Anarcho-Capitalism

[carlfense]

Well, SOCAL, I hope someone else takes up the debate. I've devoted about 20 minutes a day to this thread, and I think it's time I utilized that time elsewhere. It's been fun.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Well, SOCAL, I hope someone else takes up the debate. I've devoted about 20 minutes a day to this thread, and I think it's time I utilized that time elsewhere. It's been fun.

 

That's too bad!! It has been fun though!! Thanks for debating me and helping me learn a lot more than I would have by merely reading. Good luck with school and I'm sure we'll be chatting on here again sometime.

[caveman99]

 

that just assumes the scenario of peaceful and prosperous existence. it also assumes that the person offering a better existence isn't talking to a gullible moron or a person that can't be convinced that the offer isn't worth taking. i'm gonna take the probability stance and say that you're wrong.

 

Where are you getting the probability? Your opinion? Historical evidence proves the existence of government leads to less prosperity and less peace, there's no assumption involved.

Well since mankind is a naturally violent species by nature, all you have to do is look in a history book to see that. I think that is part of his probability. Regarding the gullible portion of the probability, I will use the belief in religion as a good example. You said it yourself, religion is a bunch of hooey yet an overwhelming majority of the population on this planet are gullible enough to buy into it.

 

- Edit -

I should clarify, I am not saying that religion is bad. I am just saying from Socal's point of view religion is bad and yet people seem to still believe.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

that just assumes the scenario of peaceful and prosperous existence. it also assumes that the person offering a better existence isn't talking to a gullible moron or a person that can't be convinced that the offer isn't worth taking. i'm gonna take the probability stance and say that you're wrong.

 

Where are you getting the probability? Your opinion? Historical evidence proves the existence of government leads to less prosperity and less peace, there's no assumption involved.

Well since mankind is a naturally violent species by nature, all you have to do is look in a history book to see that. I think that is part of his probability. Regarding the gullible portion of the probability, I will use the belief in religion as a good example. You said it yourself, religion is a bunch of hooey yet an overwhelming majority of the population on this planet are gullible enough to buy into it.

 

- Edit -

I should clarify, I am not saying that religion is bad. I am just saying from Socal's point of view religion is bad and yet people seem to still believe.

 

If history is where huskerjack23 derives his probability from, then he definitely needs to recalculate it and rethink his logic. You claim that man is violent by nature and point to history as proof, but if you actually study history, without the aid of a government history book, but instead by actually studying the empirical data of history. You will without a doubt, come to the conclusion polar opposite of what you have stated. Man, himself, is not violent by nature. Man, with the force of government, is always violent by nature. It is due to this exact reason, why we need to rid ourselves of all government and return man to his non-violent, peaceful, and prosperous nature.

 

Man, himself, will always do what is in his best interest in order to ensure his survival. This includes not being violent to others, because that would leave man susceptible to the violence of others and to the consequences and accountability of his violence. Neither of these would be in the best interest of man. Government on the other hand is violent at its core, because coercion and force is always needed to ensure the implementation and existence of government. A quick look at history shows that government is by far, the most violent force in the existence of man.

 

According to data taken from a University of Hawaii professor’s book and study on the Death By Government, in the 20th Century alone, governments have been the cause of over 200 million deaths. This number doesn’t even reflect all government violence, merely the ultimate violence, murder. That’s roughly murdering 4 percent of the entire population of the world. To put this astounding number into perspective, a typical Husker game crowd in Lincoln is about 80,000 give or take; governments thus murdered the equivalent of 2,500 Husker games crowds in the past century (200,000,000/80,000). That’s 357 seasons worth of killings (averaging 7 home games/year, 2500/7) or almost 5,500 murders, on average, every single day. Is this the same compassion and betterment of society that supporter’s of government say we need, in order to stop “naturally” violent men from ruining society?

 

 

Also, for the record, I've never said religion is bad. I said I find it illogical and don't see how people can worship something based upon a "feeling" with no evidence whatsoever backing it. If an individual chooses to do so, they are well within their rights. What gets me, is when they try to force it upon others and attempt to rule society according to "their" moral beliefs and feelings. Using the force of government is the only way this is possible and precisely, what I think is bad.

