Governator cutting education funds!!

[guartz]

guartz - do you think that a majority of Americans would be happier, healthier, or smarter under the system you propose, as compared to the current situation?

Honest question.

I don't know... but there would be freedom.

There is no such thing as natural ethics or morals.

That's right, it's called natural law. My bad.

Since when has sticking strictly to the former and avoiding the latter entirely been natural to humans?

Ah, thank you Thomas Hobbs. But this argument has been shot down by so many scholars I don't even know where to begin.

Do you realize that animals living collectively are forced to make certain concessions? Alpha male, queen bee, leader of the pack, etc. Also, how do you feel about the naturalness of humans forming societies? You're speaking as if it's unnatural for humans to congregate, when history and basic understanding of human nature shows us otherwise.

Indeed it's very instinctual, this collective survival. Most of A-C is based on preferred behavior within human society. I don't know what I said that makes you believe otherwise.

I'm calling the "natural" argument for a-c a weak and poor one. There's some kind of innate desire/instinct for social order- if you want to argue that economy alone can create that order then fine, but that also prevents you from categorically denying the legitimacy for government based on nature. Ever since more than one mating couple decided to live and work together, your argument had already been defeated.

I mean, look at the total hypocrisy of what you are saying! Legitimacy of government based on nature? Are you saying you'll just shrug your shoulders if a guy mugs you, or rapes your wife? Since you know, you weren't dominant enough to protect them?! What exactly don't you understand about human rights?

Come on, beckwin. Seriously?

Can we just agree using violence and force and "might is right" is immoral and is totally counter-productive for a more stable and free "human" society?

[Vistani]

I'm calling the "natural" argument for a-c a weak and poor one. There's some kind of innate desire/instinct for social order- if you want to argue that economy alone can create that order then fine, but that also prevents you from categorically denying the legitimacy for government based on nature. Ever since more than one mating couple decided to live and work together, your argument had already been defeated.

I mean, look at the total hypocrisy of what you are saying! Legitimacy of government based on nature? Are you saying you'll just shrug your shoulders if a guy mugs you, or rapes your wife? Since you know, you weren't dominant enough to protect them?! What exactly don't you understand about human rights?

Come on, beckwin. Seriously?

Can we just agree using violence and force and "might is right" is immoral and is totally counter-productive for a more stable and free "human" society?

Look at the total hypocrisy of what you are saying! Anarcho-capitalism would promote the concept of "might is right"

[Beckwin]

So you're just gonna deny that people do bad things.

ok.

I used a "natural" argument for government to point out how absurd it is to use the natural argument for anything, including capitalism and anarchy. NATURAL goes out the fucking window once you have a complex society.

Can we just agree using violence and force and "might is right" is immoral and is totally counter-productive for a more stable and free "human" society?

Can we really? It's not black and white. Are you not freer in a sense because there is a force involved that reduces your chance of getting killed?

Maybe, just maybe, you should try to stop with universally equating government with violence, force, and brutality and use your damn head. You keep making your a-c argument based on people acting 'good', yet are unable to assume a government ran by the same people can also act 'good'.

[Beckwin]

I'm calling the "natural" argument for a-c a weak and poor one. There's some kind of innate desire/instinct for social order- if you want to argue that economy alone can create that order then fine, but that also prevents you from categorically denying the legitimacy for government based on nature. Ever since more than one mating couple decided to live and work together, your argument had already been defeated.

I mean, look at the total hypocrisy of what you are saying! Legitimacy of government based on nature? Are you saying you'll just shrug your shoulders if a guy mugs you, or rapes your wife? Since you know, you weren't dominant enough to protect them?! What exactly don't you understand about human rights?

Come on, beckwin. Seriously?

Can we just agree using violence and force and "might is right" is immoral and is totally counter-productive for a more stable and free "human" society?

Look at the total hypocrisy of what you are saying! Anarcho-capitalism would promote the concept of "might is right"

no way, anarcho-capitalism magically makes it so people don't want to abuse anything for their own gain ever.

[guartz]

Look at the total hypocrisy of what you are saying! Anarcho-capitalism would promote the concept of "might is right"

I thought you said you read the wiki? This system attempts to give incentives against violence for prosperity. Alas, you must also get rid of any monopoly on violence in the process. Aka, the government.

So you're just gonna deny that people do bad things.

ok.

