Anarcho-Capitalism

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Now I am not saying the customers were not happier with what they bought, since I know that is what you are going to say, what I am pointing out is that cheaper prices at some point always leads to inferior quality. I will give you another example of this, Snapper vs. Walmat. The Man Who Said No to Walmart In summary the head of Snapper knew that Walmart's plan to create a mass sales plan out of their mowers by dropping the prices ridicuously would result in a serious drop in quality. Unlike GI Joe, Snapper wasn't willing to do that and said no.

 

Was a good article on the workings of a very successful business,and brings up a few points I'd like to expand on.

 

Mr Weir obviously valued his product more than the he valued the compensation he was receiving from Wal-Mart. He made a choice not to accept their offer, so how does that make Wal-Mart bad? All they are trying to do is sell a product that is efficient and cheap enough to compete with other retailers, yet still satisfy their customers. Isn't that what we as consumers and producers want? The best product for the best possible price and the best compensation for the best possible product?

 

I don't get what you were trying to prove with this article, if anything it shows the free market, when allowed to operate, does work. Snapper was only receiving 20% of its sales from Wal-Mart, 80% from independent dealers, so why would they bend to the stipulations/standards of Wal-Mart when it would effect the outcome and standards of the majority of their sales? It would be suicide to do such thing. Voluntary choice to conduct business with your own self interest in mind is the staple for a free market. Snapper's choice is to produce quality mowers for clients who are willing to pay a more expensive price. If no customers deemed their product "fair value" for the asking price, Snapper would either no longer be in business or would have to adjust either their quality or their price. Is this Wal-Mart's fault, absolutely not!!

 

Mr Weir seems like a very good businessman and his successes have proven this. However, one of his statements, even highlighted in the article, is way off base and the reason for much of the unwarranted hatred towards free markets in society today.

 

Wier says, "I'm probably pro-Wal-Mart. I'm certainly not anti-Wal-Mart. I believe Wal-Mart has done a great service to the country in many ways. They offer reasonably good product at very good prices, and they've streamlined the entire distribution system. And it may be that along the way, they've driven some people out of business who shouldn't have been driven out of business." Wier wasn't going to let that happen to Snapper.

 

Weir knows full well Wal-Mart isn't what drives people out of business or he would not have said no to their offer. The lack of a market is what drives people out of business. Mr Weir was armed with the knowledge that a market exists for the quality mowers at a higher price and therefore made the choice to pass on producing cheaper mowers and possibly soiling Snapper's reputation. Every company has a choice and no matter how big Wal-Mart grows, they cannot force any company or consumer to accept their products without the use of force. Since force is a violation of individual rights, those who violate this right are held accountable. Like I have said numerous times, the market decides winners and losers. Both consumers and producers always look out for their own self-interest, this is required in order to live, and neither will accept anything less than what they consider fair value. If the consumer doesn't feel what the producer is asking is a fair value and the producer does not feel that what the consumer is offering is a fair value, the transaction will not occur. When this happens, there is no market and this is what drives people out of business, not Wal-Mart.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Yeah I did. Frankly because when I went through it, the summary of issues was pretty good biased or not. Most of this is documented by credible news outlets or magazines, I just didn't feel like dregging through all of the newspapers or news sights to pull them out. I don't actively support any of these groups, frankly most days I don't think about Walmart. They are just a good example in this case because of their history of recent issues.

 

So what you are really saying is, I didn't bother to check the credibility of anything in this article but I agreed with it, so it must be true. Nice!!

No, that isn't what I am saying. Notice I said, "Most of this is documented by credible news outlets or magazines," what part of that don't you understand? I have read about all of this before, I don't need to check the credibility out of the issues. I read through the issues they have posted and for 80%+ of them I have read multiple articles or heard multiple news reports on said issues. Man you have a habit of just jumping off on something and making wild comments. Either take the time to read something for its meaning or don't bother commenting.