[SOCALHUSKER]

bump

[huskerjack23]

 

that just assumes the scenario of peaceful and prosperous existence. it also assumes that the person offering a better existence isn't talking to a gullible moron or a person that can't be convinced that the offer isn't worth taking. i'm gonna take the probability stance and say that you're wrong.

 

Where are you getting the probability? Your opinion? Historical evidence proves the existence of government leads to less prosperity and less peace, there's no assumption involved.

Well since mankind is a naturally violent species by nature, all you have to do is look in a history book to see that. I think that is part of his probability. Regarding the gullible portion of the probability, I will use the belief in religion as a good example. You said it yourself, religion is a bunch of hooey yet an overwhelming majority of the population on this planet are gullible enough to buy into it.

 

- Edit -

I should clarify, I am not saying that religion is bad. I am just saying from Socal's point of view religion is bad and yet people seem to still believe.

 

If history is where huskerjack23 derives his probability from, then he definitely needs to recalculate it and rethink his logic. You claim that man is violent by nature and point to history as proof, but if you actually study history, without the aid of a government history book, but instead by actually studying the empirical data of history. You will without a doubt, come to the conclusion polar opposite of what you have stated. Man, himself, is not violent by nature. Man, with the force of government, is always violent by nature. It is due to this exact reason, why we need to rid ourselves of all government and return man to his non-violent, peaceful, and prosperous nature.

 

Man, himself, will always do what is in his best interest in order to ensure his survival. This includes not being violent to others, because that would leave man susceptible to the violence of others and to the consequences and accountability of his violence. Neither of these would be in the best interest of man. Government on the other hand is violent at its core, because coercion and force is always needed to ensure the implementation and existence of government. A quick look at history shows that government is by far, the most violent force in the existence of man.

 

According to data taken from a University of Hawaii professor’s book and study on the Death By Government, in the 20th Century alone, governments have been the cause of over 200 million deaths. This number doesn’t even reflect all government violence, merely the ultimate violence, murder. That’s roughly murdering 4 percent of the entire population of the world. To put this astounding number into perspective, a typical Husker game crowd in Lincoln is about 80,000 give or take; governments thus murdered the equivalent of 2,500 Husker games crowds in the past century (200,000,000/80,000). That’s 357 seasons worth of killings (averaging 7 home games/year, 2500/7) or almost 5,500 murders, on average, every single day. Is this the same compassion and betterment of society that supporter’s of government say we need, in order to stop “naturally” violent men from ruining society?

 

 

Also, for the record, I've never said religion is bad. I said I find it illogical and don't see how people can worship something based upon a "feeling" with no evidence whatsoever backing it. If an individual chooses to do so, they are well within their rights. What gets me, is when they try to force it upon others and attempt to rule society according to "their" moral beliefs and feelings. Using the force of government is the only way this is possible and precisely, what I think is bad.

i'm sure it's all because of government that a primitive nature of man is utilized. it's because of the rules government makes and enforces that people lie, cheat, and steal. it's because of government that the indigenous tribes all across the world killed each other to gain land.

 

i have to say i agree with carlfense. you're out of arguments. we all agree that too much government is bad. but you can't convince any one with more than half a brain that no government is the way to go.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

i'm sure it's all because of government that a primitive nature of man is utilized. it's because of the rules government makes and enforces that people lie, cheat, and steal. it's because of government that the indigenous tribes all across the world killed each other to gain land.

 

i have to say i agree with carlfense. you're out of arguments. we all agree that too much government is bad. but you can't convince any one with more than half a brain that no government is the way to go.

 

Says the poster who can never answer a single question with anything remotely resembling a logical or factually-based point. Do you have any evidence to prove anything you say? I know this may come as a surprise, but logic and facts are needed in order to argue. That, and a whole brain. If you can't or don't have either, you might as well quit.

 

Since you choose to respond with nothing more than an opinion. I'll have to take it to mean you have absolutely zero grounds for your point of view and will therefore disregard any argument you may make. If you would like to prove my statements false, maybe a little factually-based proof might be a good start.

