- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 20,915
- Reaction score
- 546
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
galenrox said:I love how you claim to know what an anarcho-capitalist would say, especially because you're WAY off.
See, your opinions of what anarcho-capitalists believe is based on the assumption that we stopped paying attention to economists after Adam Smith.
As an anarcho-capitalist, let me describe it to you, since you clearly have no idea what we, or at least I believe.
It has been well proven that everything a government has stepped into it has screwed up. This is because government is a beurocracy, which in it's very nature is inhuman, and thus is ill-suited to meet the needs of individual human beings.
Anarcho-capitalism isn't based on greed or chaos, but instead non-governmental order. As an example, let's take GAAP, the group that sets the accounting standards for business. GAAP is a non-governmental group that has no formal power, but they are recognized as the foremost authority on what accounting practices lead to honest assesments of a business's finances by just about everyone. Now, although what they say becomes law, because people are so reliant on government to do everything for them, if people took responsibility for their own finances, they would realize that these laws are unneccisary.
Pretending that there are no laws dealing with accounting, if a corporation would not allow GAAP to assess their accounting practices, it would be reasonable for the investor to believe that this corporation is practicing inaccurate and dishonest accounting, and thus it would be reasonable to not invest in this corporation based on this. Because of this, it would become anti-profitable to not subject your accounting practices to GAAP scrutiny, and thus GAAP would still be able to assess the honesty behind corporations' accounting practices, and non-governmental order would be created.
(this is the invisible hand you speak of).
This is not all it is based on.
People don't always act solely out of greed. When I give a bum $5, I don't do it because I gain anything from it, I do it because I know it's the right thing to do. That is why the majority of anarcho-capitalists don't call for the immidiate elimination of government, because people aren't prepared for it. Instead, the government needs to get people to the point where they realize that doing what is good for society is good for themselves, instead of simply believing that they should do whatever the **** they please and it's the government's job to make sure everything gets done. No one feels accountability as long as someone or something else is also accountable (i.e. government).
Government recieves all of its power from its citizens, and thus citizens can do everything the government does without the government. There isn't a single thing the government does that cannot be done through the cooperation of individuals.
All of the problems that come from government come from the sheer size of nations, and thus creating the need to treat the masses as a mob instead of as individuals (not to mention the amount of power entrusted on humans, which will undoubtedly be abused). Now if government was elliminated, people in Lincoln, Nebraska could simply agree that abortions will not be tolerated, and if you don't like that, you can leave. People on the North East side of Iowa City could live by an entirely different set of standards than people in Southwest Iowa City, and if you like the way Northeast Iowa City lives, live there, and if you like Southwest Iowa City, live there, and if you don't like either, then go elsewhere.
Calling for the elimination of government isn't calling for the elimination of society, but instead increased reliance on society.
Once again, I'd reccomend that you stop talking about **** you know nothing about.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:And what of my critique on conglomerate monopolization and it's resemblence to a totalitarian state? Why would the indivual enter into a contractual agreement to end monopolization if it is not in his best interests, when in actuality, what would be in the individuals best interests would be for him to enter into contractual agreements to form a giant all encompassing conglomerate. And for that matter you didn't even answer the question posed concerning automization and the effect it would have on the workers.
Just trying to put it into a real world application for you buddy, something most anarcho-capitalists including yourself have been hard pressed to address.
As for your opinion concerning doing things for the sake of doing them, because you know it to be the right thing, that's the point I was trying to address concerning the lack of emphasis put on biblical individualism in favor of more focus being placed on expressive and utilitarian individualism which is the case in the current American culture. If the individual is only conscious of himself then how can it reasonably be expected of him to consider the consequences of his actions on the rest of society? In other words if there is no moral sign posts or structural framework to guide you then how do you know what that right thing is? Moral reletavism versus moral absolutism yadayadayada, etc etc, et al
galenrox said:It has been well proven that everything a government has stepped into it has screwed up.
galenrox said:To be perfectly frank, I didn't read all of what you said, nor do I intend to. It's long, and considering my experience with your level of insight, not something I feel the need to spend my time doing.
I think to a large degree we are on the same page, just I believe more in the potential of human's, and believe that government is the case, not the solution, of the current moral state of things.
Think about it, we all agree that it's bad that people are starving, but we don't do anything about it, and that's only partly because of the disagreement on what the proper response should be. The biggest reason why we don't do **** is because we think it's the government's job.
What do pro-lifers do? Instead of going out and handing out condoms or helping pregnant women through their pregnancies, they're lobbying the government to make it illegal, because they think stopping abortion is the government's job, not their's.
And the list goes on. People don't view changing the world for the better as their job, but instead the government's, because this is the message that governments adherently send to their citizens.
