs with guns. Thugs with guns destroy civilizations. The groups, with the most thugs and guns are States. The People working together to achieve their own personal ends has given us never before seen wealth and prosperity that would make kings or emperors of a few short centuries ago jealous. More often than not, people have done these things IN SPITE of the state.

The Enlightenment, Industrial Age, and Scientific revolution were brought about AGAINST the will of State (or varient/ally Church). When human ingenuity tore itself from the shackles of Kings and Tyrants, the World exploded with productivity, wealth, health and prosperity never before imagined.

Prior to the French Revolution, French weavers would not work, until the recieved explicit orders from the king, what threadcount should be made for what fabric. They were fined or imprisoned if they worked without such explicit orders. Hamurabi's Code, the oft heralded first laws of the land, devistated the markets of Babylon because the state tried to determine that prices of all goods by fiat. American's have an obesity problem, due in fair part to the US government Subsidy of corn.

The history of the state has NOT BEEN, as some would suggest, benevolence and egalitarianism. It has been a history of interference, repression, violence and war.

There is no doubt, that a state CAN do good things. Often however, these good things, are what people have done, would do, or would continue to do for themselves anyway. The State just charges more, because they can arrest and imprison those that don't pay.

Have you noticed the parelles yet between Organized crime, and the state? Taxation=Protection money. If you don't pay, you suffer harm at the hands of the person claiming to be your protector.

People tell libertarians and Anarchists all the time, that we need the government to lock up the bad guys (while not serving justice in the process). How many bad guys are there? ~1% of the American Male Population (according the the DOJ) has served 1 year or more in prison, or is currently doing so. Bear in mind, as many as 1/2 of people in prisons now are there for non-violent crimes. So one may say 1/2 of 1% of the American Male population is "bad men." it's much lower for women, virtually negligable when accounting for only the violent portion.

So, the bad people may make up what? Between 1/4 of 1% to 1/2 of 1% of the American Population. That's 0.25% to 0.5%.

We have so few really bad people in this country, and world, is it really necessary to spend 40% of GDP on Federal, State and Local for protection, roads, Education, and income assistance?

I don't ask at once for perfect government, (in fact I never ask that, I know it's a myth, even though statists tell me that all good comes from government), I ask at once for better government.

Anarchy is the ideal, and maybe never achievable, but it's the GOAL to strive for. Just because there are a bunch of weak-hearted, irresponsible, nay-sayers does not deter me from working to improve the world, as little as I can.

One more thing, don't pretend just because one's old, means one is wise. You seem reasonable, as much as can be expected, but you're not special or unique in the quality of your professed wisdom.

Furthermore, a truly wise man would note how uncollected the collective world is.

I have some suggested reading for you:
For a New Liberty: the Libertarian Manifesto by Murray Rothbard. A fairly short book on some anarcho-capitalist ideas.

The Discovery of Freedom by Rose Wilder Lane. Grand-daughter of Laura Ingles Wilder, and exceedingly wise woman in her study of HIstory and Humanity.

Human Action by Ludwig von Mises. A challenging treatise on economics by the Single most Wise and Intelligent Author I have every encountered (next to Shakespear for his, but without the Literary flair, and maybe DaVinci for his intellect). Why not try it, it's free. A free treatise on Human Action , what a great gift to the world.

Also, might I suggest the two link in my signature.

Human Action , and economics in general, are tremendous ways to undertake the study of ALL humanity.

Since you're retired, you have some time to spare. Hell, I'm not retired and I have that time to spare. Just use your time wisely, open your mind, and have a whirl.
 
Last edited:
Institutions of power are tolerated as long as they are serving the greater good of society, and that includes governments. Once that fails, it is up to us to change the system, in a democratic way, at the ballot box and in the courts.
What mythical persons? The only myth here is that anarchy will work. Thugs with guns? What stops an anarchy from having those types? That is why many of us say that anarchy can never last for very long. Humans are imperfect, therefore all forms of government are imperfect, even the fictional utopia and anarchy forms.
Amen on the tearing away from monarchies, church, etc. as a result of the enlightenment, industrial revolution, etc. That is how we got started. The USA has had unprecedented success with an imperfect Republic, and it too is a work in progress, and I don't think starting over with anarchy is preferred to fine tuning what we have. We should look at ALL forms of government for answers to our problems, and not be afraid to borrow from socialism, communism, and yes, even anarchy. None are perfect alone, but all have some good parts that will appeal to most of us.