 

You also find credibility in government which steals money from individuals, forcing them to obey laws it creates, which only it can benefit from. Does that mean stealing and coercion are right? From your logic on credibility, yes!!

 

Credibility is only valid if everyone agrees the information is credible. You did not bother to share the sources of information so how can we all agree they are credible. Are we to just assume you are credible? If so, that's pretty illogical.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Honestly, I don't think that an anarchist society would last for that long. As soon as a person is born he is taught to obey. Without government people would be lost and would form a government as soon as they could.

 

I just saw this quote and thought it fit your post.

 

"We love the anarchy we live. We fear the anarchy we imagine – the anarchy we are taught

to fear."

 

No truer words about anarchy have been uttered and it's the very premise for the book Everyday Anarchy by Stefan Molyneux

[carlfense]

 

(My replies in bold.)

 

Feel free to get into my issues, isn’t that what this discussion is about? What circles am I taking his argument in? The one that proves it and government to be a contradiction, which doesn't benefit your argument so you say you won't get into it.

 

Sorry Socal. I think everyone reading this thread except yourself thinks that you are the one talking in circles. I also think I have done an acceptable job of backing my posts with facts. You seem to be getting a little emotionally involved in this and it is showing through in your posts.

 

Let's boil this down to one or two points for the sake of efficiency:

 

A. You claimed that the sole purpose of our government was to ensure personal freedom. I disproved that by showing that the opening statement of our governmental framework (the Constitution) clearly states otherwise. You attempted to bend that very statement to fit with your claim. Your attempt was largely unsuccessful. Then you attempted to claim that the Declaration of Independence provided the framework and purpose for the US government. That was also disproved.

 

B. You claim that an A/C system would rely on a rule of law that is enforced by for-profit businesses. I asked you where these rules would come from and who would interpret them, and you did not provide an answer. (I guess you said that they would be rules we would all agree on . . . but that's impossible and you know it.) Laws don't spring up out of the earth or are just found engraved in stone (unless you are Moses ). Laws must be written by people. Who are these people? How can a supposed anarchist support a body of people who write laws that apply to others? Who interprets these laws? (for example, say you have a relatively simple law that says no one can enter the property of another without permission. What then if person A is tossed (against his will) onto B's property without B's permission? Does the law still apply? How? If you want more complicated examples I'd be happy to oblige.)) Laws don't create themselves, and laws don't enforce themselves. That's the yet another purpose of government.

 

1. What you describe is called efficiency. You call it sacrifice, but it is not. Sacrifice is the act of giving up something of greater value for something of less value. Since humans are rational beings, we have the ability to weigh the value of something as it pertains to us. Therefore, if the customer did not think he was getting a fair value he would not buy a product. It is in the best interest of the customer to receive a fair value for what he is giving up. The same goes for the producer. Did it ever occur to you that maybe the bigger, better quality products were going for a price cheaper than the actual value of them to the producer. And maybe the producers needed to create a more efficient product to ensure the trade was fair to them? So yes, you are right that maybe the product is cheaper, but that doesn't mean it's still not a fair value for both the producer and the consumer. If neither was happy, the transaction would not take place and neither the producer or the consumer would profit from it.

 

You say "humans are rational beings." If you truly believe that then your argument is well and truly lost. Watch the news tonight. You'll see at least one example of completely irrational behavior. A/C MIGHT be a bit more practical if all people were rational, but alas. They are not.

 

2. You are correct about businesses in our current system not caring about the customer, or the long-term impacts they have on anything. This is because of one thing, government intervention. We don't live in a free market society so for you to base your reasoning on that which doesn't currently exists would be false. We live in a fascist, centrally planned economy in which the government controls all business (through regulation, taxes, tariffs, etc) but gives the facade of private ownership. Why do you think every company that has needed to be bailed out has been, because each is essentially owned by the government and the governments "kick-back” would cease if the businesses fail. So they use taxpayer (my, you, our) money to re-inflate a business actually owned by them. Talk about a win-win situation. In a free market society, there is no government intervention and therefore in order for a business to succeed, it had better care about the customer. If not, it would not be in business very long. There is no way to force product on anyone without violating the rights of each individual, so that throws your argument of force out the window. Also, how can a business pollute without violating the property rights of another individual? In a free market society, those who violate the rights of others are held accountable.

