Anarcho-Capitalism

[huskertim]

Holy crap, is this tread still going?

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

huskerjack23 in regular text, my response in red.

 

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.

 

Is there another definition of government? The only way that government is able to come into existence is for individuals to give up rights.

 

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.

 

If government is not the state, than what is? It sure isn't an individual. I don't care how much money or strength any individual has, without the power of government there would be no conquerors. Coercion and force, the staples of government, are the only way to get individuals to follow along, no matter how poor, weak or stupid they are.

 

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.

 

I can't fathom it, is because it's a fallacy. A misconception perpetrated by government to force individuals to give up rights for something that doesn't exist. There is no such thing as the betterment or advancement of society without actually bettering the individuals who make up society. Since society consists of individuals, the only way to better it, is to ensure that the individuals are better. This cannot happen if individuals are forced to give anything up. If that is possible, please explain to me how?

 

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.

 

Which is exactly my point. Since government is the root of all evil, it doesn't matter which form of tyranny it comes as, it will always fail and always produce evil. From the democratic republic to the dictatorship all are evil from the onset, therefore cannot produce anything but.

 

How do you figure Sweden is doing well in education? Did government statistics tell you that every Swedish child is being educated or that they are all performing well on government tests? Or maybe they are performing better than other government systems?

 

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.

 

All governments take away liberties. There is no way for a government to exist without the subjects giving up something. Because of this, we will never advance or better as a society. It is impossible. The only solution is no government.

 

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?

 

These evils are only symptoms of government because government, or as Einstein calls it conquerors, is what shapes society.

 

Nobody can take control of the markets in A/C because of competition.

 

Business leaders are not the same as government leaders because the individuals who are under them are free to leave as they want, free to start a competing business or free to work for a competitor. Since the government is a monopoly there is no freedom to do either of these.

 

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.

 

Sure, anyone can work for the bad person, but who would buy the products in order for the bad person to stay in business. If the bad person wasn't paid why would he stay with a bod employer? You say that the poor, weak or stupid would still buy but they would also have a choice not to. Competition ensures this.

 

The only way to ensure they would buy from the bad person is to force them to. This is what government does. This cannot happen in A/C because force is a violation of individual rights and the violator is held accountable for his actions.

 

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.

 

First of all in order for the oil to be worth anything it would have to be drilled, refined and sold. In order for any of these to happen, the oil man could not horde his reserve. Also, you're forgetting that in order to live this man would also need things that others produced. So unless this man has the ability to produce everything in the world, which one man cannot, he would need the services and products of others. If he fails to share his oil, others have the ability to not sell their products to him. In short, if he chose to horde his oil, he would be ostracized and would die.

 

Yes, with government a market can be cornered. Without it, the rules of competition will not allow any market to 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.

 

What you say is true, but the evils of business are derived directly from and a result of the evils of government. In order to change man or business, we must change government. Since there is no way for government to change, because all require subjects to give up rights, the only solution is to end government.

[SOCALHUSKER]

bump

[huskerjack23]

I can't fathom it, is because it's a fallacy. A misconception perpetrated by government to force individuals to give up rights for something that doesn't exist. There is no such thing as the betterment or advancement of society without actually bettering the individuals who make up society. Since society consists of individuals, the only way to better it, is to ensure that the individuals are better. This cannot happen if individuals are forced to give anything up. If that is possible, please explain to me how?

 

what you're saying here is we need to weed out the weak for the betterment of society. we will give them nothing because everyone is on the same plane. these people have no use to society except to be lazy and stupid.

 

it's also not a fallacy. richard dawkins proved the benefits of cooperation with prisoner's dilemma.

 

[SOCALHUSKER]

I can't fathom it, is because it's a fallacy. A misconception perpetrated by government to force individuals to give up rights for something that doesn't exist. There is no such thing as the betterment or advancement of society without actually bettering the individuals who make up society. Since society consists of individuals, the only way to better it, is to ensure that the individuals are better. This cannot happen if individuals are forced to give anything up. If that is possible, please explain to me how?

 

what you're saying here is we need to weed out the weak for the betterment of society. we will give them nothing because everyone is on the same plane. these people have no use to society except to be lazy and stupid.

 

it's also not a fallacy. richard dawkins proved the benefits of cooperation with prisoner's dilemma.