You seem to be dead set against taxes. Is that your primary issue?
My government has done a lot for me, and a few things to me, but over all, I am on the plus side with it. Taxes I don't mind. I know people who prefer paying interest on loans because it gives them a deduction to help reduce their taxes. Very stupid, economically. The taxes are a lot cheaper overall.

I understand the prison system sucks, and that law and justice are not always the same. It is an imperfect system as well. It should be only the dangerous criminals that get locked up, the rest should be forced to work and pay restitution.

Being old/pretending wisdom? Just because you are young and idealistic without years of experience to teach you how wrong you might be does not give you reason to accuse the old of pretending to have wisdom. Hang around some of us who are over 75 or so, and listen to them. They have learned a lot of things the hard way, as is the way with us humans. It is not easy to fully appreciate their experiences, as we are so far removed from thier generation's experiences. Talk to someone who was in the last world war, or went thru the great depression, or the dust bowl of the 30's.
Our youthful idealisms often cause us to turn a deaf ear to the wisdom of our elders, so we end up learning a lot of the same things the same hard way.

Some of the young seem to be wise, tho, like Kelzie, who seems very wise beyond her tender years. I suspect that she is getting a very good education and has much better intellect than most her age. Education is wasted on those with inferior intellect, tho. Look at some of our politicians for proof of that. They have degrees, and supposedly knowledge, but can't seem to make good use of either.

It isn't like anarchy hasn't been tried before, right? And did it ever work for even a full year, anywhere? Was everyone happy? Did everyone agree and cooperate? You know the answers....
 
Last edited:
UtahBill said:
Institutions of power are tolerated as long as they are serving the greater good of society, and that includes governments. Once that fails, it is up to us to change the system, in a democratic way, at the ballot box and in the courts.
What mythical persons? The only myth here is that anarchy will work. Thugs with guns? What stops an anarchy from having those types? That is why many of us say that anarchy can never last for very long. Humans are imperfect, therefore all forms of government are imperfect, even the fictional utopia and anarchy forms.
Amen on the tearing away from monarchies, church, etc. as a result of the enlightenment, industrial revolution, etc. That is how we got started. The USA has had unprecedented success with an imperfect Republic, and it too is a work in progress, and I don't think starting over with anarchy is preferred to fine tuning what we have. We should look at ALL forms of government for answers to our problems, and not be afraid to borrow from socialism, communism, and yes, even anarchy. None are perfect alone, but all have some good parts that will appeal to most of us.

You seem to be dead set against taxes. Is that your primary issue?
My government has done a lot for me, and a few things to me, but over all, I am on the plus side with it. Taxes I don't mind. I know people who prefer paying interest on loans because it gives them a deduction to help reduce their taxes. Very stupid, economically. The taxes are a lot cheaper overall.

I understand the prison system sucks, and that law and justice are not always the same. It is an imperfect system as well. It should be only the dangerous criminals that get locked up, the rest should be forced to work and pay restitution.

Being old/pretending wisdom? Just because you are young and idealistic without years of experience to teach you how wrong you might be does not give you reason to accuse the old of pretending to have wisdom. Hang around some of us who are over 75 or so, and listen to them. They have learned a lot of things the hard way, as is the way with us humans. It is not easy to fully appreciate their experiences, as we are so far removed from thier generation's experiences. Talk to someone who was in the last world war, or went thru the great depression, or the dust bowl of the 30's.
Our youthful idealisms often cause us to turn a deaf ear to the wisdom of our elders, so we end up learning a lot of the same things the same hard way.

It isn't like anarchy hasn't been tried before, right? And did it ever work for even a full year, anywhere? Was everyone happy? Did everyone agree and cooperate? You know the answers....


Institutions are tolerated, so long as they aren't too oppressive, ragrdless of the extent of the "good" (and all government "good" is borne from government violence). Very often, governments are unwilling to accept the public will, or ballot tallies. Some are generally pretty decent about it, like ours, but not always. Look how long Slavery, Women's Sufferage, Alcohol Prohibition, Universal Sufferage, and the Civil Rights movement lasted in the US; and how long Drug Prohibition, Prostitution Prohibition and Gambling are still going. Even though public will was strongly in favor of those reforms, governments resisted, and continue to resist with overwhelming support for either alteration or repeal of current calls for reform. Thankfully we had wise men like Thoreau to teach us the benefit of civil disobedience, otherwise, the common effect was revolution.