 

Hmmm. Governmental intervention blamed once again. It's becoming clearer that you think of this with what some might call a religious fervor. The shining white god of the free market compared with the dark and evil devil of the government. The real world is never as black and white as you make it out to be.

 

Secondly, nobody said that individuals couldn't band together and pay for security, only that it must be voluntary. If it was voluntary, that is not government. Government is not voluntary. It uses coercion and force to accomplish its ends. Is that not a violation of each individual’s rights? Do I consent to have my wages stolen to provide so-called "national defense" which includes policing every corner the world except for area I choose to defend? Absolutely not!!! I have no say in the matter and that is what government is, a non-consensual organization that robs from everyone, for the so-called betterment of society, in order to protect the interests of few. There is no such thing as “for the good of society.” It is a concept made up, by government and it’s supporters, to further the interests of government. Since society consists of individuals, it is only the betterment of the individual that will actually better society. If any individual gives up something for the betterment of someone else, without the return of something of equal value, which is sacrifice, how are they bettering themselves? If they are not, how can they better society?

 

Our government is indeed voluntary. (assuming you are not incarcerated or otherwise unable to travel). Anyone dissatisfied with US rules is free to choose a more suitable place to live. How is that not voluntary?

 

3. As for Wal-Mart, see my argument for our current economic system. It should answer any questions you have.

 

Socal, it worries me that you only cite these anarchist sources. It seems that you are falling into the classic trap of only reading those things that you agree with. It'd be similar to a hardcore conservative getting his news exclusively from Limbaugh, or a hardcore liberal only reading his news from the NYT. Branch out a little. This is how people become so blinded and focused that they can't carry on a rational and informed discussion.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

I won't get into your issues with carlfense's arguement because you are taking it in circles. I guess we agree to disagree on those major points. I will look at the links you provided, but I am still not sure why you can't give a general overview of how the security would work with some detail?

 

 

I'm sorry to not be able to answer the question to your satisfaction but I honestly don't know in detail how justice will work beyond what I have shared. I've provided details to the extent of my knowledge and provided sources for information that might help further answer your question. This shortcoming on my part led me to research what ways I could possibly answer your question. In mulling this over, I came across this reading and thought I'd share. The portion in red answers your question better than I ever could. The rest is a very good read though and provides an excellent preface to what is explained. Enjoy!!

 

Problems of the Commons

 

Ask almost any professional economist what the role of government is, and he will generally reply that it is to regulate or solve the “problem of the commons,” and to make up for “market failures,” or the provision of public goods such as roads and water delivery that the free market cannot achieve on its own.

 

To anyone who works from historical evidence and even a basic smattering of first principles, this answer is, to be frank, outlandishly unfounded.

 

The “problem of the commons” is the idea that if farmers share common ground for grazing their sheep, that each farmer has a personal incentive for overgrazing, which will harm everyone in general. Thus the immediate self-interest of each individual leads to a collective stripping of the land.

 

It only takes a moment’s thought to realize that the government is the worst possible solution for this problem – if indeed it is a problem.

 

The problem of the commons recognizes that where collective ownership exists, individual exploitation will inevitably result, since there is no incentive for the long-term maintenance of the productivity of whatever is collectively owned. A farmer takes good care of his own fields, because he wants to profit from their utilization in the future. In fact, ownership tends to accrue to those individuals who can make the most productive future use of an asset, since they are the ones able to bid the most when it comes up for sale. If I can make $10,000 a year more out of a patch of land than you can, then I will be willing to bid more

for it, and thus will end up owning it.

