An-caps, STOP lying to yourself!

Economics Political Theory
201

If we’re to be guided by only what has already been tried, where would we be right now? – Wheylous

Indeed, anarchism has been tried and failed. Yet, there are still some anarchists wandering in the wilderness preaching the same tired failed formula.

Didn’t Einstein have a name for this ?

You have failed to explain how the state prevents the army from enslaving all of us. – Wheylous

It is not the state that protects us from enslavement. That would be like assigning the fox to guard the chicken coup.

It is Constitutional Federal Republicanism that is a prison and overseer of absolutist government. The system developed by our founding fathers (hardly avowed statists) was intentionally designed to limit, balance, deter, decentralize and make transparent the elements of armed force in society

Constitutionalism = bill of rights prevents government from restricting free speech, gun ownership, et al.

Federalism = state’s rights that decentralizes political authority among disparate and independent states.

Republicanism = prevents the tyranny of the majority inherent in pure democracies.

Other intentional traits of our system is universal sufferage, regular and free elections, civilian control of the military, disparate military branches, Congress allocates funds and provided oversight of the military, President can only command military, Vibrant and free press, free and numerous civil organizations, et al.

All of these are tenets of a liberal democracy. IN contrast, anarchist society does not provide any substantive institutionalized mechanisms to balance, decentralize, deter, limit and make transparent private military agencies.

202

“anarchism has been tried and failed.”

that’s news to me… Because all around I can see a massive state failures.

203

that’s news to me… Because all around I can see a massive state failures. – MaikuU

Fail ? Not perfect yes, but failure ?!

THe US has been around for over 230 years. Also, civil and political rights along with life expectancy, standards of living and national security have increased significantly in this period.

How strong and how long does a society have to exist to be considered a success ?

Of course anarchist societies aren’t the only ones to fail – monarchic, fascist, theocratic, socialist Marxist, et al fail too.

They all fall short when compared to liberal democracies.

204

I consider myself an intellectual light-weight on the matter, and with all due respect to all parties, as I have read some excellent arguments from both sides; but wasn’t Iceland anarchistic for some 900 years or so? Yet other more statist structures lasted 100 to 3000 years. My point being that all past societies and social structures no longer exist. Doesn’t this constitute failure? So, I have set the premise that societies are destined to fail. Then why not take the most moral approach to this failure?

205

@notP

Actually you have offered an argument that the most learned anarchists have presented to me on numerous occasions – namely that anarchism is proven viable because of the example of Iceland.

With respect to Iceland, it was isolated from any predatory statist nation-states. However, its fragility was exposed when it was undermined and it’s nominally anarchist society collapsed in short order by the introduction of few dozen Christian missionaries.

Indeed, of all societies, anarchism appears to be one of the weakest and least tenable. In contrast, at present, liberal democracy appears to be in ascendancy and the most prosperous, stable, free, and peaceful (at least to likeminded democracies).

Hence a society like anarchism that isnt remotely viable for reasons I have outlined in this thread and others is hardly moral. Indeed, something is hardly considered moral if it is unsustainable.

The Marxist uses the same faulty logic to support his egalitarian model that is also unsustainable.

206

No No NO. As had been said numerous times, directly to Retopper on numerous occasions. Appeals to tradition and similar logical fallacies do not prove or condemn neither anarchy nor statism.

What do you people have against logic?

History is a poor tool for proving anything. Theory helps us analyze the data we record prior to recording. We don’t invent theories based on the data as an after thought. The theory and/or logic comes first not the other way around.

The argument isn’t whether or not Statism or Anarchy can perpetuate itself. Which is all your proving when you use history. This is the strawman Retopper has consistently put forth for the past two years and you just sparked it again by the above comments.

Retopper wants us to argue from a position of utopianism. We aren’t. We are arguing from a position of logic. For me it’s primarily the calculation issue that he continues to ignore.

207

What do you mean, “you people.” ? hehe.