 

 

No, you are quite drastically misinterpreting what I am saying. Of course cooperation is good for society, but it also must be voluntary. If we did not cooperate with each other most everyone would die, and the remaining would live a life of extreme poverty. That is exactly why man got together and formed society. That doesn't mean however, that any man should ever live at the expense of another, which is the idea you are supporting. Did the idea of charity ever occur to you? Or that maybe people aren't as charitable because maybe they already pay the government more than their fair share?

 

The fallacy of the "betterment of society" is not that cooperation is bad, but the very idea that society can get better if the same individuals, who make up society, don't. That is not advancing or bettering society in any way, but instead actually bringing everyone down to an equal level of poverty. How you figure this to be advancing society in anyway is beyond me.

 

Also, do you wish to respond to the other points I brought up, or is this the only one you had an argument for?

[SOCALHUSKER]

A great quote -

 

"Many now believe that with the rise of the totalitarian State the world has entered upon a new era of barbarism. It has not. The totalitarian State is only the State; the kind of thing it does is only what the State has always done with unfailing regularity, if it had the power to do it, wherever and whenever its own aggrandizement made that kind of thing expedient. Give any State like power hereafter, and put it in like circumstances, and it will do precisely the same kind of thing. The State will unfailingly aggrandize itself, if only it has the power, first at the expense of its own citizens, and then at the expense of anyone else in sight. It has always done so, and always will." ~ Albert Jay Nock

[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.

 

While I don't agree with everything this writer says, and I feel he could elaborate more on the loss of personal liberties, I think he does a fair job of diagnosing the failures of socialism.

 

Why Socialism Failed

 

Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.

 

In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.

 

A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.

 

In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter!

 

Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don’t matter!

 

In a radio debate several months ago with a Marxist professor from the University of Minnesota, I pointed out the obvious failures of socialism around the world in Cuba, Eastern Europe, and China. At the time of our debate, Haitian refugees were risking their lives trying to get to Florida in homemade boats. Why was it, I asked him, that people were fleeing Haiti and traveling almost 500 miles by ocean to get to the "evil capitalist empire" when they were only 50 miles from the "workers’ paradise" of Cuba?

 

The Marxist admitted that many "socialist" countries around the world were failing. However, according to him, the reason for failure is not that socialism is deficient, but that the socialist economies are not practicing "pure" socialism. The perfect version of socialism would work; it is just the imperfect socialism that doesn’t work. Marxists like to compare a theoretically perfect version of socialism with practical, imperfect capitalism which allows them to claim that socialism is superior to capitalism.

 

If perfection really were an available option, the choice of economic and political systems would be irrelevant. In a world with perfect beings and infinite abundance, any economic or political system–socialism, capitalism, fascism, or communism–would work perfectly.

 

However, the choice of economic and political institutions is crucial in an imperfect universe with imperfect beings and limited resources. In a world of scarcity it is essential for an economic system to be based on a clear incentive structure to promote economic efficiency. The real choice we face is between imperfect capitalism and imperfect socialism. Given that choice, the evidence of history overwhelmingly favors capitalism as the greatest wealth-producing economic system available.

 

The strength of capitalism can be attributed to an incentive structure based upon the three Ps: (1) prices determined by market forces, (2) a profit-and-loss system of accounting and (3) private property rights. The failure of socialism can be traced to its neglect of these three incentive-enhancing components.

 

Prices

 

The price system in a market economy guides economic activity so flawlessly that most people don’t appreciate its importance. Market prices transmit information about relative scarcity and then efficiently coordinate economic activity. The economic content of prices provides incentives that promote economic efficiency.

 

For example, when the OPEC cartel restricted the supply of oil in the 1970s, oil prices rose dramatically. The higher prices for oil and gasoline transmitted valuable information to both buyers and sellers. Consumers received a strong, clear message about the scarcity of oil by the higher prices at the pump and were forced to change their behavior dramatically. People reacted to the scarcity by driving less, carpooling more, taking public transportation, and buying smaller cars. Producers reacted to the higher price by increasing their efforts at exploration for more oil. In addition, higher oil prices gave producers an incentive to explore and develop alternative fuel and energy sources.

 

The information transmitted by higher oil prices provided the appropriate incentive structure to both buyers and sellers. Buyers increased their effort to conserve a now more precious resource and sellers increased their effort to find more of this now scarcer resource.

 

The only alternative to a market price is a controlled or fixed price which always transmits misleading information about relative scarcity. Inappropriate behavior results from a controlled price because false information has been transmitted by an artificial, non-market price.