Nothing stops thugs with guns, except maybe other thugs. However, anarchic systems tend to have fewer large collections of thugs with guns. You will recognize that power tends to corrupt, and therefor, to mitigate the effects of corruption, power should be decentralized. THAT is why and how the USA was formed. It was made to be pretty ineffective from a centralized viewpoint, even after the adoption of the Constitution. The Consititution was wrote, and The Several states were supposed to be the major decision making facilities, doing most of the regulatory, protection, and policing work. The Federal government, was supposed to be a government's government. Governing the affairs between the states, and setting up some basic standards across them, like patent laws, money systems, and state to state trade rules.

Then, of course, the federal reserve was created, the income tax "passed," and the "Middle way" adopted, not to mention the civil war, and from then on people are ruled by the federal government, and not thier states. Decentralization and limitations to power are the keys to freedom under government.

Why am I dead set against forcible theft of worker's labor? Well, because the worker's earned it. Especially wages and salaries should not be taxed. Wages and salaries are a result of trading IRREPLACABLE TIME providing labor for money. Taxing the money earned through people's time, is in effect, stealing their time lived. The furthest end of that spectrum, is slavery or murder.

We can generally agree about the prisons, though I think even the dangerous should work to pay actual restitution to the victim's or heirs. No non-violent "crime" should be punished. That means Drug use, prostitution, gambling etc, in the general sense. Murder, rape, assault, theft and fraud are the core violent crimes, and all those should be duly punished and restitution provided to the victims.

As far as hanging out with my elders, I think I have done that substantially throughout my life. I have spent nearly as mush time in my youth living with and around my Grand Parents, Great Aunts and Uncles, and their friends. Hell I was often drafted into playin Pinochle with them, because they could never manage to get enough partners together. In fact, (though many have died) I still play the game and talk with them everytime we have a big family functions. I am not unexposed to the wisdom or folly of age (really, jsut the folly of man, but manifest different at different points in one's life).

Also, mix and matching conflicting or contradictory ideas and systems, produces more chaos than anarchy can. Furthermore, systems, like socialism, that ignore or attempt to violate natural or common systems are no less doomed to failure, than boats that violate laws of physics with regard to densities.

In all government systems however, there is one irrefutable fact, governments are insitutions of violence, and any percieved "good" that comes from them comes through the violent expense of good people. Hurting good people, "for their own good", seems pretty ludicrous.
 
As far as anarchy having been done, there have been several, and probably far more than my ignorance is aware of. The Expansion of the US to the west coast was also very anarchic as well. Though some parts may have been considered "territories" the functional effect of governmnet control was non-existant. Don't pretend to know an answer that anarchic systems have not existed. And don't confuse leadership with the INSTITUTION of government. Some posters mentioned Spain, also Ireland to mention a couple.

Here is a wikipedia article about historical and present anarchies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_and_present_anarchist_communities

For myself at least, I don't have a problem with city or "county" governments, as much as multi-city (US type States) or nation-states. As I mentioned earlier, it's about decentralization of power.
 
galenrox said:
You're basing all of these ideas off the assumption that people are completely indifferent to those sorts of things. If a parent with an unwanted child knew that a privatized adoption service didn't check and make sure that the kid was going to a good family, do you really think shoe would give them her kid?

I think it would be far safer operating on the assumption that someone would. Anyone is capable of violating someone's rights, it would just be much more prevelent--on exponential levels--in an anarchist society.

Do you think that a society that knows they are responsible for what goes on in their world (and I mean actually knows, not this bullshit back of the mind thing that goes on today) would do business with companies that used kids for slave labor? If Walmart took kids off the street and used them for slave labor, would you still shop there? I wouldn't. If people knew that through their money they are endorsing the practices of the businesses, I think it's pretty clear that they wouldn't either.

Most people wouldn't stand for it and not buy the said company's product. But what if a few horrible people who happened to have money buy from that company; it may be enough to support them. After cost of goods, labour is usually the second highest expense for a business. So if a company can use free labour, it may result in a loss of business, but the benefits of not having to pay the costs of labour may make up for that.