Man, it's long, but now I've read it.Trajan Octavian Titus said:Damn dude you didn't even read it and then you go onto say that I have no idea what I'm talking about? And you still haven't answered the real world questions that I posed concerning corporate monopoly and automization but then again I haven't met an anarcho-capitalist yet who has.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:n one side of the spectrum we have totalitarianism in which the state is all powerful and individual liberty is non existent and on the other side we have anarchism in which the restrictive functions of the state have been totally abolished and unchecked individualism is the law of the land.
galenrox said:Man, it's long, but now I've read it.
The simple answer is consumer responsibility.
Your mistake lies here:
Neccisary restrictions can still exist, just not provided by a government.
For example, I don't use Saudi oil. I only buy gas at BP, even though it's further from my house and it costs more. There's clearly no law telling me that I can't use Saudi oil, but I know that I don't like the products of my money going to Saudi Arabia and the rest of the middle east, so I act as a responsible consumer and make the extra effort not to use their oil.
This is not realistic NOW. This is because we have been taught that such political things are to be covered by governments. I've been taught that if I don't like what's going on in the middle east all I can really do is vote for someone who doesn't like it as much as I do and has good ideas on how to change it, and in the absense of such a candidate I can either vote for whoever closest resembles that candidate or just do nothing.
But there are options, and if it's engrained in a society that such things are their responsibility, than the use for the government in that field would vanish.
This happens in small ways already with society, for example people taking their trash to the curb, and in certain small towns they have to take it to the dump themselves and pay to ditch their garbage (as it is in my dad's hometown). Now it could be argued that the government has the responsibility to get the garbage as soon as it's outside, because if no one took it to the curb to have it picked up we'd fill up with trash and society would more than likely fall apart. But that argument clearly doesn't apply, because people understand, through society, that they need to take the garbage to the curb themselves.
yeah, I guess you're in the more further along classes, I just switched to political science, so all I've got in Intro to American Politics homework. Maybe in a year I can borrow some of your papers!Trajan Octavian Titus said:Long? Ya right it's only 750 you should see the 20-30 pagers I have to write.
Because a society comprised of responsible consumers would not let that happen. The only reason why a conglomerate monopoly would naturally form with the consumer mentality we have today is with size comes increased elasticity in the supply curve and increased inelasticity in the demand curve for that one corportation (i.e. Walmart is large enough that it has its own demand curve, and suppliers for Walmart have a seperate supply curve), and due to this, the prices for the largest company are naturally the lowest, and if a society values price over everything else a conglomerate monopoly or oligopoly is what would form (largest gets larger and larger until no other competitors exist).How will consumer responsibility play into it if the only producer is the conglomerate.
I think it addressed that perfectly well, if not, then what I just said should, and if it doesn't, than more specific criticisms will lead to more specific answers or consessions, depending on the merit of your criticisms.Ya but that's still not getting at the heart of the matter which is their would no longer be any law against monopoly, the principle of anti-monopoly legislation is that if you don't stop it sooner or later everything will end up being controlled by one monopoly which would kill competition, not to mention the totalitarian nature of the beast. Without out the state there to prevent monopolization do you really expect the companies to do it themselves?
And that moral relativism comes from reliance on the government. We've been raised being told that all sorts of things are the government's responsibility, not ours.Now that's the real issue moral relativism has made the American culture one in which the line between right and wrong is skewed.
There's more than one form of individualism, traditional republicanism, utilitarianism, civic, expressive, etc etc.
galenrox said:yeah, I guess you're in the more further along classes, I just switched to political science, so all I've got in Intro to American Politics homework. Maybe in a year I can borrow some of your papers!
Because a society comprised of responsible consumers would not let that happen. The only reason why a conglomerate monopoly would naturally form with the consumer mentality we have today is with size comes increased elasticity in the supply curve and increased inelasticity in the demand curve for that one corportation (i.e. Walmart is large enough that it has its own demand curve, and suppliers for Walmart have a seperate supply curve), and due to this, the prices for the largest company are naturally the lowest, and if a society values price over everything else a conglomerate monopoly or oligopoly is what would form (largest gets larger and larger until no other competitors exist).
But if the consumers took it as their own responsibility to control monopolies, as they take it as their own responsibility to take the trash to the curb, than they simply would pay more to keep the market competitive, thus preventing the creation of said conglomerate monopoly or oligopoly.
I think it addressed that perfectly well, if not, then what I just said should, and if it doesn't, than more specific criticisms will lead to more specific answers or consessions, depending on the merit of your criticisms.
And that moral relativism comes from reliance on the government. We've been raised being told that all sorts of things are the government's responsibility, not ours.
Examples include the abortion thing I said earlier, pro-lifers are far more likely to try to get the government to try to ban abortion rather than taking steps that would stop people from getting abortions (i.e. helping pregnant women through their pregnancies, and talking to pregnant women's families about the pregnancy to eliminate any stigma they may have about their daughter/sister's pregnancy), and so on and so forth.