 

Thus where there is no stake in future profitability – as in the case of publicly-owned resources – those resources inevitably tend to be pillaged and destroyed.

 

This is the situation that highly intelligent, well-educated people – with perfectly straight faces – say should be solved through the creation of a government.

 

Why is this such a bizarre solution?

 

Well, a government – and particularly the public treasury – is the ultimate publicly-owned good. If publicly-owned goods are always pillaged and exploited, then how is the creation of the largest and most violent publicly-owned good supposed to solve that problem? It’s like saying that exposure to sunlight can be dangerous for a person’s health, and so the solution to that problem is to throw people into the sun.

 

The fact that people can repeat these absurdities with perfectly straight faces is testament to the power of propaganda and self-interest.

 

In the same way, we are told that free-market monopolies are dangerous and exploitive. Companies that wish to voluntarily do business with us, and must appeal to our self-interest, to mutual advantage, are considered grave threats to our personal freedoms.

 

And – the solution that is proposed by almost everyone to the “problem” of voluntary economic interaction?

 

Well, since voluntary and peaceful “monopolies” are so terribly evil, the solution that is always proposed is to create an involuntary, coercive, and violent monopoly in the form of a government.

 

Thus voluntary and peaceful “monopolies” are a great evil – but the involuntary and violent monopoly of the state is the greatest good!?

 

Can you see why I began this book talking about our complicated and ambivalent relationship to voluntarism, or anarchy?

 

We see this same pattern repeating itself in the realm of education. Whenever an anarchist talks about a stateless society, he is inevitably informed that in a free society, poor children will not get educated. Where does this opinion come from? Does it come from a steadfast dedication to reason and evidence, an adherence to well-documented facts? Do those who hold this opinion have certain evidence that, prior to public education, the children of the poor were not being educated? Do they genuinely believe that the children of the poor are being well-educated now? Do they seriously believe that anarchists do not care about the education of the poor? Do they believe that they are the only people who care about the education of the poor?

 

Of course not. This is a mere knee-jerk propagandistic reaction, like hearing a Soviet-era Red Guard boy mumbling about the necessity of the workers controlling the means of production. It is not based upon evidence, but upon prejudice.

 

If the “problem of the commons” and the predations of monopolies are such dire threats, then surely institutionalizing these problems and surrounding them with the endless violence of police, military and prisons would be the exact opposite of a rational solution!

 

Of course, the problem of the commons is only a problem because the land is collectively owned; move it to private ownership, and all is well. Thus the solution to the problem of public ownership is clearly more private ownership, not more public ownership.

 

Ah, say the statists, but that is just a metaphor – what about fish in the ocean, pollution in the rivers, roads in the city and the defense of the realm?

 

Well the simple answer to that – from an anarchist perspective at least – is that if people are not intelligent and reasonable enough to negotiate solutions to these problems in a productive and sustainable manner, then surely they are also not intelligent or reasonable enough to vote for political leaders, or participate in any government whatsoever.

 

Of course, there are endless historical examples of private roads and railways, private fisheries, social and economic ostracism as an effective punishment for over-use or pollution of shared resources – the endless inventiveness of our species should surely by now never fail to amaze!

 

The statist looks at a problem and always sees a gun as the only solution – the force of the state, the brutality of law, violence and punishment. The anarchist – the endless entrepreneur of social organization – always looks at a problem and sees an opportunity for peaceful, innovative, charitable or profitable problem-solving.

 

The statist looks at a population and sees an irrational and selfish horde that needs to be endlessly herded around at gunpoint – and yet looks at those who run the government as selfless, benevolent and saintly. Yet these same statists always look at this irrational and dangerous population and say: “You must have the right to choose your political leaders!”

 

It is truly an unsustainable and irrational set of positions.