Many companies don't deal directly to the public. Having different levels of business may desensitize people to the business practices some use. Take this example: A child dies in your town, 4 children die the next state over, 10,000 children die in Africa. Distance and unfamiliarity desensitize people, so something many times more horrible may not affect you as much as a lesser event close to home.

Do you assume that people are indifferent to pedophelia? That they'd just sit back as the person next door ****s little kids? Or would they, and the rest of the neighborhood, go into that house and beat the ****er senseless and take away his kids? Same, even if NAMBLA started up their own town, do you think the bordering towns would just sit back and let these guys rape kids, or would they come in and get the kids and beat those ****ers senseless?

For a philosophy that rests on the most extreme form of individualism out there, you sure have a lot of faith in the righteousness of the mob. I always thought that anarchists weren't to fond of "Dumocracy". It's a little thing known as the tyranny of the majority. What makes you think that the mob will exist soley to uphold individual rights? They won't. They'll interpret their own rights via force. So if the mob thinks the tranny or the hobo are a potential threat to their survival, the mob will definitly find a pro-active way of dealing with them.
 
curt said:
I think it would be far safer operating on the assumption that someone would. Anyone is capable of violating someone's rights, it would just be much more prevelent--on exponential levels--in an anarchist society.



Most people wouldn't stand for it and not buy the said company's product. But what if a few horrible people who happened to have money buy from that company; it may be enough to support them. After cost of goods, labour is usually the second highest expense for a business. So if a company can use free labour, it may result in a loss of business, but the benefits of not having to pay the costs of labour may make up for that.

Many companies don't deal directly to the public. Having different levels of business may desensitize people to the business practices some use. Take this example: A child dies in your town, 4 children die the next state over, 10,000 children die in Africa. Distance and unfamiliarity desensitize people, so something many times more horrible may not affect you as much as a lesser event close to home.



For a philosophy that rests on the most extreme form of individualism out there, you sure have a lot of faith in the righteousness of the mob. I always thought that anarchists weren't to fond of "Dumocracy". It's a little thing known as the tyranny of the majority. What makes you think that the mob will exist soley to uphold individual rights? They won't. They'll interpret their own rights via force. So if the mob thinks the tranny or the hobo are a potential threat to their survival, the mob will definitly find a pro-active way of dealing with them.

Most businesses operate at a level, where even a 10% loss in revenuecan can cripple them, and more than that completely send the compnay under, expcially in the avent of JIT production.

so, lossing 80% of a customer base, a company COULD remain profitable, but without nearly as much total profit. Companies that exclusively serve the rich, are actually far less profitable. Look at Henry Ford (though not a complete icon of capitalism) and (forgot the first name) Royce. Ford sold lots of cars to lots of people, Royce a few cars to very rich people. Ford died rich, royce died broke.

The key is to maximize profit, not just profit. Companies and most people won't do something is they only make 1-2% profit. Likewise, companies try not to do things that will even lose them 1-2% profit, such as alienating 10% or less of a customer base. Businesses that deal directly with customers are often worried about losing one customer, let alone a signficant portion because they create or sell unseemly products or egage in devious business practices.

Certainly people at any time try to cheat the market, sometimes they may get lucky, for a little while. Generally, though the sneaky practice doesn't last long. People may not watch the business world enough right now, in large part because the the social atrophy created by the false sense the government is doing it for them, but OH YEAH they do watch.

To be a part of society, that means more than living somewhere and paying taxes.

The anarchist and libertarian philosophies are based on the most extreme form of individualism there is, because that is the truth of the world. Every person is an individual. Any philosophy that ignores that reality is doomed to failure. Individualism is NOT about being a hermit, or going-it-alone. NOT AT ALL! I have yet to meet any libertarian even SUGGEST this as a consistant way of life.

Individualism is like the helio-centric model fo the solar system, it just is. All people are individual thinkers and individual actors, even in the face of coercion or violence, just as the sun is the "center" of the solar system.

All we say is let each person CHOOSE, free from coercion and violence, the way they create and interact in social settings.

We are very social people, generally, and though we know the mob rears it's head from time to time, we also know most people would prefer to work out problems than to shoot anyone that gets in their way, and the results are always better.

