Question for all small govt/minarchist ppl (1 Viewer)

[flappinghippo]

Holy shit kime! You're absoolutely right! Capitalism is decimating our standard of living! We're GONNA GO DOWN THE SHITTER BECAUSE OF CAPITALISM.

The approach you're going down kime, is theory. Of course it makes sense to you, it's your theory. But it doesn't explain the trends of the countries that have embraced capitalism in history. Not only that, but it gets it completely wrong.

History has shown that any country undergoing a period of capitalism, (before overbearing interferences from governments) shows unbelievable levels of innovation, prosperity and rises in the standard of living. Look at England around the time of the Spanish Armada. America in the 19th Century. Ever since the rise of the individual, not the sovereign, 'ruthless capitalism' has caused an explosion in wealth globally.

In addition, America in the 19th Century saw the biggest spread of anthropy ever. Heard of the Red Cross?

But, according to your theory, capitalism steals from the poor to keep the wealthy, wealthy. Then where did the huge middle class in every capitalist society come from? How did third world Japan modernise over a hundred years to become a global economy? Korea? Estonia? America? Australia? ANY DEVELOPED FUCKING COUNTRY? Why are the poor countries getting invaded by evil foreign capitalists (ie. China, India) growing faster than these developed countries?

Try explaining those successes in your model. You can't. Those very mechanisms of individual property rights, private capital etc. that you say lead to wider gaps between rich and poor are have proven to have the opposite effect. STFU and read some Milton Friedman.

What's more, your theory is not new either; people have been bitching and groaning about capitalism for centuries (usually rich, idle white men; eg. Marx), and predicting the apocalypse. Yet, here we are; better off than ever in all of human history. You have to be a completely naive, blind retard to not even give a little credit to the system. Evidently, you are a moron and obviously will clutch onto your little theory harder than ever after this (why do I bother? oh well), so have a happy few years of delusion until you start working for your own living.

Look at history. You say System A is bad because of x and y. But history shows System A is GOOD because of x and y. How did you get this so completely wrong?

 

[flappinghippo]

I don't really think it would have to be done globally. I don't think it matters what scale you implement it on, I'm arguing that anarchism > govts in general.

This is the whole point of theory – to be put into practice. Otherwise, of course in theory anarchism > governments. So, make a proper argument that takes this into account.

Therefore, you should have an answer to this; don't dodge it. Obviously scale matters. It won't work if just my street decides to go anarchist will it? This is important:

The biggest issue is all the unforeseen circumstances that could jeopardize the whole transition to anarcho-capitalism. No theory has predicted every outcome without trial and error. There are few cases of anarcho-capitalism in history; fewer in recent times; fewer, if any, of transitions from governments to anarchy (without massive instability and bloodshed). This means there are few relevant precedents from which theorists like yourself can base it on, which means much of it is speculation drawn from parts of existing, seperate theories and their bodies of evidence.

So, if anarcho-capitalism can only be implemented on a wide scale to work, then this would be a risky social experiment; you don't know the outcome because there are too many variables (because of lack of precedent/body of evidence) and so you would shit on a lot of people if an unforeseen circumstance (likely) goes out of control.

I would draw on a reference to the communist theory and its practice. Enough said there.

However, if it could work on a smaller scale (small town), then trial and error takes place. The risk is vastly reduced. If it fails, not so many people get rooted. If results match the predictions of the theory, that is, they are positive, THEN it gains credibility, THEN people start thinking, "maybe the government isn't so great after all."

A good example of this is the voucher system for schools, where people have tried it out in small areas as a last resort, usually to good results (from what I remember). I don't have specifics but I hope you know what I mean.

So what is your answer?

So your preferred solution is: steal money off people to create/support a military-govt connection.

No. I want a government that protects me from foreign invasion. I'll continue this later, i'm going to bed. But..

Seriously, I think if Russia really wanted to bomb us, you'd be fucked whether you had govts OR anarcho-capitalism. So it doesn't really matter.

Russia doesn't want to bomb us. Russia wants to control us. She does this using threats of violence, ie. a bomb.

When it comes to this, there is only one course to take. These decisions must come down to a leader, especially if it is a big one, and only a leader because it must be carried out with conviction. Napoleon said, loosely paraphrased, "Better one bad leader than two good ones." You need one course of action decided for all by one: it needs unity, from which strength can be maximised. A factitious, broken pack of quibbling communities each looking out for themselves would be easy prey.

This happened, I believe, with the Cold War (hence example of Russia + nukes). For decades, the world was slowly submitting to the USSR, doing whatever it could to cool tensions. Then came Reagan. To the cries of the international community and those at home, he built up the US defense, started development on "Star Wars" technology, called the Soviets the "evil empire". Did people like what he was doing? No! They were shit scared, they thought he was a dangerous idiot. We all know shortly after his terms, the Empire mysteriously collapsed, the reasons for which seems to be attributed to Gorbachev alone.

Yet, over those ten years, could Reagan have done what he did (bankrupt and undermine the inferior, fragile communist system) without Presidential powers? No.

None of that would have happened under anarcho-capitalism. It would become every-man-for-himself, a reign of fear enjoyed by a dangerous enough tyrant. There could be measures, you say, but what happens if the owner of half the army decides to break contract and defect? He's banned from all Hilton Hotels from now on?

This is why governments need to exist.

 

[kime]

Hang on, didn't you say you didn't agree with private property? How can you have a right to something, without holding private property rights over it? If a person can't own anything other than their own body, then who does own stuff? Does everyone own stuff equally? It certainly couldn't really be the case that nobody owned anything...

Private property differs from possession. Private property is that which can be used to create wealth. Take a simple house. If a family is living in it and owns it it is a possession as it doesn't create wealth, yet if they were to rent it out it would become property.

1. They aren't independent in the sense that some ventures may never have been undertaken in the first place if it weren't for that risk-return consideration
2. Yes, I accept that all human acts involve risk of some kind, and we're best off letting each person judging these risks for him/herself. Likewise, I support their right to self-ownership to sell their labour for whatever price someone will give them. I really don't see how you can oppose this, if both people are willing, what's the hold up?
3. I don't see what this has to do with risk being irrelevant to the consideration, because people only undertake risks if they see a gain/point to it in the first place.
4. I wouldn't say that this is true, this is like saying that inventors don't play a role in the production process. They've invested their time and money into an idea, and there's a 'risk' that people won't like what they come up with yeah?
5. "risk in this context is not independent of owning capital" - I don't see what this means... can you rephrase it please? Are you saying that owning capital and risk are perfectly correlated?

An inventor can not be compared to a capitalist. An inventor has indeed contributed something: an idea, their mental labour so to speak. A capitalist contributes nothing productive. Take this example for risk: say a person wishes to gamble all their savings and open a small shop. I agree this is a genuine risk, as they could lose everything. Now take a billionaire who wishes to buy a new factory. They have so much wealth already that they are hardly risking anything.

So what? It's not their problem that you don't have something that they own... Nor do you have a claim to it, if no private property exists. And yeah, I suppose they don't have a 'claim to it' either, so exactly how does stuff work without private property anyway?

I am simply countering your argument when you say they are free to make their own collectives. They obviously aren't, as they don't have their own means of production. I will try to answer this with an example (keep in mind these are highly simplified):
Capitalism/private property: I am hungry and want an apple (loaf of bread, meat etc.). I will go up to capitalist's orchard and ask him for one. "I will only give you an apple if you go out there and pick ten and give them all to me," says he. Can you see the implicit force involved?
Anarchism/collective property: I am hungry and want an apple. I will go up to the collective orchard. I pick an apple off the tree and eat it. This is delicious, I think. I might pick ten more so I can bring them back to my friends and family, as I imagine they would like some too.

It's an interesting question, the one about being able to sell yourself into slavery. I've seen it before, and on first glance at it, it doesn't look like there is anything illogical with the idea.

I have seen objections to this that run something like: From Rothbard's the Ethics of LibertySo "free exit" is really the criteria that makes "voluntary slavery" nonsensical. So its ok to sell your labour time, but you can't really sell your 'inalienable human will' if you get what I mean.

But for the time you are working for a boss, you have indeed sold your "inalienable human will" as you must do exactly as you are told or face the risk of being fired.

The main argument I have against yours is: If both people are willing, what's the hold up?

The workers are only willing to work because they have no means of production of their own. If the capitalists did not have a monopoly on capital, I can not imagine many people working for them.

Although, there's probably not much point debating with you seeing as we're both anarchists. I'm more interested in showing people why govts are immoral, and you don't need to be shown that

Yes, I think it is going to be futile arguing with you any longer. That FAQ I linked you to before should be able to answer any further questions you have.

What happens if multiple workers are driving a machine, say a tank. Do they each own the tank fully or is there some kind of time share process going on?

A tank isn't a means of production, rather it is a means of destruction. To answer you question, however, whoever is most skilled or likes driving the best does that, and whoever is most skilled or likes shooting the best does that. Simple really.

Do hard-workers with multiple personality disorder get a multiplied share of the goods in this socialist utopia, or are they abandoned by the wayside?

I don't understand what you are trying to say, nor do I have any intention of creating a "socialist utopia." No one whosoever would would be abandoned by the wayside.

Keep in mind, after you've implemented it these are the types of questions you're going to get.

Bring it on!

Do you look good in red, also?

No, but I look smashing in black.

Holy shit kime! You're absoolutely right! Capitalism is decimating our standard of living! We're GONNA GO DOWN THE SHITTER BECAUSE OF CAPITALISM.

When did I ever imply this? All I am saying is capitalism is exploitative and detrimental to true freedom. It may have been necessary in the past to get things running, but it is definitely no longer necessary.

The approach you're going down kime, is theory. Of course it makes sense to you, it's your theory. But it doesn't explain the trends of the countries that have embraced capitalism in history. Not only that, but it gets it completely wrong.

Of course it's a theory, just like capitalism is. Please elaborate on this.

History has shown that any country undergoing a period of capitalism, (before overbearing interferences from governments) shows unbelievable levels of innovation, prosperity and rises in the standard of living. Look at England around the time of the Spanish Armada. America in the 19th Century. Ever since the rise of the individual, not the sovereign, 'ruthless capitalism' has caused an explosion in wealth globally.

History also shows that any country undergoing a period of anarchy undergoes unbelievable levels of innovation, prosperity and rises in the standards of living. Look at Spain around the time of the 1936 revolution. I assume by prosperity under capitalism you mean the slums people lived in and the absolute poverty they faced around the time of the Industrial Revolution. Not to mention the billions of people living in poverty today.

In addition, America in the 19th Century saw the biggest spread of anthropy ever. Heard of the Red Cross?

Anthropy? I will take it you mean philanthropy. Yes, I have heard of the Red Cross. Have you heard of the Black Cross?

But, according to your theory, capitalism steals from the poor to keep the wealthy, wealthy. Then where did the huge middle class in every capitalist society come from? How did third world Japan modernise over a hundred years to become a global economy? Korea? Estonia? America? Australia? ANY DEVELOPED FUCKING COUNTRY? Why are the poor countries getting invaded by evil foreign capitalists (ie. China, India) growing faster than these developed countries?

The middle class is still working class, albeit much better paid and working under better conditions than the blue-collar working class. I think you will realise that the middle class is becoming poorer and poorer as the ruling class becomes more wealthy. You have to ask yourself: whom do these developments actually benefit? Is it the wealthy 1% of the population, or is it everyone else?

Try explaining those successes in your model. You can't. Those very mechanisms of individual property rights, private capital etc. that you say lead to wider gaps between rich and poor are have proven to have the opposite effect. STFU and read some Milton Friedman.

Can you please provide a source for this proof? And yes I think I could explain these 'successes' in my 'model' if you were to tell me what they are.

I have read some Milton Friedman briefly, although none in great detail. I suggest you read some Mikhail Bakunin and Noam Chomsky.

What's more, your theory is not new either; people have been bitching and groaning about capitalism for centuries (usually rich, idle white men; eg. Marx), and predicting the apocalypse. Yet, here we are; better off than ever in all of human history. You have to be a completely naive, blind retard to not even give a little credit to the system. Evidently, you are a moron and obviously will clutch onto your little theory harder than ever after this (why do I bother? oh well), so have a happy few years of delusion until you start working for your own living.

When did I ever claim my theory was new? On the contrary, it is quite old! Keep trying to insult me, it contributes a lot to your argument and credibility. Define "better off" please.

Look at history. You say System A is bad because of x and y. But history shows System A is GOOD because of x and y. How did you get this so completely wrong?

History is subjective and is usually manipulated to suit certain agendas. You do realise we have only been living under a state for the last 5000 or so years, don't you? For most of human evolution people have been living under what is essentially anarchy.

 

[volition]

This is the whole point of theory – to be put into practice. Otherwise, of course in theory anarchism > governments. So, make a proper argument that takes this into account.

Don't give me this practice-theory trite, it's such a wank. You're trying to take anarchism to the same place God exists by saying we could never really know whether God exists or not. It's an emotional appeal more than a logical one. Look at the examples I've given you. Anarchy is yet to fail really, unlike pretty much every other political ideology.

However, if it could work on a smaller scale (small town), then trial and error takes place. The risk is vastly reduced. If it fails, not so many people get rooted. If results match the predictions of the theory, that is, they are positive, THEN it gains credibility, THEN people start thinking, "maybe the government isn't so great after all."

Look, there are 2 societies (Irish and Vikings) that have run for >300 years! That's longer than even the USA govt has been around! Do you really think that's not enough proof? What's changed since then that makes anarchy an impossible ideal now? I'll tell you what: statist indoctrination and social pressure bullying you into not thinking logically. They've pushed this whole moral relativism thing onto you, so they can justify what they do as a group (to give them the right to steal, murder, take away self-ownership,) and yet they withhold these 'rights' from you.

Even if you look at Somalia, they've had increases in health care and stuff, even though people are fighting to get control of the govt that the UN/US are trying to establish. Never mind the fact that the US are arming gangs who they think are likely to be able to govern. The Rule of Law without the State
Comparing the last five years under the central government (1985–1990) with the most recent five years of anarchy (2000–2005), Leeson finds these welfare changes:

Life expectancy increased from 46 to 48.5 years. This is a poor expectancy as compared with developed countries. But in any measurement of welfare, what is important to observe is not where a population stands at a given time, but what is the trend. Is the trend positive, or is it the reverse?
Number of one-year-olds fully immunized against measles rose from 30 to 40 percent.
Number of physicians per 100,000 population rose from 3.4 to 4.
Number of infants with low birth weight fell from 16 per thousand to 0.3 — almost none.
Infant mortality per 1,000 births fell from 152 to 114.9.
Maternal mortality per 100,000 births fell from 1,600 to 1,100.
Percent of population with access to sanitation rose from 18 to 26.
Percent of population with access to at least one health facility rose from 28 to 54.8.
Percent of population in extreme poverty (i.e., less than $1 per day) fell from 60 to 43.2.
Radios per thousand population rose from 4 to 98.5.
Telephones per thousand population rose from 1.9 to 14.9.
TVs per 1,000 population rose from 1.2 to 3.7.
Fatalities due to measles fell from 8,000 to 5,600

Wanna know what I think? I think govts are terrified that Somalia might actually work without a govt, so they're doing everything they can to either get a govt going(so they can blame the failures on poor governance, rather than the success of no governance) or create disruption. Otherwise the case for their existence goes right out the window.

This is all even though Somalia's probably a more rough place, and so you need to remember that even if they did have a govt, things would only be worse than what they are now. Still, they're outperforming some neighbouring countries in economic growth, so anarchy can't be a complete failure can it?

Therefore, you should have an answer to this; don't dodge it. Obviously scale matters. It won't work if just my street decides to go anarchist will it?

Lol, what are expecting me to say: An area of exactly 2.734km^2 is required for anarchy. haha

Ok lets try this: "Wherever you have a govt now, that society would be better off under anarchy."

Your example of a street was kinda stupid because there is no govt currently presiding over each street. (yes there is local council, but thats there to govern an area, not just a street)

So what is your answer?

You're trying to bring up practical problems, when I'm bringing up moral problems too. Worrying about what happens after is like worrying about whose gonna feed the slaves when they're freed.

Govts (yes, even our relatively less evil Australian one):
- steal your income
- murder
- lock people up for 'crimes' that only harm themselves
- take away your right to self-ownership
- never owned the land in the first place, they just stole that too
- create dependence on its welfare programs/other programs, trying to continually grow and grow
- have a monopoly over currency - stealing 'value' from you via inflation, fractional reserve banking
- have a legal monopoly over law and using force
And this list is just off the top of my head, there'd be plenty more of this.

Any organisation doing this, should not exist. If you think this organisation should still exist (given ONLY evil can come from it), I'd like to see your moral justification of it. Which moral principle is it that allows these people to rule over us?

Russia doesn't want to bomb us. Russia wants to control us. She does this using threats of violence, ie. a bomb.

This entire example is kind of stupid. What 'head' or leader is there to threaten under anarchy? There would only be individual people and businesses.

Why not just get their own nukes? Some rich billionaire might just do it for the protection for the rest of society. Wouldn't be the first time some rich billionaire has donated a lot. Rockefeller, Gates, etc Or if there are no charitable billionaires, they could just all chip in together.

No country holding nuclear warheads has ever been invaded, and this just goes to show you that Iraq really didn't have warheads, or the US wouldn't have gone in there.

These decisions must come down to a leader, especially if it is a big one, and only a leader because it must be carried out with conviction. Napoleon said, loosely paraphrased, "Better one bad leader than two good ones." You need one course of action decided for all by one: it needs unity, from which strength can be maximised. A factitious, broken pack of quibbling communities each looking out for themselves would be easy prey.

This is more of that statist indoctrination rearing its ugly head right here. We've been taught all this time, that 'we need leaders'. Bullshit I say. Basically it's saying that 'humanity likes to submit' but this is obviously not true. People much prefer to be free.

What about the people doing the leading, do they need leaders? Obviously its not a universally held thing is it? You can't be both leading, and need a leader at the same time.

Yet, over those ten years, could Reagan have done what he did (bankrupt the inferior, fragile communist system) without Presidential powers? No.

He increased taxes to do that though. So theft is moral now?

 

[flappinghippo]

All I am saying is capitalism is exploitative and detrimental to true freedom. It may have been necessary in the past to get things running, but it is definitely no longer necessary.

Why is it no longer necessary? Why won't it just not work anymore?

The middle class is still working class, albeit much better paid and working under better conditions than the blue-collar working class. I think you will realise that the middle class is becoming poorer and poorer as the ruling class becomes more wealthy. You have to ask yourself: whom do these developments actually benefit? Is it the wealthy 1% of the population, or is it everyone else?

History says everybody; rich people, middle class people, and especially poor people.

Of course it's a theory, just like capitalism is. Please elaborate on this.

Capitalist countries applying capitalist theories are rich and prosperous. Therefore, theory = credible.

History also shows that any country undergoing a period of anarchy undergoes unbelievable levels of innovation, prosperity and rises in the standards of living. Look at Spain around the time of the 1936 revolution.

You don't refute that capitalism doesn't do that.

And what? The rebels founded a dictatorship. With much bloodshed. Your example is like, "You know what's wet? The desert."

I assume by prosperity under capitalism you mean the slums people lived in and the absolute poverty they faced around the time of the Industrial Revolution. Not to mention the billions of people living in poverty today.

Holee shit. This argument is still being used?

Oh okay, so what was the situation like BEFORE the Industrial Revolution? People were happy and wealthy and well fed and long-lived on farms in the country? Then evil capitalists forced them into the cities? Yeah no.

I mean by prosperity under capitalism being whole countries today are well fed to the point of obesity on a wide scale. Nobody but the very rich even 150 years ago were fat.

Where did this huge amount of food come from? Why is it so cheap? You say capitalism makes everybody but the wealthy poorer, yet no one in a reasonably capitalist country is starving.

Likewise, why are countries without capitalism falling further behind? They're the ones with the largest rates of poverty.

Can you please provide a source for this proof? And yes I think I could explain these 'successes' in my 'model' if you were to tell me what they are.

HAHAHAHAHAH. I bet this is a trick question. But I'll answer it anyway:

19th Century, poor, feudal Japan + 200 years of Capitalism = 2nd largest economy in the world

Estonia since 1992, after communist rule

In the aftermath of the Korean War, South Korea grew from being one of the world's poorest countries to one of the richest.

Let me add these countries are hardly resource-rich.

Noam Chomsky.

AHA! No wonder. It all makes sense now:

We're all living under brutal oppression from an evil imperialist power that seeks to rule over us all through violence and suppression of free speech. Says Chomsky, who is paid through MIT by that same government despite being one of its harshest critics and gets filthily rich in that country from selling books and DVDs to 'enlightened' Social Science students. Like one of those capitalist pigs.

Hahahaha. Noam.

 

[circusmind]

Yes, and the problem under capitalism is all the factories are already owned, so it is extremely difficult for someone to acquire one.

Go build one with collective labour, and run it as a group. No one's stopping you from realising your anarchist pipe dreams.

I do not see labour as a commodity in the way you do. Would you let some one sell themselves into slavery for the rest of their lives? What difference does it make if it is for eight hours a day?

You render the term slavery meaningless.

What is the incentive to work under capitalism? The threat if starvation. What is the incentive to work under anarchy? The joy of mutual aid. I know which conditions I would rather work under, not to mention more productively too.

Sure mate. People will barely get out of bed to work for their own gain, let alone some wanky, intangible "mutual aid".

Oh, that's right! I choose to eat and take shelter, because I could simply go without them if I didn't work. How stupid I have been!

40 hours may not be required, but some work definately is. I am still being forced to work to some extent.

Poor baby. The universe is oppressing you by rendering it necessary to actually exert yourself to get food.

 

[volition]

Just a few more thoughts to throw in about anarcho-capitalism:
Another consistency thing, if you guys have a problem with "freeriders", then you also have a problem with govt. It practically IS a freerider, off the backs of our labour and entrepreneurial skill.

Seriously, national defence wouldn't be that hard to provide if all it was, was say 2 or 3 nukes per every few 100k people, it'd be like $10/yr each or something lol. The reason national defence is so expensive now is, its not just defense, we're paying for other random shit like wars in iraq, and the govt has no incentive to keep costs down. There's no need for hectic fighter jets and helicopters and what good are troop armies against impending nuclear attacks anyway? As long as its reasonable (ie. the person feels national defence is necessary) and not too expensive, there's no reason why people wouldn't voluntarily pay this. If you think people have to be forced to do everything, then explain why people even bother tipping at restaurants.

If you really had a problem with individuals paying DROs to do that, then maybe DROs could just charge the shops they protect, say .5% of their sales or something to provide national defence.

There's no situation where a govt does better than the free market, while staying on the right side of morality.

 

[flappinghippo]

People naturally conform to power structures, volition. It's in our deep biological roots to follow leaders. It's because it a divided people are easy prey to strong threats, while a united whole is greater than the sum of its parts. That's a basic tenet of warfare and power, one that you seem to ignore.

That's how human civilisation developed, from the first tribe to the first nomads to the first villages to the first towns to the first cities to the first empires. It was evolution of the power game; from running a bunch of naked guys against each other, to more efficient means through strategy of attack and defense, or cunning within the court of the king.

Leaders climbed to the top by playing the courtier and killing when the time was right – such was the top-down power structures of the past where killing a select few in a coup de tat would be enough for the Machiavell to acquire power. This was the legitimacy of power back then; it was any means necessary in a world with no rules.

Democracy is a power structure designed to keep power from being too concentrated. Its foundations are based on the ideal that leaders are chosen by people every few years. A bottom-up sytem is the most effective means to prevent tyrannies because politicians not playing the game properly are recognised and stripped of power in due course.

I say turning to anarchy will not miraculously dissolve the human compulsion to form hierarchies, to desire power through coercion. It will only fuel it in a way to bring about a return to concentrated power and all its instabilities, and consequently a precipitation of the loss of freedom and increased conflict. The only freedom arising out of an undefined power structure is that given to tyrants to define it for themselves.

Your solutions that "everybody chips in 10 bucks for a nuclear bomb" or "wealthy guy buys and donates nuclear bomb" as a form of defense, based on the idea that no country with nukes has ever been invaded before, is severely simplistic and naive. It would only polarise the powerful (who hold the means to controlling the bomb) with the powerless. Not only that, but you take the term nuke too literally; there are far more insiduous and underhanded forms of coercion such as trade embargoes, sabotage, terrorism etc. that would be utilised by the power hungry as the means necessary to their ends (and perhaps more effective than overt displays of aggression). Not to mention new unforeseen tactics that are especially effective because of their novelty.

A government system, specifically a democratic one, restricts the amount of power held by any amount of individuals over another, which ensures tyranny does not arise. The process pre-empts them and there are measures to dispose of them if they do. A period of anarchy lacks this and instead depends on the assumption that people will "choose to be free" to maintain freedom. I dispute this assumption as naive and wishful thinking – most people will choose tyranny if they simply fear their life is at risk.

We make a compromise in our system: Some of our wealth is stolen for the "greater good" as well as some of our liberties, as you clearly are pissed off about. But the fact remains, how bad is it really? Am I impoverished by tax? I live with my mum and dad and we go on holidays overseas. Do I fear prosecution for speaking my mind? Fuck you John Howard!... No not really. Fuck you Abbos? Yeah maybe, but I can see where they come from, so it doesn't bother me. Can I take drugs if I want to? I'm not allowed to, but that can change. Does anything prevent me from running for office? No.

In return, we have stability, a safeguard against tyranny, and so a version of freedom as defined from the bottom-up. As Team America put it, "Freedom isn't free." The only freedom arising out of an undefined power structure is that given to tyrants to define it for themselves. I believe I am very free, even if I know there are limitations to it; you have to break a few eggs to make an omellete.

 

[flappinghippo]

Anarchy is yet to fail really, unlike pretty much every other political ideology.

Look, there are 2 societies (Irish and Vikings) that have run for >300 years! That's longer than even the USA govt has been around! Do you really think that's not enough proof?

Well why are they still not here?

I think that proves that anarchy actually did fail.

Somalia does sound interesting. Although, it's only been five years. And there are governments with well equipped armies across the border (like the Ethiopian army that mopped up Islamic insurgency a few months back); surely a disincentive for any warlord to forego diplomacy and play dirty.

Anyway, it's one thing for a traditionally nomadic people to have a foreign government system imposed on them and then relinquished, and another for a Westernised people used to government ridding it.

 

[volition]

Well why are they still not here?

I think that proves that anarchy actually did fail.

Good question, Celtic Ireland was invaded by Britain (I doubt having a govt would have helped them resist the British attack), and the Viking one was corrupted from within, this time it was the church. The church implemented a tithe system, decoupling income from accountability, the entire system collapsed:

chieftains who owned churchsteads now had a captive market, and so were freed from all competitive restraints on their accumulation of wealth and power. Through buying off or intimidating less wealthy chieftains, the top families were able to gain control of multiple chieftaincies. This gave them a lock on the parliament, enabling them to pass still further taxes; it also decreased competition among chieftains, allowing them to charge monopoly prices and drive their clients into a serf-like state of debt and dependence.

Like I was saying above, I think for anarcho-capitalism to happen, we need to reject religion as well as state. Religion and state are like snake and reptile, they just work in minutely different ways.

People naturally conform to power structures, volition. It's in our deep biological roots to follow leaders.

This is seriously a load of bullshit. Can it really be said that human nature is just drawn magnetically and loves leadership, when that leadership is imposed by the gun? If we love leaders, the leaders don't need to be pointing guns at us. If they need to point guns at us, we don't love them.

Seriously, if it were the case that people naturally submit to leadership, then why is everything the state does, enforced via violence? Wouldn't we want to do it? And if we did voluntarily do it, then once again, there's no need for a state.

If its "human nature to be led" - well then why would anyone want to be a leader? or an enforcer? If you're including something AND ITS OPPOSITE, you might want to work on your definition a little. This idea that you can invoke human nature to explain the submission to violence AND the use of violence to subdue other people is invalid.

If I said "people like to eat", well this could be pretty easily proven. There are restaurants! There are farmers! People are alive!

If "people naturally seek out power structures to rule and control them" well, show me where people go and do this? Unless you get up in the morning and get Helga the dominatrix to thoroughly spank you with a ping pong racket, and then after that maybe you go and get a guy at the restaurant to punch you, then maybe you go and mouth off at your boss and get yourself fired... cos you love the exercise of arbitrary brutal power and authority. Do people really do this? Please, reconsider this idea that "people like to submit". It is riddled with logical flaws, and has no basis in the real world.

I say turning to anarchy will not miraculously dissolve the human compulsion to form hierarchies, to desire power through coercion. It will only fuel it in a way to bring about a return to concentrated power and all its instabilities, and consequently a precipitation of the loss of freedom and increased conflict. The only freedom arising out of an undefined power structure is that given to tyrants to define it for themselves.

I am perfectly aware of the idea that power corrupts people, and anarchy is actually the better solution to deal with this corruption. The balance of power under anarchy is what keeps people from getting out of line. What keeps govts from getting out of line? not much really, apart from the vote, and what if the party ends up not doing anything anyway? for eg. Look at the last US elections before this one, they were all like "yeah get the democrats in so we can get the troops out of Iraq", democrats get in, was the war stopped? "Nah, lets stay the course! Don't let the terrorists win!"

This whole 'eternal vigilance is the price of freedom' doesn't work with govts, once you give that power up, you're basically fucked. Once you give them the legal power over the use of force, and the right to legally disarm the population, what do they seriously have to fear now? Absolutely nothing.

A period of anarchy lacks this and instead depends on the assumption that people will "choose to be free" to maintain freedom.

It would depend partly on this, but also on the way that defence firms would be watching each other, because if any one of them got too big, all the other ones could lose their business if the big one goes rogue. It's a balance of power, as opposed to the monolithic unchecked power of the govt.

Your solutions that "everybody chips in 10 bucks for a nuclear bomb" or "wealthy guy buys and donates nuclear bomb" as a form of defense,

First of all, what about my last suggestion, the one where DROs just charge stores .5% of their sales or whatever, to provide defence?

Secondly, yeah ok it doesn't have to literally be nukes, but I'm sure the market would find a better way than govts to protect the people. Governments just fall prey to special interest groups/corruption/inefficiency, and 'democracy' has nothing to do with finding the best solution, only the populist solution. Private firms on the other hand, have to be concerned with finding the best solution.

there are far more insiduous and underhanded forms of coercion such as trade embargoes, sabotage, terrorism

You refer to these, but I don't see what purpose there would be to these... There's less reason to try these out on the stateless society than there is on a govt. Govts are not only a poor solution, they are actually part of the problem themselves. They create environments where these bad things like terrorism/sabotage are more likely to occur. In a free society, people wouldn't be so poor and broken down, they wouldn't have a reason to do these things.

Does anything prevent me from running for office? No.

First of all, the fact that you can run for office to try and get your rights recognised, does not mean that you actually ARE getting your rights recognised. ie. You shouldn't have to run for office to get get the government to stop violating your rights.

Secondly, I think you'll find there are things that stop you from running for office. The system is not geared towards putting in good policy, because government is fundamentally the vehicle through which everyone's trying to push their costs onto other people. Why do you think we still have so many subsidies + grants, even though we know its not economically efficient/ gives approval for taxation theft?

In return, we have stability, a safeguard against tyranny, and so a version of freedom as defined from the bottom-up.

What kind of stability is it where we have guns pointing at us on a daily basis? You like the idea of a centrally murderous and genocidal entity? Is that your view of 'freedom'?

Oh yeah, couldn't resist another dig at the "people love to submit": Do you love the arbitrary exercise of brutal power and authority? Does your girlfriend beat you up? Or maybe your friends humiliate you in public? Seriously dude, tell me how your theory about submission to violence works in your life first, before you go and try to say its some kind of universal human thing.

 

[flappinghippo]

Please, reconsider this idea that "people like to submit". It is riddled with logical flaws, and has no basis in the real world.

For fuck's sake..

People don't "like to submit", and I never said or implied that, so wtf. My point was:People want power; they want others to submit to their will. You look at human history from the very beginning and you'll see a hierarchies in every single society. Some people are more intelligent, more ambitious or more charismatic than others, and this variety in people types lead inexorably to some being more dominant than others. Hence, natural hierarchies are created with some guy usually at the top – the chieftain, the minister, the emperor – that got there by force, charisma, or cunning, to attain the benefits of power over his subordinates.

In most of history, the leader and his accomplices got to where they were by any means necessary�*– murder and intimidation was the usual path. Once at the top, they simply took whatever they wanted from the serfs and gave shit all in return. The serfs didn't want to submit, much less "like to submit", but had to, because if they didn't they faced brutal reprisal. Many kingdoms and empires followed this example to keep power concentrated and in the fewest possible hands.

Can you see the illegitimacy of those systems? It was whoever was the most ruthless, evil prick that became leader, whose position was maintained by murdering or intimidating all those he suspects might do the same thing he did. The "state" was formed by a handful of people so they could fuck on everybody else .

So, in this way, you see that people naturally conform to power structures because everybody wants power, not that everybody wants to submit. Some people are more ruthless, violent, ambitious – whatever gives them an advantage – and hierarchies form. And this process over time creates "states" for the purpose of dictators to claim ownership.

(Eventually though, the repression goes too far and the serving class revolt. You'll see the incumbents put things back in its place by use of overwhelming force (Spartacus!). But sometimes it goes out of hand, like in the French revolution. And even then, things go chaotic for a bit and then revert to old elitist power relationships; We peasants revolt, fuck ruling class aristocracy! Umm.. oh hello Napoleon!)

I say anarchy has failed and will inevitably fail forever more because nothing keeps people from being too powerful. The world will only witness a return to feudalism, to the same ancient patterns of violence and intimidation imposed by a bunch of criminals.

Democracy prevents this power being too concentrated. You have a fucking say in who gets to boss you around! Your leaders compete with each other using rhetoric, not cannon, to sell you the best deal in exchange for your vote. I never saw a Bonaparte, Caesar, Khan, Nobunaga, Louis or Alexander looking out for anyone but themselves; they didn't offer anyone anything but a sword to the face, let alone asking for the commoner's vote. Did it matter if the commoner was starving? No, not as long as he was safely in power.

In a democracy the leader has to offer something good to enough people to attain power (which remember, all people want). And as soon as people judge him to be irresponsible, they can kick the fucker out! Therefore, there is a trend for progress as leaders convince voters with a) lies and/or b) results. It's slow, but it sure is steady.

The system is not geared towards putting in good policy, because government is fundamentally the vehicle through which everyone's trying to push their costs onto other people. Why do you think we still have so many subsidies + grants, even though we know its not economically efficient/ gives approval for taxation theft?

Government wasn't like this until recently I believe. The 19th century American government had very little to do with people's lives, and the population were all the more better for it (unprecendented levels philanthropic activity, for example). I believe we can return to it if we change people's attitudes.