[huskerjack23]

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”

 

Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein

 

this is my opinion. there are many differing opinions on what the nature of man is. but i'm gonna believe world renowned scientists. it doesn't prove anything, but this is definitely something i believe because it's something that i myself observe on a day to day basis. i can't give you facts because i can only tell you what i observe. they haven't been validated by scientists, as far as i know, but i'm sure if einstein can reach the same conclusion, i don't think i'm very far away from the truth of the psychology of man.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”

 

Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein

 

this is my opinion. there are many differing opinions on what the nature of man is. but i'm gonna believe world renowned scientists. it doesn't prove anything, but this is definitely something i believe because it's something that i myself observe on a day to day basis. i can't give you facts because i can only tell you what i observe. they haven't been validated by scientists, as far as i know, but i'm sure if einstein can reach the same conclusion, i don't think i'm very far away from the truth of the psychology of man.

 

What happens to your position if Einstein's is wrong? I read your/his article and I'm currently critiquing it. Hopefully, I'll have it posted tomorrow.

[huskerjack23]

i don't believe he's wrong. i would i have a position if he's wrong, if i don't think he's wrong. it's an opinion he has based on observations and i happen to share that opinion based on my own.

 

simple.

[SOCALHUSKER]

i don't believe he's wrong. i would i have a position if he's wrong, if i don't think he's wrong. it's an opinion he has based on observations and i happen to share that opinion based on my own.

 

simple.

 

Except that plain and simply, socialism has been proven not to work!! And Einstein was 100% wrong.

 

Like I have said before, in order to debate you must have facts and proof to back up your claims. If you cannot or will not provide any, your arguments are merely opinions and will be treated as such. Opinions are hardly a reason for anyone, besides half-brainers, to believe or take seriously anything you dispute. If you think or feel a certain way, I would suggest backing up your opinions with logical and rational proof before you parade it around as such. Also, if someone proves your argument wrong, it might behoove you to rethink your opinion and actually base it on something a little bit more logical.

[huskerjack23]

i don't believe anyone has proven my argument wrong. i also believe that socialism hasn't been disproven. the scandinavian countries are doing just fine, the last time i checked.

 

i also believe that these "facts" you bring to the table are skewed to fit the A/C model. i don't feel those observations are true, based on my own observations.

 

you can't convince me because i know what i've seen and heard and touched and read. this is the crossroads of our argument because we can't get past each others' observations on the world.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein

 

 

If there is one thing Einstein managed to correctly state in his essay Why Socialism?, it is his opening statement. He says “it is advisable for one who is not an expert in economics or social issues to express views on the subject of socialism.” After reading his take on economics, it’s easy to see how he came to this conclusion. For if one has no clue about the basics of economics, please spare everyone else the fallacy laced arguments of an essay, admit you are a socialist, and don’t bother explaining. We can then shift our attention to more productive debates and both be spared the voice of eternal poverty.

 

Fortunately, history provides us the hindsight to say that, and if Einstein was ever wrong about anything, he is 100% wrong about the need for socialism. While he does go through great lengths to prove that society has a problem, he incorrectly identifies it and therefore arrives at the wrong solution. Not only is his conclusion wrong, but like all anti-free market economists, Einstein mistakes the effects of government intervention as the work of the free market. This leaves his argument for what it is, completely baseless!

 

As one of the brightest minds in the history of mankind, Einstein felt it was his duty to expel what he thought to be evil. And though I am no Einstein, I will attempt to do the same. In this paper I will discuss the basis for Einstein’s reasoning, the problem he overlooks and most of all, why socialism, the solution he selected, will never be a viable economic solution.

 

The first task Einstein’s undertakes is to establish the problem of society. In order to do so, he discusses the evolution of society and how man has failed to move past the “predatory phase” of development. He states that the real purpose of socialism is to overcome this phase, but he leaves the details of how this will be accomplished at that.

 

According to him, economic facts are derived from the “predatory phase,” therefore economic science cannot help society advance beyond this stage. However, what he fails to comprehend, or purposely ignores, is the fact that government, whom he also describes as the largest guide to society, is actually what influences and effects the laws of society and economics.

 

In his own words Einstein says, “Most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priest hood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.”

