How about I just say, you’re deluded?
- There is a proper role for government, but that role is much smaller than the role government plays at present.
Today: 89.5% agree
20 years ago: 66% Agree
- Government should be eliminated altogether.
Today: 10.5% agree
20 years ago: 31 % agree
The Public simply don’t want Anarchy but they do want a smaller State - why flog a dead horse - make a difference as a Minarchist or don’t make a difference at all!!
I Could’nt agree more, so what should we do?
Endlessley debate purist fundamentalisms of NO STATE or unite to reduce the size of the State AS IT IS TODAY and Implement Direct Democracy
Ipso Facto = State
lol.
Do you seriously purport not to be a troll…?
No way. No tribal states, no countries at all.
Anarchy means lack of state and coercion. You simply go and purchase defense services or simply protect your land and possessions by yourself, as with any other services/goods. As more such service providers share the same jurisdiction, the chances of injustice get lower because you always have an alternative. They will have to coexist peacefully on the market.
States can do almost anything they wish to their citizens because there’s no alternative for them. As long as they have some support, injustice persists. So instead of relying on the majority to decide matters through a lengthy bureaucratic process, if we instantly decide not to buy a bad service (unfair justice, incompetent defense etc.) we become free.
So you see, no person, group or majority is flawless in their decision or even has good intentions. What anarcho-capitalism proposes is a system where we no longer depend on decisions taken by other such people, groups or majorities.
It is capitalist in nature, but not state-capitalist. Companies can no longer benefit by piggybacking on the state because there’s no state. Same thing goes for angry mobs.
In such libertarian societies there are no positive rights. You can’t demand a higher wage or a given service because you feel like it. You can negotiate with the employer/service provider, but you’ll have no means of forcing them to do something. Similarly, they can’t coerce you into doing something for them.
You may also find it to your liking that in a free market (hence capitalist in our sense) profit rates tend to a normal/zero rate in the long run, and similarly the distribution of wealth is likely more equal. It’s quite ironic that socialists oppose capitalism without understanding these effects in a free market.
Jon I purport not to be a troll…?
Unless disagreeing with Anarchy makes me a Troll…?
Do you purport not to be a troll then? And no, it’s not so much disagreement with anarchism as it is your debating style…
Ref “No way. No tribal states, no countries at all.” I guess we’re talking Global or a No Goer then hmmmmmmm?
It’s gonna have to be a big bloody (as in Blood) Revolution or Holocaust - I Wish for neither!!! - I wish to promote change from within our current Law
“You simply go and purchase defense services or simply protect your land and possessions by yourself, as with any other services/goods. As more such service providers share the same jurisdiction, the chances of injustice get lower because you always have an alternative. They will have to coexist peacefully on the market.” Oh so this is what happens if we don’t have the ablity to control the Russian Mafia then ?
Similarly, they can’t coerce you into doing something for them**. Who’s gonna Stop em?**
Theres nothing wrong with a Free Market within a minimal State scenario - but IMHO a democracy must exist for vital services & the judicioury
PS. “Anarchy means lack of state and coercion”
No - Anarchy derves from the Greek αναρχία “without ruler” it mentions NOT coercian
FYI words evolve and change meaning over time.
No, I only meant an anarchic community won’t be organised as a country, which is a state-related concept.
Ever noticed how everybody, not just ancaps, hates politics?
Drop that argument. The Russian Mafia is a state within the state. It relies on the lack of competitive protection services and it piggybacks on the state to further its coercive goals.
The definition of anarchy and the same reason you wouldn’t be able to coerce your employer. Whenever somebody or some group has the monopolistic power of coercion in a given area, it is a state upon that land. A properly developed and interconnected market would oppose that. Besides, the costs of waging war in order to monopolize coercion are very, very high.
Then perhaps you’ll care to explain how the state could’ve prevented Hitler from rising to power through a mostly-democratic process. Minimal or non-minimal, it’s still too easy to subvert in some circumstances.
Or to turn the argument against you, what’s going to stop the majority from abusing a minority in democracy? The sheer power of the state is overwhelming, it does not eliminate violence, it just makes it look legitimate and it just makes it hard to oppose to.
Jon I purport not to be a troll…!
To everyone who thinks 6800x is a troll, there is a very simple solution: stop feeding the troll. [8-)]
O Drop what argument - you say “It relies on the lack of competitive protection services”
Any anarco protection protection service would be obliged to try and achieve a monopoly - It’s more profitable that way
Besides, the costs of waging war in order to monopolize coercion are very, very high. And yet is happening in every country every day
“Then perhaps you’ll care to explain how the state could’ve prevented Hitler” Certainly - Hitler was a facist dictator, If it had been a true democracy (and people were asked if they should Gas Jews) Hitler would not have needed preventing
“what’s going to stop the majority from abusing a minority in democracy?” better this way than Vice Versa - What makes the anarchic community Minorities less likely to be abused anyway?
no, he’s right. weaned off the state we would be fine. destroy the state overnight and you have chaos. people adapt at different speeds and the ones who adapt faster will take advantage in malicious ways.
Thx naz
A Minarchist Direct Democracy State is more likely to agree with Anarchist Community splitists
Most (if not all) monopolies are created by the state. Just look at the taxi medallion system, regulations that raise the entry barriers, licenses, roads, state-monopolized industries, non-competitive legal tender currency (for F. A. Hayek fans), and the list could go on indefinitely. Rothbard was quite good at pointing out how states create monopolies.
If there’s no state, those companies would have to go to war. And please see below.
No, it doesn’t. Predatory tactics (generalisation of dumping) are rare; even where they are forbidden, they are rare in comparison to other illegal operations. As for waging war, look at US’s deficits: no investor and no private company would be willing to support huge losses for a remotely-achievable monopoly, unless there’s some taxation system in place.
