Keep in mind I’m using Austrian monopoly theory, where monopoly is defined not as a “single seller”, but as the absence of free entry, i.e. violent exclusion of competitors.
Well, what have you read? Have you gone through the articles listed here? The case for anarchism is very strong, imo. In my experience, people who reject anarchism are just unaware of the arguments for it. This was true in my case; I was a minarchist, then I read the anarchist literature, recognized the strength of their arguments, and accepted anarchism.
How close-minded and unscholarly. Do you accept minarchism on reason and evidence, or on faith? If the former, you would be open to different perspectives and wouldn’t say something like “there’s no way I’ll ever change my mind.” If the latter… you might be better suited here.
It should be obvious that, were we to “try out our own little system” without careful preparation, it would be the something that keeps us safe enough to chat on our computers that would come to destroy us.
The state, keeping us safe to chat on our computers, but nothing else, or else…
First of all, I’m not going to fight you guys. I like most of you. And I have no desire to kill any of you either. I just want to see a workable political philosophy being advocated as opposed to something that clearly isn’t workable and is also unsellable. You’re killing yourselves by advocating this nonsense. I’m just watching you dig yourself into a hole you can’t dig yourself back out of. And I’m not going to jump in the hole with you, that’s all.
Well then we don’t need you. You will never achieve anything if you don’t want to work outside the boundaries of the established system, as it is those boundaries that create the problem that you want to denounce.
My main influence is Machiavelli’s The Prince. He outlined, to my mind, human nature. And he also explained how governments work. My other big influence is Phil Zimbardo’s Lucifer Effect. He demonstrated how all humans, when put in positions of power, will abuse them. Machiavelli and Zimbardo are my two main influences. I was turned onto AE by Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson. I’ve read some of the ancap stuff. I’m not impressed, I think it assumes something of human beings which isn’t realistic.
I’m not trying to be a goddamn scholar. I’m not interested in theory and academics, I’m interested in practicable solutions to real problems, not a bunch of theorizing. The ancap position is so based on the same assumption of altruism that socialism is. It’s ironic really. Ancap and socialism are two sides of the same coin.
We only need people who want to fight for freedom. There are only three kinds of people; those who want to fight for freedom, those who want to fight for power, and bystanders. You are in the last group, and I’m not entirely persuaded you are not in the middle group.
You’re right, I don’t care about those things. I think sometimes they have their uses. My objection with the current system is not on moral grounds. It’s on functional ones. I don’t think the system can continue to function if we keep going down the road we’re on. That’s all that matters to me. Evil and Good are totally subjective. You cannot make an objective argument against anyone on moral grounds. Murder and theft and coercion can all be very effective tools to get what one wants. It’s just a matter of who’s acting. Don’t you understand that?
What do you have against the desire for power now? Is that evil too? The price of freedom is responsibility. You cannot have freedom without someone to protect it. The only reason your neighbor won’t kill you is because they’re afraid of what will happen if they do.
Because you’re going to end up with people in power, but absolutely no way to get rid of them. Anarchy will become totalitarianism overnight as soon as someone builds a private army big enough to enforce their will. I want a system that allows me to change out the guards, not one that allows the guards to get as powerful as they can without any ability to depose them.
Only anarchy allows you the freedom to choose who will be your guard. The same guards have been in power in America for two centuries, and their power increases and increases and your freedom diminishes and diminishes.
The desire for power is not evil. It’s what happens when people get the unchecked power that’s evil. The desire for power is part of human nature. And I am no one’s enemy. I train my body and mind to be powerful. For what other reason would I do anything if not to have power??
This is called sadistic. According to your view humans abuse power, BUT you knowingly give certain humans the monopoly on destructive power that, according to you, they will abuse. It’s called a Military State. See how you keep slipping up?
I mean you guys have utterly failed to convince me anarchy is the way to go, and I’m already pretty close to being on your side! Can you imagine trying to convince people who are on the left side of the political spectrum?