I used a "natural" argument for government to point out how absurd it is to use the natural argument for anything, including capitalism and anarchy. NATURAL goes out the fucking window once you have a complex society.

Can we really? It's not black and white. Are you not freer in a sense because there is a force involved that reduces your chance of getting killed?

Maybe, just maybe, you should try to stop with universally equating government with violence, force, and brutality and use your damn head. You keep making your a-c argument based on people acting 'good', yet are unable to assume a government ran by the same people can also act 'good'.

ah beckwin. You could have just said you don't know what natural law means.

For example, natural law of self-ownership is empirically provable and is consistent. Let me give you an example, what would be your instinctual reaction if somebody came up to you and said "Hello. I'm the boss here, and I demand your eye, since I'm the boss."

You, like everyone else, would say, "no, that's my eye"

Inalienable right.


Understand?

[Correction]

What the fuck does this have to do with public education again? Or did the thread just devolve into a girlfight between folks obsessed with 'the last word?'

[guartz]

What the fuck does this have to do with public education again? Or did the thread just devolve into a girlfight between folks obsessed with 'the last word?'

I think it all started when I suggested that public education is a mind killing prison for 12 years.

[aurik]

Look at the total hypocrisy of what you are saying! Anarcho-capitalism would promote the concept of "might is right"

I thought you said you read the wiki? This system attempts to give incentives against violence for prosperity. Alas, you must also get rid of any monopoly on violence in the process. Aka, the government.

Except that whoever has a stronger syndicate automatically wins any dispute. Hence, the concept of "might makes right".

[Maxxthepenguin]

I'm just glad guartz's views don't mean shit anywhere and will never be put into action.

[Beckwin]

ah beckwin. You could have just said you don't know what natural law means.

For example, natural law of self-ownership is empirically provable and is consistent. Let me give you an example, what would be your instinctual reaction if somebody came up to you and said "Hello. I'm the boss here, and I demand your eye, since I'm the boss."

You, like everyone else, would say, "no, that's my eye"

Inalienable right.


Understand?

Except it's completely rational to see human beings and money/physical property in separate terms.

[Beckwin]

Look at the total hypocrisy of what you are saying! Anarcho-capitalism would promote the concept of "might is right"

I thought you said you read the wiki? This system attempts to give incentives against violence for prosperity. Alas, you must also get rid of any monopoly on violence in the process. Aka, the government.

Except that whoever has a stronger syndicate automatically wins any dispute. Hence, the concept of "might makes right".

nuh uh aurik, in a free market abiding by natural law, there would never be an imbalance of power allowing for something like that to ever occur. it's completely morally invincible.

[archibaldcrane]

Yeah, I really don't understand what prevents the most powerful "security firm" or whatever from forcefully capturing resources from another. It seems like it would be like playing Civilization from scratch.

[Beckwin]

Yeah, I really don't understand what prevents the most powerful "security firm" or whatever from forcefully capturing resources from another. It seems like it would be like playing Civilization from scratch.

you obviously don't understand natural law and that a free market provides incentive to not take from people ever.

[guartz]

Yeah, I really don't understand what prevents the most powerful "security firm" or whatever from forcefully capturing resources from another. It seems like it would be like playing Civilization from scratch.

That's one of the more common concerns with stateless society.

unlike states, "security firms" won't have standing armies. The security firms won't have monopoly on currency either, so they will have to finance the war efforts legitimate ways, instead of printing money as the case is now. They would have to arm heavily (since most of the populace in a free society will be armed) and they have to do it in secret, since if you do it publicly you'd be seen as a threat and probably dealt with before you had a chance at any military coup. Banks/businesses would stop trading with you, labeled as an outlaw firm in the majority of society, etc. You'd have to run some sort of propaganda campaign both to stop people from defecting and creating loyalty towards your organization soley (I mean, unlike governments, with organizations you can just quit and go work elsewhere, right?), I mean, the list just goes on. You'd have to recruit a lot of soldiers, and you'd have to provide them with better pay then any other firm. You'd have to make sure the territory your trying to take over doesn't ally with numerous other firms. In a stateless free market society, waging war or even a simple violent territory grab, is very difficult and the incentives are just not there. Unlike now, where wars are very profitable, not because of territory grabs or resources theft, but because it's more justified money from the tax base.

But let's say you have a very powerful front organization, whose ultimate goal is world domination. It somehow defies market forces and common laws, becoming a institution that can create standing armies and manages to convince it's populace that it has to wage war/attack some other organization. Attacking it'd be immediately seen as hostile. And let's say it did win a blitzkrieg against it's neighbors , and now it set up it's own mini-state dictatorship, nobody else would trade with it, everyone else would be hostile towards this organization. Now it becomes a net negative economical state, people are oppressed, your spending time and efforts just trying to stop people from defecting and dealing with inevitable insurgency. Really, it's only a matter of time before this organization collapses.

But let me ask you this.

What's preventing the most powerful government from capturing another state's resources?
Not much, if you think about it. Isn't that a bigger threat? Isn't the constant growth in government authority, even within this country, somewhat alarming?

[Beckwin]

What's preventing the most powerful government from capturing another state's resources?

A combination of factors ranging from internal public outcry to world governing groups all the way to not wanting to get the shit blown out of themselves by going too far.

"security firms" won't have standing armies

not sure how they're gonna maintain any kind of security then. gonna instantly muster a capable force right when a threat makes itself apparent?

nobody else would trade with it, everyone else would be hostile towards this organization

No guarantee of that at all. Let's make up a hypothetical situation: ok it's anarchocapitalism in the mideast, and a huge amount of oil has been discovered under primarily jewish owned parts of Israel. A primarily Arab security and business cartel forms and decides to make a move on the jewish territory. Due to racial/ethnic tensions and a history of bad history, most of the region really doesn't give a shit. on top of that, the larger Arab cartel is able to sell the jewish oil for cheaper than the jews did, which in combination with the rest of the region not giving a shit about the aggression, keeps business strong and makes the move a highly profitable one.

now you could say that sympathy from outside the region could attempt to counter the Arab cartel, but all the sudden you've got a massive war on your hands and anarchocapitalism isn't looking so utopian.

but really, keep going with the fantastic theorization about a lack of government making aggression always a losing move.

[guartz]

no way, a public outcry would stop them.


But I love your example nonetheless. POOF! All of a sudden, WAR!

It's like American History class in highschool.

[Vistani]

But let me ask you this.

What's preventing the most powerful government from capturing another state's resources?
Not much, if you think about it. Isn't that a bigger threat? Isn't the constant growth in government authority, even within this country, somewhat alarming?

Governments are by nature socialistic, their bottom line is to keep the people happy. A security firm's (and most likely the other companies that would form around it, protected by its power) bottom line is to make money, anything else would be decidedly uncapitalistic of them. It would be their duty to go out and destroy the competition until they can achieve a monopoly. Best case scenario you end up with gangland warfare, worst case scenario you end up back in a despotism. In about a thousand years you invent democracy, yay!

[Beckwin]

no way, a public outcry would stop them.


But I love your example nonetheless. POOF! All of a sudden, WAR!

It's like American History class in highschool.

Cute condescension, but I guess you obviously can't deal with a situation in which a business seeks to accumulate more capital via hostile takeover and the rest of the region (which you claim would universally act a a deterrent against such action in the first place) wouldn't really give a shit. War only becomes a possibility if then some entity from outside the region decides to deter our cartel's efforts. So either way, there's violence to protect the sovereignty of the original owners or there's strongarmed theft, or aggressive capitalism, by the cartel.

But go ahead, tell me about my middle school social studies class while you're off in a la-la land where people simply don't want to do bad things ever and would always lay everything on the line to prevent bad guys from doing bad things.

And btw, public opinion does matter when it comes to starting and continuing wars. It's not a singular decider, but it is a factor. Significant public support had to be present before America entered WWI and II, and we all know how public opinion eventually affected the Vietnam war. It's also of my opinion that current opinion on Iraq and the threat of worse is playing a rather large role in keeping us out of Iran, despite you and I knowing Bush/Cheney would love to invade.

[guartz]

"but I guess you obviously can't deal with a situation in which a business seeks to accumulate more capital via hostile takeover"

I offered like 20 examples of why a business wouldn't want to do that. Wars are just too costly, unless you have a populace tax fodder. And everyone is armed. Everyone! Probably with tactical nukes in every city! Since there are no restrictions on trade, so why not? So it's not like a biggest company can push around others, cause hey! What if they have nukes?!

[archibaldcrane]

And everyone is armed. Everyone! Probably with tactical nukes in every city!

Thank you for the best demonstration yet of why this is a terrible, terrible idea.