 

An anarchist – like any good economist or scientist – is more than happy to look at a problem and say, “I do not know the solution” – and be perfectly happy not imposing a solution through force. Darwin looked at the question, “Where did life come from?” and only came up with his famous answer because he was willing to admit that he did not know – but that existing religious “answers” were invalid. Theologians, on the other hand, claim to “answer” the same question with: “God made life,” which as mentioned above, on closer examination, always turns out to be an exact synonym for: “I do not know.” To say, “God did it,” is to say that some unknowable being performed some incomprehensible action in a completely mysterious manner for some never-to-be-discovered end.

 

In other words: “I haven’t a clue.”

 

In the same way, when faced with challenges of social organization such as collective self defense, roads, pollution and so on, the anarchist is perfectly content to say, “I do not know how this problem will be solved.” As a corollary, however, the anarchist is also perfectly certain that the pseudo-answer of “the government will do it” is a total non-answer – in fact, it is an anti-answer, in that it provides the illusion of an answer where one does not in fact exist. To an anarchist, saying “the government will solve the problem,” has as much credibility as telling a biologist – usually with grating condescension – “God created life.” In

both cases, the problem of infinite regression is blindly ignored – if that which exists must have been created by a God, the God which exists must have been created by another God, and so on. In the same way, if human beings are in general too irrational and selfish to work out the challenges of social organization in a productive and positive manner, then they are far too irrational and selfish to be given the monopolistic violence of state power, or vote for their leaders.

 

Asking an anarchist how every conceivable existing public function could be re-created in a stateless society is directly analogous to asking an economist what the economy will look like down to the last detail 50 years from now. What will be invented? How will interplanetary contracts be enforced? Exactly how will time travel affect the price of a rental car? What megahertz will computers be running at? What will operating systems be able to do? And so on and so on.

 

This is all a kind of elaborate game designed to, fundamentally, stall and humiliate any economist who falls for it. A certain amount of theorizing is always fun, of course, but the truth is not determined by accurate long-term predictions of the unknowable. Asking Albert Einstein in 1910 where the atomic bomb will be dropped in the future is not a credible question – and the fact that he is unable to answer it in no way invalidates the theory of relativity.

 

In the same way, we can imagine that abolitionists would have been asked exactly how society would look 20 years after the slaves were freed. How many of them would have jobs? What would the average number of kids per family be? Who would be working the plantations?

 

Though these questions may sound absurd to many people, when you propose even the vague possibility of a society without a government, you are almost inevitably maneuvered into the position of fighting a many-headed hydra of exactly such questions: “How will the roads be provided in the absence of a "government?” “How will the poor be educated?” “How will a stateless society defend itself?” “How can people without a government deal with violent criminals?”

 

In 25 years of talking about just these subjects, I have almost never – even after credibly answering every question that comes my way – had someone sit back, sigh and say, “Gee, I guess it really could work!”

 

No, inevitably, what happens is that they come up with some situation that I cannot answer immediately, or in a way that satisfies them, and then they sit back and say in triumph, “You see? Society just cannot work without a government!”

 

What is actually quite funny about this situation is that by taking this approach, people think that they are opposing the idea of anarchy, when in fact they are completely supporting it.

 

One simple and basic fact of life is that no individual – or group of individuals – can ever be wise or knowledgeable enough to run society.

 

Our core fantasy of “government” is that in some remote and sunlit chamber, with lacquered mahogany tables, deep leather chairs and sleepless men and women, there exists a group who are so wise, so benevolent, so omniscient and so incorruptible that we should turn over to them the education of our children, the preservation of our elderly, the salvation of the poor, the provision of vital services, the healing of the sick, the defense of the realm and of property, the administration of justice, the punishment of criminals, and the regulation of virtually every aspect of a massive, infinitely complex and ever-changing social and economic system. These living man-gods have such perfect knowledge and perfect wisdom that we should hand them weapons of mass destruction, and the endless power to tax, imprison and print money – and nothing but good, plenty and virtue will result.

 

And then, of course, we say that the huddled and bleating masses, who could never achieve such wisdom and virtue, not even in their wildest dreams, should all get together and vote to surrender half their income, their children, their elderly and the future itself to these man-gods.