Perhaps you’re unaware that a majority of Germans knowingly supported Hitler’s goals. It was largely a democratic process that allowed Hitler to come to power, and the people did see a leader in him. As Eric S. Raymond says, “that’s why I am an anarchist”.
It sounds like an utilitarian argument: “It’s better for 10 people to suffer if that raises the well-being of 10,000 people.”. And this is incompatible to any libertarian point of view.
Minorities within an anarchy can defend themselves better because numbers don’t count that much. Markets handle niches very well. On the other hand, break a state law (which may or may not be morally-correct) and the opposition is overwhelming.
If you truly believe dictators are not a solution, then you should acknowledge that a dictating mob isn’t either.
As for you being a troll, I don’t think so. After all, this is a libertarian/economics forum, it’s not anarchist-oriented even if most/many people around here have this orientation.
Or is it more likely that the State ALLOWS the monopoly to be naturally formed, whilst publicly legislating against it.
My point being that free markets are drawn by the economies of scale - to create profit
ie. They Become Monopolys
People now TODAY have the power to vote with their feet when it comes to the Free Market, and yet, what do we see, Monsanto & lethargy
Wars would indeed be waged - only now it would be between the monopolys for more profit. Without the State to protect consumers! (State Law No1 protect the Citizen)
Not quite sure what you mean by this?
But my mind drifts away to an image of
I’m looking up the barrell of a Kalashnikov, from the wrong end. Casually wondering why I had’nt seen that colour Beret before and toying with the idea of calling him a Nigger. As I don’t carry a gun I suppose I’ll just keep my mouth shut, in fact I have a better idea I’LL DO WHATEVER I AM F***ING TOLD
Nice Brave New World this turned out to be
O Really? When was the last time you were in bulgaria
“Then perhaps you’ll care to explain how the state could’ve prevented Hitler” Certainly - Hitler was a facist dictator, If it had been a true democracy (and people were asked if they should Gas Jews) Hitler would not have needed preventing
Perhaps you’re unaware that a majority of Germans knowingly supported Hitler’s goals. It was largely a democratic process that allowed Hitler to come to power, and the people did see a leader in him. As Eric S. Raymond says, “that’s why I am an anarchist”.
Or as Jung would have said “A classic Archetypical figure”
Perhaps you’re unaware that Hitler ran a Fascist State & last I heard Fascist ain’t Democratic
The Gassing of the Jews was not made public & I think it unfair even to entertain such volatile comparisons – please cease & desist this Trollish Flamery
There you go, just had to do it didn’t you? Tossed in the Util…. word and concluded that a True Libertarian cannot accept a Minarchist State.
Why do you conclude that I am not a Libertarian unless I denounce the Concept of State, who made you judge?
You see here we get to the nub of it
One mans dictating mob is another mans Agora,
One mans taxes are another mans Loot (as Ayn Rand like to put it) extracted by the Mighty Boot of Nazism
I believe in a Democratic Government – but it has to be small and it has to Democratic in the ORIGINAL meaning of the word, not by the usurped insinuated meaning that it is reffered to today.
Your right of course and this is where I find AnCaps & I Love a Lively Debate
So in Summary
Anarchists cannot join forces with minimal statist libertarians to try and reduce the size of the State because Democracy has now been bastardized to mean Mob Rule.
Wiki - Even though there is no universally accepted definition of ‘democracy’, there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes. The first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties
Please try to format your posts better, it’s a bit hard to follow you.
No way, take the taxicab medallion system. Was there any entry barrier before that? States legislate for monopolies or, alternately, they create conditions for their existence by raising entry barriers.
As companies become larger, their costs also grow a lot (due to large-scale management problems). Could you give an example of a monopoly that is created without the state taking the blaim for it?
You still haven’t addressed how would those monopolies form in the first place. If those monopolies do not exist in the first place, then they can’t tax. They’ll end up spending all their capital on chasing an indirect benefit (that is, the chance of becoming a monopoly).
Hmm, probably like 5 years ago. But what’s the point really? That the state keeps a monopoly on defending its citizens while being incompetent (or even plainly corrupt) at doing it?
What are you talking about? The Weimar Republic was a democracy before Hitler became a dictator. And it did so by mostly democratic means.
And don’t be delude yourself that the German people wasn’t aware of his ideology. They supported his dreams and were well aware of Mein Kampf. Even if he was elected/supported only to wage war in order to reunite the Reich, it’s still bad for democracy.
That’s a strawman. All I said is that arguing that majority rule is better than minority rule is an utilitarian argument, and therefore it’s not sufficient proof.
The lines you’re drawing are arbitrary. How is justice going to prevail if it’s controlled by the same mechanism that horribly fails in big governments? Don’t take me wrong, businesses do fail, but they do so individually. If the justice in your small government fails, there’s no replacement, no alternative.
But isn’t it true? Democracy is replacing voluntary, individual preferences with a mob imposed monopoly. If it worked well, great, but it doesn’t and so the mob must take the blaim.
So what? If the mob does not care about a particular liberty, is it entitled to legislate against it? Again, democracy creates “scarcity” in regards to possibilities/choices where that “scarcity” did not exist in the first place.
Here’s an example I used recently against a statist who tried to use the “free to leave” argument on me, in case anybody wanted another arrow in their quiver against such nonsense…
I choose to be in a certain place, because I believe the violation I will endure in that place will be less than in other places. That doesn’t make it any less a violation. In the same way, if I were in the doorway of two conjoining cells, and I knew that the inmates of both cells would assault me, and I chose to go into the cell of the smaller inmate, that doesn’t mean that I CHOSE TO BE ASSAULTED by that smaller inmate.