I have nothing against logic. My appeal to tradition was to highlight that its a pointless argument, and to show the fact that all past societies clearly failed eventually. I actually agree that history is a poor tool to prove something is viable. From my understanding its as easy or easier to prove it’s not viable. So its pointless to argue it. I was arguing to ignore the viability, and make a value judgment on its morality. Then pick the system that is the most moral. Since this is different from person to person, the only logical solution is to form a stateless society and allow individuals to choose for themselves. Most likely this too would also fail, but at least it was the most moral in its failure. Am I allowed to argue from dystopianism, or is it as irrational and the former?

208

@notP

my argument is a combination of fact, logic and empricial evidence.

In contrast , you can see from this thread that the faith-based ancap discounts logic and empirical evidence and tends to focus on anecdotal evidence subjective moral arguments and as a last resort ad hominems and trollish behavior.

the empirical evidence is irrefutable – no anarchist society has ever existed for any extended period. Moreover, when these societies are confronted by statist societies, they are quickly and easily overwhelmed.

the logical arguments I have presented:

ancap society will be violent for the following logical reason:

ancap military agencies and investors will use force to acquire economically valuable resources if these resources are not for sale, the sale price is prohibitive, and they can realize a net profit from taking the resource by force.

ancap society will become absolutist for the following reason:

due to specialization of labor and economies of scale, military agencies will form. These firms will form cartels of armed force in order to reduce costs to consumers and producers due to competition. Security is a service that is best applied in proximity to the consumer, hence territorial monopolies of armed force will be the result. Unless you discount the adage ‘power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely’ then these territorial monopolies of armed force will eventually assume absolutist power.

to discount this occurance is to assume that absolute power does not begat corruption — if this absurdity were true, then sound government would be possible and the ancap argument against it debunked !

You see the ancap is painted into an ideological corners from which it has no place to turn.

1)profit seeking actors will use force since they are motivated by economics versus subjective moral judgments 2) investors and military firms that subordinate economic profit for subjective value judgments (peaceful coexistence) will see their capital relative to more profit driven actors dissipate 3) territorial monopolies of armed force will be the result in ancap society to reduce costs to consumers and producers, 4) these actors will become absolutist once the cartel forms since they will not be deterred by competition.

Dont get me wrong, I understand that peaceful exchange is preferable and has far less transaction costs than the use of force. However, as I stated earlier, not all transfers of valued resources are subject to peaceful transfer – hence those firms that are willing to use any means, including force, to acquire these resources will see their holdings and power relative to more pacific firms increase.

IN contrast, our founding fathers understood this simple dynamic hence they intentionally created institutional mechanisms and practices that balanced, deterred, decentralized, limited, and made transparent the elements of armed force within society in 1787.

Hence, constitutional federal republicanism is analogous to a political vaccine added to the patient to undermine full blown absolutism. The vaccine is a tiny bit of government DNA designed to assist the host to identify and isolate the germ (statism).

Indeed, our civil and political liberties have expanded over the last 220 years. However the germ has mutated into an economic threat, hence we need modified updated injection of vaccine in the form of an Economic Bill of Rights to kill the mutated germ and save the patient.

Anarchism is analogous to the latter day saints method of medical care ---- do nothing and hope for the best despite the fact that the patient has always died under these conditions.

209

It depends on what you are trying to argue.

Retoppers argument is that An anarchist society cannot work. The argument he presents however can only claim that an anarchist society possibly may not prevail, not that it cannot work.

You have already shown Retopper where is argument logically falls apart. Since his own argument, when applied to his position, reveals how liberal democracies are equally not capable of prevailing. But s stated the entire structure of the argument is logically flawed.

The real irony here is that the type of “Liberal Democracy” that Retopper thinks we should have is just as sparse as Anarchy if not more so. In fact the occasions on which its existed, acknowledged by Retopper in past threads, in all cases was a precursor to a larger socialist state. In every instance its life cycle was dwarfed when compared to more succesful historical anarchist societies.

What Retopper doesn’t understand is the fundamental governance he advocates is inherently designed to undermine the goal he thinks it achieves. A Liberal Democracy will always vote itself into something non-liberal. Politics is not a game of liberty but the opposite. It is a game of theft, plunder, and the legitimization of violating your neighbors rights. For that matter the very term, liberal democracy, is contradictory and confused. Retopper should be spending more time explaining to himself why liberal democracies fail and have consistently failed rather then tryign to argue why its a perfect alternative to anarchy. Retopper falls victem to a painfully and embarassingly obvious logical fallacy. That democracy somehow equals freedom. Its something you are taught in gradeschool and folks who are incapagble of thinking for themselves seem to cling to it.

The problems he points out regarding anarchy are miniscule compared to the problems that an alleged “liberal democracy” presents.

210

@ Centinel

To maintain a small liberal democracy and not allow the people to vote themselves benefits and favors, wouldn’t there need to be revolutions very few years. We allowed our liberal democracy to go unchallenged for ~300 years and the smallest government on the planet became the largest state in short order. What forces do you propose would limit this growth? Surely, a supreme law of the land meant little to our benevolent care takers. Is there an other method that doesn’t require bloody uprisings every few years?

211

Also note that he has consistently failed to explain just exactly how “constitutional federal republicanism” provides a “cage” for “statists”. His argument is intellectually bankrupt. I take his refusal to engage me to be evidence of this.

212

^^

Yup. Agreed.

213

@ notP

Since 1776 and later 1787, civil, political and economic liberties have expanded significantly. Within this period, capitalism, economic growth, technological advances, living standards, and life expectancies have increased at a far greater pace than at any comparable time in human history.

Indeed, our civil and political liberties have expanded sinc 1787, primarily due to the Bill of Rights. However, our founding fathers did not place vigorous restrictions on the ability of government to gain power via economic means — hence we need an Economic Bill of Rights to complement our already sturdy civil and political Bill of Rights.

A Constitutional Convention by the states (increasingly the most libertarian of political entities) is a possible solution to usurp economic abuses by Congress — Moreover, the states could agree before hand that no change in civil and political liberties is desired prior to this conference – only restrictions on the abiilty of government to engage in economic coercion.

214

@ Trolls

332×331 28.3 KB

215

So apparently you have mutliple personalities and need to lose weight? Good to know.

216

You keep posting this. At first I thought you were joking, as it’s so blatantly false, but it seems I was wrong. Seriouly, this could not be more wrong. The high point of our civil and political liberties was the passage of the Bill of Rights, and they have been eroding ever since. Since the 1790’s, we’ve had a war fought over the right to secceed, personal income taxes, central banks, confiscation of gold, seat belt laws, smoking bans, gun bans, blue laws, the war on drugs… This is just off the top of my head. There is no manner in which we have more freedom today than the average citizen had in 1800.

217

To add to this, the Bill of Rights per se did nothing to give women or former slaves the right to vote.

218

this. 1000 times this. It’s funny how average state apologist always misses this point. They imagine 18 century like wild wild west with random shootings etc. and 21 century like utopia. When everything is almost vice versa. Yeah, technological progress etc. is all good, but speaking of LIBERTIES, we have much much less. Only a fool doesn’t see it and can keep ignoring this fact after it was stated many times.

219

Good point. I should ament my original statement to say, “There is no manner in which we have more freedom today than the average white guy had in 1800.”

220

The high point of our civil and political liberties was the passage of the Bill of Rights, and they have been eroding ever since.-jack cuyler

By any objective, independent thinking and rational measure civil and political rights are far more sturdy today than in 1787.

Minorities, those who didnt own land, women,et al were routinely denied basic civil and political rights.

There is no manner in which we have more freedom today than the average citizen had in 1800.–jack cuyler

Your statement is manifestly absurd considering that blacks were enslaved and women/minorities were not permitted to participate within the political process.