Cooperation and persuasion have produced the greatest things in humanity; and though violence and pain may incur, from time to time, some percieved "benefit;" more often than not, they tend to be fleeting and temporal.

A composer does not does not produce the greatest symponies when his hands are shackled and there is a gun to his head. The orchestra will not play with love for the music to perform the greatest symphonies when they too are prisoners. Free them, and watch what masterpieces develop. Free all people, and watch the Symphony of Life play as it has never played before. The freer we are the better the music.
 
Last edited:
Your preaching to the choir. I'm a libertarian, more specifically a minarchist. I enjoy arguing with someone so close to my own viewpoint because we can dispense with the "capitalism is evil" bs and focus on specific points.

I think the only purpose for the existence of gov't should be to protect the individual from physical coersion. To be able to provide this a gov't must have in it's possession: Military, administration of police forces(they could be sub-contracted), same goes for prisons, and courts. An of these things in the complete hands of the private sector and your individual rights become void at the discretion of the highest bidder. I'm not saying these institutions are perfect at the moment or even cabable of attaining perfection, but I'd rather not be forced to bind myself to an arbitrary collective to ensure my survival.

A hypothetical scenario: There exists police force A and police force B, and a client of A's commits a crime against a client of B's. It's B's duty to please their client and apprehend A's client. A will not just give the client up because that would result in a loss of money. So if B has an obligation to their client and A has an obligation to their's, how will 2 forces that do not recognize each others authority settle the dispute?

How is intellectual property protected, ie patents? What incentive would there be to create if one was allowed to rob you of your creation before you had a real chance to profit from it?

I despise anti-trust laws, but in anarchy how would free enterprise be maintained if--for example--Microsoft were threatened by some kid working out of his garage who manages somehow to make something more efficiently than Microsoft can? The kid cannot possibly afford the protection that Microsoft could, so what would prevent them from offing any threat to their superiority? Considering their existence would be wiped out, the police which protected that kid wouldn't object to loudly.
 
curt said:
Your preaching to the choir. I'm a libertarian, more specifically a minarchist. I enjoy arguing with someone so close to my own viewpoint because we can dispense with the "capitalism is evil" bs and focus on specific points.

I think the only purpose for the existence of gov't should be to protect the individual from physical coersion. To be able to provide this a gov't must have in it's possession: Military, administration of police forces(they could be sub-contracted), same goes for prisons, and courts. An of these things in the complete hands of the private sector and your individual rights become void at the discretion of the highest bidder. I'm not saying these institutions are perfect at the moment or even cabable of attaining perfection, but I'd rather not be forced to bind myself to an arbitrary collective to ensure my survival.

A hypothetical scenario: There exists police force A and police force B, and a client of A's commits a crime against a client of B's. It's B's duty to please their client and apprehend A's client. A will not just give the client up because that would result in a loss of money. So if B has an obligation to their client and A has an obligation to their's, how will 2 forces that do not recognize each others authority settle the dispute?

How is intellectual property protected, ie patents? What incentive would there be to create if one was allowed to rob you of your creation before you had a real chance to profit from it?

I despise anti-trust laws, but in anarchy how would free enterprise be maintained if--for example--Microsoft were threatened by some kid working out of his garage who manages somehow to make something more efficiently than Microsoft can? The kid cannot possibly afford the protection that Microsoft could, so what would prevent them from offing any threat to their superiority? Considering their existence would be wiped out, the police which protected that kid wouldn't object to loudly.

You're a libertarian, so you should be familiar with rothbard, check out his "For a New Liberty: the Libertarain Manifesto." I know he is just one segment of the libertarian mindset, but he adresses the anarcho-capitalist scenerio of what you just proposed.

If a kid could find something superior to microsoft products, I am sure he could find a benefactor. OR, he could release his product publically, as freeware, or shareware or some thing... or, he could sell it to microsoft. Companies don't like to be know for offing people; it's just bad for maximizing profits.
 
galenrox said:
And Utahbill, what you are arguing is that since the bike has fallen a few times, it is clearly impossible to ride a bike without training wheels.
What you are proposing is not in any way analogous to riding a bicycle, more like 280 million uni-cycles, each propelled by unskilled and untrained riders.
Collisions are inevitable.:2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom