Respect my authority!

[Maxxthepenguin]

I had this same loooong discussion with guartz before. It essentially boils down to believing that no organization would ever get too large, when there is nothing to support that.

Ya know, without restrictions, government organizations could organize cruel and unfair practices AND campaigns of disinformation.

fix'd

That's not fixed at all. Governments do have that potential, of course, but they also don't have a profit motive. The motive changes things substantially. Their job is not to make money but to try to serve the people as best they can. That's the purpose of a democratic government. There is a system of checks and balances in place to make it so that the government can't just pass anything. Now, there are issues with that system that need to be ironed out, but the funny thing is that those problems are largely caused by people's greed, something that is prevalent and encouraged in anarcho-capitalism. There are also bad ideas, but those can be struck down. The issues with our government are usually caused by things that bypass checks and balances, things that are passed when the entire government is of one party, and things greatly influenced by people within or outside the government that focus on manipulation for personal gain.

[Nystul]

I had this same loooong discussion with guartz before. It essentially boils down to believing that no organization would ever get too large, when there is nothing to support that.

Ya know, without restrictions, government organizations could organize cruel and unfair practices AND campaigns of disinformation.

fix'd

Out of the frying pan, into the fire?

[guartz]

That's not fixed at all. Governments do have that potential, of course, but they also don't have a profit motive. The motive changes things substantially. Their job is not to make money but to try to serve the people as best they can. That's the purpose of a democratic government. There is a system of checks and balances in place to make it so that the government can't just pass anything. Now, there are issues with that system that need to be ironed out, but the funny thing is that those problems are largely caused by people's greed, something that is prevalent and encouraged in anarcho-capitalism. There are also bad ideas, but those can be struck down. The issues with our government are usually caused by things that bypass checks and balances, things that are passed when the entire government is of one party, and things greatly influenced by people within or outside the government that focus on manipulation for personal gain.

oh, so the people in the government have no profit motive? Their job is to just help people and not make money. We always manage to elect good people into office, without exception.

but wait, problems caused by people's greed, wait a minute here. oh snot, if only we could elect MORE good people, to make sure those checks and balances aren't abused!


Somehow in Maxx's fantasy land, people elected to government will act noble, but uh oh, if they are in charge of a corporation thats not legally obligated to make profit, THEY WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY BE CORRUPT AND TAKE OVER THE WORLD!

[jmc]

At least you agknowledge that. This system of yours is very vague and potentially overly complex. It does not outline who should enforce contracts or even force someone to stand trial or any sort of review. A person could go on a mass killing spree and you wouldn't know what to do without a proper security force or what the punishment should be and how it should be administered, and if you allow it to just be left to relation then you only admit to not knowing what to do in this situation. Also, who funds them? And if not everybody funds the same company to handle these situations, then why should others trust them to not be biased towards their contributors?

Militia rule.

No taxes = No public safety officals..... No police, No Fire Fighters, No EMS. Hospitals, will be complete shit since the majority of the funding they receive is from federal aids/public companies.

[Tyche]

How would schools be run/maintained?

[Maxxthepenguin]

oh, so the people in the government have no profit motive? Their job is to just help people and not make money. We always manage to elect good people into office, without exception.

but wait, problems caused by people's greed, wait a minute here. oh snot, if only we could elect MORE good people, to make sure those checks and balances aren't abused!


Somehow in Maxx's fantasy land, people elected to government will act noble, but uh oh, if they are in charge of a corporation thats not legally obligated to make profit, THEY WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY BE CORRUPT AND TAKE OVER THE WORLD!

I wrote more than the initial stuff. I said where there are problems. You just didn't read it or something.

It's better than encouraging corruption in stated principles, as anarcho-capitalism seems to.

[Beckwin]

I had this same loooong discussion with guartz before. It essentially boils down to believing that no organization would ever get too large, when there is nothing to support that.

And there is no support that says in a pure anarcho society a organization CAN get large.

Look at wal-mart, no way could it continue to support such low prices, essentially selling at cost to drive other businesses away, WITHOUT government subsidies. What was it, 1bil in profits for walmart just in subsidies alone last year? Microsoft would mean shit without intellectual property rights. There wouldn't be a government to freely hand out contracts to haliburton, etc.

You keep saying that corporations will grow large and big, but without any support.

1. these "government subsidies" amount mostly to tax breaks, and in an a-c system, there's no taxes to begin with. Wal-Mart is successful because it's so large; buying in bulk from manufacturers cuts out distributors and drives down prices overall.

2. I'm sure we wouldn't see any repercussions from removing a government that can break up monopolies and prosecute unfair business practices. Yep.

3. you show a lot of naivety about businesses not getting large. banding together is what people choose to do- it's been the choice ever since the cavemen. businesses will band together to increase their profits and make their jobs easier, and when a group of people band together, leaders emerge.