 

Of course, we never do get to actually see and converse with these deities. When we do actually listen to politicians, all we hear are pious sentiments, endless evasions, pompous speeches and all of the emotionally manipulative tricks of a bed-ridden and abusive parent.

 

Are these the demi-gods whose only mission is the care, nurturing and education of our precious children’s minds?

 

Perhaps we can speak to the experts who advise them, the men behind the throne, the shadowy puppet-masters of pure wisdom and virtue? Can they come forward and reveal to us the magnificence of their knowledge? Why no, these men and women also will not speak to us, or if they do, they turn out to be even more disappointing than their political masters, who at least can make stirring if empty phrases ring out across a crowded hall.

 

And so, if we like, we can wander these halls of Justice, Truth and Virtue forever, opening doors and asking questions, without ever once meeting this plenary council of moral superheroes. We can shuffle in ever-growing disappointment through the messy offices of these mere mortals, and recognize in them a dusty mirror of ourselves – no more, certainly,and often far less.

 

Anarchy is the simple recognition that no man, woman, or group thereof is ever wise enough to come up with the best possible way to run other people’s lives. Just as no one else should be able to enforce on you his choice of a marriage partner, or compel you to follow a career of his choosing, no one else should be able to enforce his preferences for social organization upon you.

 

Thus when the anarchist is expected to answer every possible question regarding how society will be organized in the absence of a government, any failure to perfectly answer even one of them completely validates the anarchist’s position.

 

If we recognize that no individual has the capacity to run society (“dictatorship”), and we recognize that no group of elites has the capacity to run society (“aristocracy”), we are then forced to defend the moral and practical absurdity of “democracy.”

 

To read Anarchy and Democracy click HEREand go to page 24.

[carlfense]

So your highlighted section in red is basically saying "we don't know how it will work . . . just trust us. It will work." Yikes. Sounds cult-ish.

[SOCALHUSKER]

So your highlighted section in red is basically saying "we don't know how it will work . . . just trust us. It will work." Yikes. Sounds cult-ish.

 

No, it says trust yourself, you know what is in your best interest.

 

The "trust us" is the cultish system we have in place today, which you adamantly support.

[carlfense]

So your highlighted section in red is basically saying "we don't know how it will work . . . just trust us. It will work." Yikes. Sounds cult-ish.

 

No, it says trust yourself, you know what is in your best interest.

 

The "trust us" is the cultish system we have in place today, which you adamantly support.

 

Despite your choice of buzzwords ("trust yourself") they are indeed saying trust us. For example, how could I trust myself to defend against a foreign state such as China? I'm sorry . . . I simply cannot put much trust in lonely old me with a rifle against an army of millions. Your article wants us to believe that the free market would provide a solution . . . despite the fact that it can't even hypothesize a way in which the free market would attempt this. That shows a distinct lack of believability and credibility.

 

Also, I wouldn't say that I am an adamant supporter of our government. I'd say more that I see it as the best compromise between individual rights and governmental power that I have yet seen. From what I've seen from the articles that you have posted here, anarcho-capitalism is in no way a viable system. In fact, quite frankly, the sources posted look to be the work of nut-jobs who work very hard to convince others that their ideas sound intelligent. If you read them critically you will notice that all they manage to do is talk in circles. Government is bad because government is bad. The free market is good because the free market is good.

[huskerjack23]

like i said before, he believes in the infallibility of an invisible hand yet doesn't take into account the fallibility of man.

 

that's the definition of religion.

[SOCALHUSKER]

So your highlighted section in red is basically saying "we don't know how it will work . . . just trust us. It will work." Yikes. Sounds cult-ish.

 

No, it says trust yourself, you know what is in your best interest.

 

The "trust us" is the cultish system we have in place today, which you adamantly support.