 

Look at what happened during the 1970s when U.S. gas prices were controlled. Long lines developed at service stations all over the country because the price for gasoline was kept artificially low by government fiat. The full impact of scarcity was not accurately conveyed. As Milton Friedman pointed out at the time, we could have eliminated the lines at the pump in one day by allowing the price to rise to clear the market.

 

From our experience with price controls on gasoline and the long lines at the pump and general inconvenience, we get an insight into what happens under socialism where every price in the economy is controlled. The collapse of socialism is due in part to the chaos and inefficiency that result from artificial prices. The information content of a controlled price is always distorted. This in turn distorts the incentives mechanism of prices under socialism. Administered prices are always either too high or too low, which then creates constant shortages and surpluses. Market prices are the only way to transmit information that will create the incentives to ensure economic efficiency.

 

Profits and Losses

 

Socialism also collapsed because of its failure to operate under a competitive, profit-and-loss system of accounting. A profit system is an effective monitoring mechanism which continually evaluates the economic performance of every business enterprise. The firms that are the most efficient and most successful at serving the public interest are rewarded with profits. Firms that operate inefficiently and fail to serve the public interest are penalized with losses.

 

By rewarding success and penalizing failure, the profit system provides a strong disciplinary mechanism which continually redirects resources away from weak, failing, and inefficient firms toward those firms which are the most efficient and successful at serving the public. A competitive profit system ensures a constant reoptimization of resources and moves the economy toward greater levels of efficiency. Unsuccessful firms cannot escape the strong discipline of the marketplace under a profit/loss system. Competition forces companies to serve the public interest or suffer the consequences.

 

Under central planning, there is no profit-and-loss system of accounting to accurately measure the success or failure of various programs. Without profits, there is no way to discipline firms that fail to serve the public interest and no way to reward firms that do. There is no efficient way to determine which programs should be expanded and which ones should be contracted or terminated.

 

Without competition, centrally planned economies do not have an effective incentive structure to coordinate economic activity. Without incentives the results are a spiraling cycle of poverty and misery. Instead of continually reallocating resources towards greater efficiency, socialism falls into a vortex of inefficiency and failure.

 

Private Property Rights

 

A third fatal defect of socialism is its blatant disregard for the role of private property rights in creating incentives that foster economic growth and development. The failure of socialism around the world is a "tragedy of commons" on a global scale.

 

The "tragedy of the commons" refers to the British experience of the sixteenth century when certain grazing lands were communally owned by villages and were made available for public use. The land was quickly overgrazed and eventually became worthless as villagers exploited the communally owned resource.

 

When assets are publicly owned, there are no incentives in place to encourage wise stewardship. While private property creates incentives for conservation and the responsible use of property, public property encourages irresponsibility and waste. If everyone owns an asset, people act as if no one owns it. And when no one owns it, no one really takes care of it. Public ownership encourages neglect and mismanagement.

 

Since socialism, by definition, is a system marked by the "common ownership of the means of production," the failure of socialism is a "tragedy of the commons" on a national scale. Much of the economic stagnation of socialism can be traced to the failure to establish and promote private property rights.

 

As Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto remarked, you can travel in rural communities around the world and you will hear dogs barking, because even dogs understand property rights. It is only statist governments that have failed to understand property rights. Socialist countries are just now starting to recognize the importance of private property as they privatize assets and property in Eastern Europe.

 

Incentives Matter

 

Without the incentives of market prices, profit-and-loss accounting, and well-defined property rights, socialist economies stagnate and wither. The economic atrophy that occurs under socialism is a direct consequence of its neglect of economic incentives.

 

No bounty of natural resources can ever compensate a country for its lack of an efficient system of incentives. Russia, for example, is one of the world’s wealthiest countries in terms of natural resources; it has some of the world’s largest reserves of oil, natural gas, diamonds, and gold. Its valuable farm land, lakes, rivers, and streams stretch across a land area that encompasses 11 time zones. Yet Russia remains poor. Natural resources are helpful, but the ultimate resources of any country are the unlimited resources of its people–human resources.

 

By their failure to foster, promote, and nurture the potential of their people through incentive-enhancing institutions, centrally planned economies deprive the human spirit of full development. Socialism fails because it kills and destroys the human spirit–just ask the people leaving Cuba in homemade rafts and boats.

 

As the former centrally planned economies move toward free markets, capitalism, and democracy, they look to the United States for guidance and support during the transition. With an unparalleled 250-year tradition of open markets and limited government, the United States is uniquely qualified to be the guiding light in the worldwide transition to freedom and liberty.

 

We have an obligation to continue to provide a framework of free markets and democracy for the global transition to freedom. Our responsibility to the rest of the world is to continue to fight the seductiveness of statism around the world and here at home. The seductive nature of statism continues to tempt and lure us into the Barmecidal illusion that the government can create wealth.

 

The temptress of socialism is constantly luring us with the offer: "give up a little of your freedom and I will give you a little more security." As the experience of this century has demonstrated, the bargain is tempting but never pays off. We end up losing both our freedom and our security.

 

Programs like socialized medicine, welfare, social security, and minimum wage laws will continue to entice us because on the surface they appear to be expedient and beneficial. Those programs, like all socialist programs, will fail in the long run regardless of initial appearances. These programs are part of the Big Lie of socialism because they ignore the important role of incentives.

 

Socialism will remain a constant temptation. We must be vigilant in our fight against socialism not only around the globe but also here in the United States.

 

The failure of socialism inspired a worldwide renaissance of freedom and liberty. For the first time in the history of the world, the day is coming very soon when a majority of the people in the world will live in free societies or societies rapidly moving towards freedom.

 

Capitalism will play a major role in the global revival of liberty and prosperity because it nurtures the human spirit, inspires human creativity, and promotes the spirit of enterprise. By providing a powerful system of incentives that promote thrift, hard work, and efficiency, capitalism creates wealth.

 

The main difference between capitalism and socialism is this: Capitalism works.

[huskerjack23]

i found the rest of the "prisoner's dilemma" video

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNQ5Tlh-eDA...feature=channel

 

he cites the "tragedy of the commons" and it shows me that your government intervention thing has some merit. he said that if one person owned the land, "he would make a rational decision not to overgraze the land. but because of the commons, that rationalization is thrown out."

 

but i also believe that, with limited resources, that doesn't lend itself to the infinite competitors that you suggest, because of limited resources.

 

i also don't believe in the universal morality that you believe that A/C needs to have to survive. quoting, "The question is absurd. Absolute morality would require a single, absolute standard. For a human being to choose that standard would be pointless, given the nearly infinite complexity of all possible human interactions." http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/8...in_an_absolute/

 

the world isn't black and white. the reddit discussion sort of proves that.

[SOCALHUSKER]

i found the rest of the "prisoner's dilemma" video

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNQ5Tlh-eDA...feature=channel

 

he cites the "tragedy of the commons" and it shows me that your government intervention thing has some merit. he said that if one person owned the land, "he would make a rational decision not to overgraze the land. but because of the commons, that rationalization is thrown out."

 

but i also believe that, with limited resources, that doesn't lend itself to the infinite competitors that you suggest, because of limited resources.

 

i also don't believe in the universal morality that you believe that A/C needs to have to survive. quoting, "The question is absurd. Absolute morality would require a single, absolute standard. For a human being to choose that standard would be pointless, given the nearly infinite complexity of all possible human interactions." http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/8...in_an_absolute/

 

the world isn't black and white. the reddit discussion sort of proves that.

 

No, universal morality would only require each individual to always do what is in their best interest. Which anyone who wishes to stay alive always does. This is something government will not and cannot ever permit. As I have explained early, if each person does what is in their best interest they would never do anything to infringe upon anyone else's rights if they did, they would leave themselves open to the same actions by others and the consequences of those actions. This alone would not be in anyone's best interest. Therefore, if everyone did act in their own best interest, universal morality would exist.

[huskerjack23]

how do you define their own "best interest"?

 

"for a human being to choose that standard would be pointless, given the nearly infinite complexity of all possible human interactions."

[SOCALHUSKER]

how do you define their own "best interest"?

 

"for a human being to choose that standard would be pointless, given the nearly infinite complexity of all possible human interactions."

 

Preferred behavior.

 

Read the following article which I posted earlier on post #8 of this same thread, Proving Libertarian Morality. Also, read the following article to get a more well-worded take on what I'm talking about. The Argument From Morality.

 

If your are really interested, this book touches on proving Universally Preferable Behavior exists.

[huskerjack23]

it's a fallacy of false dilemma argument of black and white thinking. it assumes that all government is bad. how is that logical when it's at its core, fallacious.

[SOCALHUSKER]

it's a fallacy of false dilemma argument of black and white thinking. it assumes that all government is bad. how is that logical when it's at its core, fallacious.

 

All government is bad. Where have you been this entire thread!?! Also, what's the fallacy?

[huskerjack23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

 

false dilemma.

[redout22]

This thread has too many words in it that I don't understand. I am done reading this one.