[guartz]

At least you agknowledge that. This system of yours is very vague and potentially overly complex. It does not outline who should enforce contracts or even force someone to stand trial or any sort of review. A person could go on a mass killing spree and you wouldn't know what to do without a proper security force or what the punishment should be and how it should be administered, and if you allow it to just be left to relation then you only admit to not knowing what to do in this situation. Also, who funds them? And if not everybody funds the same company to handle these situations, then why should others trust them to not be biased towards their contributors?

Kuya, right. I actually have similar doubts. Let me address the funding first, because it's really not a difficult issue.

The best way to handle funding for disputes, crimes, etc. Is to have a organization that's similar to a insurance company. That is, it spreads risk amongst a large number of people. So if you need to sue somebody, or somebody is suing you. That organization will provide the funding for your defense, etc. The fees could either be based on individual basis, or a blanket group, for example, an employer insures all his employees.

Now the complicated problem is where does the policing and justice system comes from, in cases where it's not a simple punitive measure. Like, as you mentioned somebody goes on a killing spree. Since more likely then not, such things will be localized to residents of specific areas, brand of justice will very from area to area. Nobody can answer that for sure, since it will be decided by people themselves how to handle those who have committed murders and such. Now the funding for these judges and the police will be from it's immediate locals. House owners would want good police and fair judges, since it would raise property value. Business owners would have similar motives. etc. The free rider is not an issue here, to be honest. Yes, some people won't pay, but majority will. Why? Do you tip at a restaurant? Why? Humans are funny that way. Besides, possibly the majority of funding will come from afore mentioned insurance companies, if for example, a large number of their clients live in a specific area, it would be in the companies best interest to keep an eye out there.

Now the question of bias. It probably doesn't need to be said, but the companies that insure the risks would not want to be on a losing side. Neither would the clients, because of the possibility of increased rates. So in essence they will keep each other honest. So if company A refuses to acknowledge a claim by company B, company B can just advise all it's members not to do business with anyone from company A. An extreme scenario, but you can see how that's very bad for business.

If there is a dispute with individual within the same company, one can opt out to hire a 3rd party defense. A simply clause in a contract will basically fix any internal bias or conflict of interest.

This is a system where every party acts in it's own self interest. Nobody has to be put on a high moral chair and act noble for this system to work.

[guartz]

1. these "government subsidies" amount mostly to tax breaks, and in an a-c system, there's no taxes to begin with. Wal-Mart is successful because it's so large; buying in bulk from manufacturers cuts out distributors and drives down prices overall.

Exactly, wal-mart gets tax breaks, and everyone else has to pay taxes. Lol, not difficult to figure out Beckwin.

2. I'm sure we wouldn't see any repercussions from removing a government that can break up monopolies and prosecute unfair business practices. Yep.

You have yet to present to me how a corporation can get large enough without government protectionism.

3. you show a lot of naivety about businesses not getting large. banding together is what people choose to do- it's been the choice ever since the cavemen. businesses will band together to increase their profits and make their jobs easier, and when a group of people band together, leaders emerge.

well there is a difference between a business getting large, and a business getting large enough to start arming it's employees and forcing people to pay taxes.

The only way it would work, is if Company A and company B merged together and hiked prices. Now they somehow need to prevent company C from emerging with lower prices, driving them out of business. Or will they all have secret meetings to hike prices?!
Who can tell? I bet you they'll be jewish.

[Zalius]

never read a guartz thread before, never reading one again

[guartz]

How would schools be run/maintained?

The facilities would be maintained by educators themselves. It's safe to assume the educators would be payed on merit, thus higher quality teachers will be in constant demand. Good schools bring up property value, lower teenage deviancy, so there will be plenty of funding from all sorts of places, including donations, etc. Schools that have sucky administrators won't last long, as nobody will pay them anything and parents wont want to to bring their children there.

Hell, education probably won't even be 12 years anymore. Since now teachers will have very good motivation to find more efficient ways to educate. Instead of showing up, reading from a book, and going home. Thank god, good teachers will finally get what they deserve.

[Beckwin]

You have yet to present to me how a corporation can get large enough without government protectionism.

the rise of feudalism.

[Beckwin]

oh and education would likely be 0 years for children of poor parents. how lovely.

at best you'll have manufacturers recruiting the slums and providing only a vocational education to get the job done.

it's really a wonderful means of oppression.

[Khamsin]

Here's another question:

Assume the perfect anarcho-capitalist state is set up and it's everything guartz ever dreamed.

What keeps it an anarcho-capitalist state? What measures prevent a government from forming and taking over? Given that there is no government, that means its ripe for the picking by anyone who can step up to fill the void.

Naturally, in our current state, our own government prevents another form of government (say, communism) from taking over. But without one, who protects us from a militia who wants to rule us themselves?