 

This statement couldn’t be any truer. So, wouldn’t this make the main offender for restraining society, the government? Not capitalism, which Einstein implies.

 

Instead of seeing government as the problem, Einstein focuses his attention on the sciences; using the excuse that science cannot create ends, but only the means as the basis for his next argument. He states, “For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.” He is correct in this statement, for we should always analyze problems and solutions with logical and rational reasoning, but the context of how he uses it is wrong.

 

As was brought up earlier; society is influenced by government and science by society. Therefore, wouldn’t science also be influenced by government? Since this is the case, it should not be science and the scientific method that Einstein is attacking, but rather the root of the problem which influences science, that being government.

 

I have no way of knowing if Einstein was ever introduced to the concept of no government, but if his solution of creating a “supra-national organization” to protect mankind from danger is any indication of his thought process, we can see that anarchy was the furthest thought from his mind. Since it is now well-known that he was a staunch socialist, it figures that he would only see government in total control as the one which would govern best.

 

Knowing this, leaves Einstein’s argument in a little bit of a pickle. For if government is actually restraining society from moving past the “predatory phase”, than how is it possible for more government, in the form of a supra-national organization, to advance it beyond this phase? In case you were wondering, the answer is it can’t. Since Einstein fails to realize, or merely ignores this basic fact, it kind of leaves his initial arguments, and the basis for the rest of the problems he brings forth, stranded on the same typhoon-blasted, deserted island.

 

Regardless of this miscalculation, he continues on to say that man’s dependency on society is a “fact of nature,” which is true. And, while man cannot change his biological constitution (natural urges) he is able to change his cultural constitution (from society), which is also true. He mentions that biologically and technologically society cannot be reverted, therefore in order for man to be as satisfied as possible, a cultural attitude must be changed. While his argument for this problem is spot on, his conclusion of changing anything other than the removal of government from society is not. For if government is evil, and government influences society, won’t society also be evil? Since this is true, wouldn’t this also mean that man, who is dependent and influenced by society, would also be evil?

 

If man is evil because of society, and society is evil because of the government, one would figure, a man as smart as Einstein would look at all the possibilities of changing government. However, instead of doing that, he merely looked at the solutions for increasing the power of government, which also happened to increase the very problems he claimed to hate so much. How can a man say his arguments against capitalism include: concentrated wealth, worker exploitation, centralized power of information (press, radio, tv and education), deprivation of fruits of labor, loss of representative privileges, unemployment, and overall depression, yet his solution to society was to implement a socialist economy that would make each of these one hundred times worse?

 

From the start of his tirade into the evils of capitalism, the fallacies sprang forth from Einstein’s writing. He improperly diagnoses capitalism as the cause for political turmoil and tries to shift the blame of government established laws to greedy producers ensuring worker compliance. As if any legitimate business ever succeeded because of regulation, maybe in spite of it, but hardly because of it.

 

When describing competition as the reason for concentrated wealth, it seems he forgot that competition means more business, which also means that more people would be employed, how can this even remotely be tied to the concentration of wealth. Also, using words like:

 

“We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor.”

 

Makes you say, “Wait a second,” is he talking about capitalism or is he talking about government? Then you read “not by force” and it hits you, he is speaking of capitalism. The funny thing is, in capitalism there is no such thing as the collective so how can one be deprived of it? If each individual has free choice over his own labor, how can he be deprived of that? Einstein answers these two questions when he talks about the private property of individuals, yet for some reason he fails to mention his mistake, and even worse, fails to realize it.

 

From here he delves into the means of production and tries to argue that the worker’s compensation is based on a worker’s needs and not on the value he produces. Which is true in a sense that it isn’t based on the value he produces, but only because his wages are based upon the demand for the product. An employer can only pay an employee based on the amount he brings in. Einstein believes this to be worker exploitation, but it can’t be if the worker is free to choose his line of work, free to choose his employer and free to start a competing business.

 

In a free market economy, if any business wishes to be successful, it had better ensure the workers are compensated fairly. Business is driven by profits, which Einstein also seems to find fault with. Those businesses that did not pay well would not be able to hire workers that produce efficiently. This allows competitors to either produce more and charge less, or create better products and charge more. This is simple supply and demand, something a socialist economy cannot compensate for, and something either Einstein never bothered to learn or decided was unimportant.