People don't view upholding morality while following the rules of society as their own responsibility, they either want to change the rules (i.e. ban abortion, eliminate the seperation of church and state, etc.) or completely ignore the rules (bomb abortion clinics).
And this creates moral relativism, because if it's the government's responsibility to set moral standards, than why should anyone outside the government give a **** about it?
I believe the vast majority of people could be considered moral, and in the absense of governmentally provided morals would provide the morals on their own. If there was no welfare, I would give more money to the poor, etc.
Kelzie said:Okay galen. Externalities. Joe buys steel from Fred's steel factory. Fred sells it at a price that is the highest he can get and Joe buys at the lowest price he can get. That's all well and good. But Town Anarchy 30 miles away has to watch their children die because of the nitrates in the air from the steel factory. It is in neither Joe's nor Fred's interest to pay external costs to people not involved in the transaction. So why would they?
And I don't want to hear the song and dance about enlightened consumers. Nothing prevents Fred from lying about the source of the pollution and nothing makes either him or Joe care about its effects.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:Come on why don't you just give him the argument? It is not in the best interests of the company to poison there consumers. It is in the best interests of the company to form conglomerate monopilies, it is in the best interests of the company to automize all production which is also in the best interests of the consumer, however, it is not in the best interests of the worker.
Kelzie said:Umm, excuse me? Is that why all the heavy industries had to be dragged kicking and screaming into pollution controls? The great thing about pollution is that it takes a loonnng time to have a hugely detrimental impact. It certainly is in the best interest of an industry to pollute. It's called the tragedy of the commons. Look it up.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:In their short term interests but not in their long term intersts. If they kill their consumers how are they going to make a profit?
Kelzie said:Okay galen. Externalities. Joe buys steel from Fred's steel factory. Fred sells it at a price that is the highest he can get and Joe buys at the lowest price he can get. That's all well and good. But Town Anarchy 30 miles away has to watch their children die because of the nitrates in the air from the steel factory. It is in neither Joe's nor Fred's interest to pay external costs to people not involved in the transaction. So why would they?
And I don't want to hear the song and dance about enlightened consumers. Nothing prevents Fred from lying about the source of the pollution and nothing makes either him or Joe care about its effects.
Kandahar said:Exactly.
While I agree with Galen that MOST government regulation makes things worse, no valid economic studies exist that show that ALL government regulation is bad.
Even if it were, anarchy is simply not possible. Within just a few hours of a government collapse or dissolution, there will be people filling the power vacuum.
Here's a short list of things where I believe the government can simply do a better job than the free market.
1. Law and order
2. Military
3. Basic infrastructure (roads, water, power, emergency services, etc)
4. Anti-monopoly laws
5. Environmental laws
And depending on one's definition of "doing a better job," one could also include education in that list (if it's implemented correctly).
I generally think of myself as a libertarian and/or neoliberal, but I don't think it makes any sense to reflexively condemn government intervention in ALL cases.
Kelzie said:I dunno, ask them. Doesn't seem to phase them much. They have no motivation to change. If they pollute less it costs them more and it only works if everyone else is doing it.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:The problem isn't regulation it is to much regulation. Case in point the Kyoto Accord.
Kelzie said:Just curious, would you believe a government should do what it can to remedy all externalities...or basically market failures? In short, punishing negative externalities so they go away and encouraging positive so that they are continued when they might not be. I'm thinking specifically of higher education for the last one. The benefit to society is huge from someone with an undergrad (more likely to be employed, less likely to commit a crime, etc) but that benefit isn't reflected in the price the student pays.
Kelzie said:Just curious, would you believe a government should do what it can to remedy all externalities...or basically market failures? In short, punishing negative externalities so they go away and encouraging positive so that they are continued when they might not be. I'm thinking specifically of higher education for the last one. The benefit to society is huge from someone with an undergrad (more likely to be employed, less likely to commit a crime, etc) but that benefit isn't reflected in the price the student pays.
Kandahar said:Yes, I think that the government's primary duty is protecting its citizens from force and fraud, but it also has a secondary duty to prevent market failure. If there's no government to implement infrastructure, it simply won't get done (at least not conveniently). The same goes for anti-monopoly and environmental laws; if there's no government to enforce them, the market will become LESS free.
As for education, I think the government can play a positive role. However, the way our education system is currently structured is certainly not the answer. I'd like to see the total implementation of a voucher system for students to attend whatever public or private school they want, but NOT the complete privatization of education.
Kelzie said:What about things like government run soup kitchens?
Kelzie said:What about things like government run soup kitchens?
Trajan Octavian Titus said:Again it's not about state involvement in the affairs of its citizenry it's to what degree. When policies aren't working you don't cling to them out of priniple, you abolish or reform them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?