[Beckwin]

"market forces"

Also it's completely unfeasible to start an a-c system because of prior distribution of wealth. you'll already have these large corporations going into the damn thing, unless you opt for some kind of compulsory redistribution of wealth and business break-up, which would be hilariously contrary.

[Nystul]

So what I think we've all learned today is that Guartz believes in a political and social ideology that might work if you started it in a vacuum, and if you make a lot of assumptions about how companies may or may not grow, and make a lot of assumptions about how people may or may not pay for basic needs like protection, education, food, transportation, and healthcare . . . it might work if that all holds together, and there are no outside influences like other governments and organizations that DO have operational governments, large armies, and unified organization which could come in and take over a nation of considerable industrial and natural resources, and if theories about capitalist growth that are heavily contested may be true . . . and of course, include the notion that a change to this kind of government would lead to a considerable crime wave and collapse of infrastructure that would leave hundreds of thousands if not millions dead due to violence, poverty, starvation, and disease.

Thats some good shit right there.

It's interesting- I'm not even sure if you are aware of the irony of your doing this- when someone points out a problem with your setup, lets say someone says it leaves it open for corruption by corporations etc just as an example, rather than responding with an explanation of how thats not an issue, you simply argue that it could also be an issue with the system already in place. This says 2 things:

1. your ideology don't have a solution for that particular criticism
2. that this system isn't any better than what is in place. Why bother arguing for change towards this system when the problems of corruption and all that will simply shift from "big government" to "big corporations"? There's no improvement here, it's at best a cosmetic change in what we call the people that are in charge, or at worst opening up a pandora's box of corporate oppression.

The whole anarchy concept just smacks of douchey stoners sitting around pissed off because a cop pulled them over or broke up their party or something saying "fuck the government man. FUCK that shit man they fucking run your life man! Things would be so much better if like...shit man imagine if like there WAS no government and people could just...do what they wanted dude! OMG we could get high wherever we wanted lololololol it would be so awesome. Anarchy dude. Kickass!"

[guartz]

Here's another question:

Assume the perfect anarcho-capitalist state is set up and it's everything guartz ever dreamed.

What keeps it an anarcho-capitalist state? What measures prevent a government from forming and taking over? Given that there is no government, that means its ripe for the picking by anyone who can step up to fill the void.

Naturally, in our current state, our own government prevents another form of government (say, communism) from taking over. But without one, who protects us from a militia who wants to rule us themselves?

What keeps a conquering army from marching in?

Whoever conquers a free town and does not demolish it commits a great error and may expect to be ruined himself. -Niccolo Machiavelli


Also, beckwin. Are you serious about the feudalism example? I'm not sure.

[guartz]

blah blah, I totally didn't understand anything guartz said. blah blah.

The whole anarchy concept just smacks of douchey stoners sitting around pissed off because a cop pulled them over or broke up their party or something saying "fuck the government man. FUCK that shit man they fucking run your life man! Things would be so much better if like...shit man imagine if like there WAS no government and people could just...do what they wanted dude! OMG we could get high wherever we wanted lololololol it would be so awesome. Anarchy dude. Kickass!"

Yup, here is a small list of these stoners. Nobody credible at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:A ... _academics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:A ... apitalists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:A ... anarchists

holy fuck, Hunter Thompson was an anarchist? wow. I didn't know that. I'll give you the stoner part for this guy, lol.

[Tyche]

oh and education would likely be 0 years for children of poor parents. how lovely.

at best you'll have manufacturers recruiting the slums and providing only a vocational education to get the job done.

it's really a wonderful means of oppression.

I'm sure it'll be 0-very few years for middle class families as well, as children will be wanting to enter the work force at younger ages. There'll be no regulations preventing a 10 year old running a press. Then, of course, quality of materials will dwindle, as there'll be no standards for what should be used. Millions of kids will die because of lead based paint in toys (that was a joke, however, if there wasn't a government agency to regulate these things, you can begin to see the consequences). So now you have a 10 year old kid putting lugnuts on your cheap ass aluminum wheels so you can freely go and drive 180 milles an hour down Elm street. If a gradual regression in technological advances, and I'm sure society overall, is your cup of tea, this seems great!

[Beckwin]

yes I'm serious about feudalism. it's based entirely on ownership of property. you listen to the lord because he's the richest and he can afford a private army to enforce it; eventually he even gains the power of conscription because of his wealth and influence. you're all serfs on his land; he charges rent for his land and his monopolized services. other less powerful business owners/land owners willfully submit to him in exchange for privilege, forming a greater conglomerate.

any laws or governing bodies existing do so ONLY because of the owners, not a common popular decision of all individuals. laws are corporate edicts handed out by a board of directors and a CEO. not representations of the will of the people.

before feudalism, what was there?