 

Despite your choice of buzzwords ("trust yourself") they are indeed saying trust us. For example, how could I trust myself to defend against a foreign state such as China? I'm sorry . . . I simply cannot put much trust in lonely old me with a rifle against an army of millions. Your article wants us to believe that the free market would provide a solution . . . despite the fact that it can't even hypothesize a way in which the free market would attempt this. That shows a distinct lack of believability and credibility.

 

Also, I wouldn't say that I am an adamant supporter of our government. I'd say more that I see it as the best compromise between individual rights and governmental power that I have yet seen. From what I've seen from the articles that you have posted here, anarcho-capitalism is in no way a viable system. In fact, quite frankly, the sources posted look to be the work of nut-jobs who work very hard to convince others that their ideas sound intelligent. If you read them critically you will notice that all they manage to do is talk in circles. Government is bad because government is bad. The free market is good because the free market is good.

 

You must have skipped or misread all the proof and logic outlining the ineptness and coerciveness of government and the prosperity and freedom derived from a free market, to come to that conclusion. Either that or too much government education and propaganda has you confused about what reality and the facts of history really are.

 

What you call talking in circles, is merely logically linking ideas and proof in order to provide a logical conclusion, I'd hardly call that the work of nut-jobs. It's called rationalization.

[huskerjack23]

So your highlighted section in red is basically saying "we don't know how it will work . . . just trust us. It will work." Yikes. Sounds cult-ish.

 

No, it says trust yourself, you know what is in your best interest.

 

The "trust us" is the cultish system we have in place today, which you adamantly support.

 

Despite your choice of buzzwords ("trust yourself") they are indeed saying trust us. For example, how could I trust myself to defend against a foreign state such as China? I'm sorry . . . I simply cannot put much trust in lonely old me with a rifle against an army of millions. Your article wants us to believe that the free market would provide a solution . . . despite the fact that it can't even hypothesize a way in which the free market would attempt this. That shows a distinct lack of believability and credibility.

 

Also, I wouldn't say that I am an adamant supporter of our government. I'd say more that I see it as the best compromise between individual rights and governmental power that I have yet seen. From what I've seen from the articles that you have posted here, anarcho-capitalism is in no way a viable system. In fact, quite frankly, the sources posted look to be the work of nut-jobs who work very hard to convince others that their ideas sound intelligent. If you read them critically you will notice that all they manage to do is talk in circles. Government is bad because government is bad. The free market is good because the free market is good.

 

You must have skipped or misread all the proof and logic outlining the ineptness and coerciveness of government and the prosperity and freedom derived from a free market, to come to that conclusion. Either that or too much government education and propaganda has you confused about what reality and the facts of history really are.

 

What you call talking in circles, is merely logically linking ideas and proof in order to provide a logical conclusion, I'd hardly call that the work of nut-jobs. It's called rationalization.

nope...i'm not gonna read that and think it's the gospel of the free market. jesus is more believable than A/C

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

nope...i'm not gonna read that and think it's the gospel of the free market. jesus is more believable than A/C

 

This only proves your true ignorance and lack of ratiuonal thought. Further, it shows there's no point in even discussing or replying to any of your posts. Thanks for contributing though!!

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Despite your choice of buzzwords ("trust yourself") they are indeed saying trust us. For example, how could I trust myself to defend against a foreign state such as China? I'm sorry . . . I simply cannot put much trust in lonely old me with a rifle against an army of millions. Your article wants us to believe that the free market would provide a solution . . . despite the fact that it can't even hypothesize a way in which the free market would attempt this. That shows a distinct lack of believability and credibility.

 

Also, I wouldn't say that I am an adamant supporter of our government. I'd say more that I see it as the best compromise between individual rights and governmental power that I have yet seen. From what I've seen from the articles that you have posted here, anarcho-capitalism is in no way a viable system. In fact, quite frankly, the sources posted look to be the work of nut-jobs who work very hard to convince others that their ideas sound intelligent. If you read them critically you will notice that all they manage to do is talk in circles. Government is bad because government is bad. The free market is good because the free market is good.