 

These are just a few of the many fallacies Einstein played upon, in his quest to arrive at his conclusion to save humanity. How he arrives at the conclusion he does is beyond me and he even asks many questions himself. How is it possible? What about complete enslavement? What about an all-powerful bureaucracy? Yet somehow, he sums it up by proposing the implementation of a socialist economy, along with an educational system geared towards social goals. According to Einstein, if this was to happen, all means of production will be geared towards the needs of the community and society will flourish, creating a more responsible man without the need for power or success.

 

There’s really no need for me to write a novel proving socialism doesn’t work because history is riddled with bankrupt, poverty stricken nations that have attempted that road. The USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela are just a few examples of failures in recent history. Even the US has dabbled in it enough to feel the harsh and consequential effects. Anyways, the main reason socialism is not a solution for a functional economy is because it doesn’t and can’t adequately set prices.

 

The government controls all aspects of the economy, meaning there are no accurate signals for supply and demand, leaving no way for a self regulating pricing mechanism to set prices. Because an economy is a very complex system consisting of countless variables, government planners have no way of accurately accounting for all them and therefore are not able to accurately make decisions. This leads to a complete mishandling of the markets, causing bubbles, depressions, and overall economic mayhem. There are many more arguments against socialism including the loss of liberty, a reduction of prosperity, lagging technology, lack of worker incentive, and the loss of private property rights. All of these and more are thoroughly discussed in Ludwig von Mises’ Socialism, which is a lengthy book but well worth the read if you are truly looking for answers

 

In conclusion, Einstein developed a good basis for judging what is wrong with society. However, the reason he failed to arrive at the proper conclusion is because he did not take into account the role of government, choosing to address the symptoms instead of the root of the problem. Maybe he saw government as a necessary evil, probably something more. However, when government is rotting society and society is rotting man, change must occur and it’s always better to get to the root of the problem. In order for this to happen, we must be knowledgeable, which is precisely the reason why I champion the cause of education. Not education at the hands of government, but rather critical thinking and logical reasoning along with individual observation and experience. It is direly needed in order to change society, and the only way to truly understand and learn from the world we live in. When this happens, we will know the true meaning of freedom and society will truly prosper.

[SOCALHUSKER]

bump

[huskerjack23]

i think that what you're trying to do is make "government" anyone who takes liberties away from another person. anyone. more of a reductionist take would be to say that this is any leader of any group.

 

einstein mentioned that most major states owed their existence to conquest. so basically, because of the conquest of the states that makes government evil? so basically the government is taking advantage of the poor, weak, and stupid.

 

but i don't understand why you can't fathom people giving up their own liberties for the advancement of the society. a lot of people are willing to help the poor, week, and stupid not take advantage of them. yes this is an ideal situation and doesn't take into account the fallibility of man.

 

the situations that failed you mentioned aren't just socialist. they are also totalitarian states with government controlling the media and education to the point where there is no advancement. the last time i checked, sweden was doing really well in education.

 

the thing i want to make sure i get across is even though the USSR, Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba, etc. failed is because the people that came to power loved it so much that they took basic liberties to keep power. our founding fathers were very smart to define some basic liberties for us. as we evolve towards future generations, these basic liberties are increasing to include health and education.

 

why are these evils only a symptom of a government? why can't someone take control of a part of the market in A/C? is it because there is a leader in government? why aren't leaders of a business "leaders" in that same sense?

 

you said that it was a person's choice whether to buy or work for a person in A/C? what if they chose to work for a bad person? what if this bad person took advantage of the poor, weak, and stupid and the quality of product didn't drop? these things CAN happen. to think that they can't, is looking through rose-colored glasses.

 

what if someone discovered a HUGE oil reserve and decided that they were gonna horde it? didn't they just corner the market on that? (this is totally a luck of the draw, that nobody worked for). anyone who has the money, has the power. it doesn't matter if it's a government or a group of entrepeneurs. the market can be cornered.

 

to tell you the truth, i'm listening to you, but i also know that all the evils of a government, are also the evils of a business.