 

What do you mean can't even hypothesize? Many well-researched, well-documented, factually-based, and historically accurate works have been written, printed and distributed proving the free market would absolutely account for the use of force by any individual or group, and that it would do so in a much more efficient and just way than any government could ever aspire. You obviously haven't read Hans-Hermann Hoppe's "The Myth of National Defense", Bruce Benson's "The Enterprise of Law" or "To Serve and Protect", Murray Rothbard's "For A New Liberty", Edward Stringham's "Anarchy and The Law" or "Anarchy, State, and the Public Choice", Wes Bertrand's "Complete Liberty" or the Tanehills "Market For Liberty." If you had, you would not only realize anarchy is a rational reality, but that it is the only possible way for a human being to not live a life of slavery.

 

You ridicule and scold me for not searching out and exploring all the options and opinions available, but it is you who is actually not willing to search out and question the validity and credibility of information. Just because a person listens, watches or reads a conservative, liberal, green, or socialist take about the government doesn't mean they are actually getting any alternatives opinions. They are still only getting the opinion that government is the only way. The alternative is reading, watching and listening to those who's take is that of no government. Every single day I live, breath, hear, read and watch the very system of endless propaganda, theft, coercion and slavery, you claim is superior to the freedom of the market. I would have to be dead not to be exposed to it. Therefore, if logical and rational information is presented to me, proving an alternative system is available, would I not be illogical or irrational not to look into it? Are you scared of the truth, the responsibility or do you really find it necessary to run other people's lives?

 

You say you don't support our government, except that everything you have said, and more than likely the actions in "your" life, prove that you have absolute support for the government. Do you vote? Do you support taxation? Do you believe in the regulation of the market? Do you sanction a system which allows men to make rules, based on their beliefs and values, that other men are forced to follow? Do you believe or sanction the idea that government knows how to run your life better than you do? If you answer yes to any of these questions, you support government. It really doesn't matter if you support the current government, a dictatorship, a monarchy, or any other form of government for that matter, because each is still government.

 

Government cannot exist without money to fund its activities. Therefore, to raise money, the government extracts payment from its subjects in the form of taxation through coercion and force. Since you support the government, you must also support theft, coercion and force. If you support theft, coercion and force then it must be ok for everyone else to steal, threaten and kill. If that is not ok, then we have a conflict of interest and therefore a contradiction. You might say it is for the "greater good" (which is a government created myth I have already dispelled in a previous post). But if the "greater good" was theoretically possible, why can't someone else steal for the greater good? You're so eager to disprove or question any arguments for the A/C system, you never bother to answer or question that which you support. Why is that?

[huskerjack23]

 

nope...i'm not gonna read that and think it's the gospel of the free market. jesus is more believable than A/C

 

This only proves your true ignorance and lack of ratiuonal thought. Further, it shows there's no point in even discussing or replying to any of your posts. Thanks for contributing though!!

excuse me...i'm not the one shouting the free market to the rooftop when it's pure form can only be proven in theory. it doesn't take the fallibility of man into account.

 

yes there needs to be less government, but a no government society will strive for some form of government.

[carlfense]

 

"What is actually quite funny about this situation (people raising arguments against anarcho-capitalism) is that by taking this approach, people think that they are opposing the idea of anarchy, when in fact they are completely supporting it."

 

Come on Socal. If that's not talking in circles what is? Let me re-phrase it so that you can more easily see how ridiculous this argument is: If you disagree with me and make arguments against my position they you clearly agree with me. This is a classic example of a statement that cannot be disproved; i.e. talking in circles. Let's try another example: I say I'm not stupid. Because you say that I am stupid you clearly agree with me that I am not stupid. (the quote I cited is directly from your article). The author also claims that his argument is more credible because people seldom agree with it. What a joke. I wrote more cohesive arguments as a freshman in philosophy class.