What kind of stability is it where we have guns pointing at us on a daily basis? You like the idea of a centrally murderous and genocidal entity? Is that your view of 'freedom'?

I have not had any guns pointed at me ever, let alone daily.

There are far less wars than there used to be, and in this day and age wars are going out of fashion. Where's your genocide? Hussein and Pinochet, years ago.

We are talking freely, we are walking freely. I believe our version of freedom is fucking great in comparison to what people had to endure in the past, but of course it has room for improvement.

Oh yeah, couldn't resist another dig at the "people love to submit": Do you love the arbitrary exercise of brutal power and authority? Does your girlfriend beat you up? Or maybe your friends humiliate you in public? Seriously dude, tell me how your theory about submission to violence works in your life first, before you go and try to say its some kind of universal human thing.

You'd like that wouldn't you? Well I won't say, lest I give you something to whack off about.

 

[volition]

Now you've actually just changed it, how is this:

People don't "like to submit", and I never said or implied that, so wtf. My point waseople want power

The same as this:

People naturally conform to power structures, volition. It's in our deep biological roots to follow leaders.

I think its fair enough to say that when you say "humanity likes to follow leaders", that I was generally hitting in the right ballpark when I spoke of "submission to power"...

What the hell else does "conform to power structures" mean? If you are conforming to a power structure, I would say that, by definition, you aren't the one attempting to control it, and so you weren't saying anything about people wanting power. To conform, is NOT to want to use power to change things. Conforming is just staying in line. So basically you're just being intellectually dishonest. If you say something and then I rip into it and show you why it makes zero sense, don't just come back at me and claim you never said that.

As for the idea that "people want power", if you think this (which I agree with), then obviously anarchy is a better solution because it splits the power much better than govts ever do. With govts, the power is concentrated into one big monolithic agency. How can you possibly argue that its easier to run rampant under an anarchic system with multiple agencies watching each other, rather than under a system where there is one big unchecked power (govt)?

So for me, its a position of realising that yes, power corrupts, and the solution to this is actually to create a true balance of power under anarchy, rather than one big govt.

Government wasn't like this until recently I believe. The 19th century American government had very little to do with people's lives, and the population were all the more better for it (unprecendented levels philanthropic activity, for example). I believe we can return to it if we change people's attitudes.

Well of course a small govt is preferable to a big one, but I still don't see any kind of moral justification for this. What makes one person fit to lead, and another not to? Do you understand the logical problems with this? Are you fine with the idea of creating two classes? Presumably you're ok with being in the underclass? We're all human, we're all the same, therefore nobody is allowed to "set rules" for other people.

I have not had any guns pointed at me ever, let alone daily.

You're not looking at it the right way. If you submit to this 130kg NFL-sized guy who threatens to bash you, and you hand over your wallet without him actually bashing you, that's still an immoral use of force isn't it? Its the same with the government, you just don't see it because people generally have zero chance of beating it in a fight. (because they've given up the monopoly of force to the govt, as well as giving it the right to disarm the population)

Whether or not a gun physically gets pointed at us, is not to say that this threat is not being used against us. If I went up to you and kinda said "you better pay me $100 or when you come back to your house, it kinda MIGHT be burnt down". Threatening people in this way is an immoral thing to do yes? So why do you excuse the govt for doing it?

 

[flappinghippo]

Now you've actually just changed it

What the hell else does "conform to power structures" mean?

I disagree. The 1st quote you chose is re-iterated and developed further in the post, showing you've selected it out of context:

I say turning to anarchy will not miraculously dissolve the human compulsion to form hierarchies, to desire power through coercion.

Which is what I said my point was.

I think its fair enough to say that when you say "humanity likes to follow leaders", that I was generally hitting in the right ballpark when I spoke of "submission to power"...

You had it the wrong way around; that people "naturally seek out power structures to rule and control them". This reverses the cause and effect relationship. What it actually is (and is what I originally said) is that people naturally seek out power, hence resulting in power strucures to rule and control others. So, okay, you were "generally hitting in the right ballpark"; but you did so with a novelty Hello Kitty inflatable bat.

Onwards.

As for the idea that "people want power", if you think this (which I agree with), then obviously anarchy is a better solution because it splits the power much better than govts ever do. With govts, the power is concentrated into one big monolithic agency. How can you possibly argue that its easier to run rampant under an anarchic system with multiple agencies watching each other, rather than under a system where there is one big unchecked power (govt)?

volition, my previous posts outlined my argument exactly for why anarchy would inevitably fail in this regard! Seeing as you've agreed that "people want power", then you could understand how people achieved this in the past, like I said, through coercion. It was every man for himself, yet those that were more ruthless and ambitious found ways to dominate over his fellow man, and with nothing stopping them, it was a dirty game of murder and intimidation. So, the state was formed by a handful of criminals so they could keep power concentrated.

In this manner, since all people desire power, only the most evil and cunning bastards can find the means to cheat their way from the bottom, generating wealth, manuevering around enemies, using allies, deception, fraud, in order to become the top power. And cheat people always have done and always will do.

Any powerful figure prior to modern democracy has a 99% chance that he got there by very immoral means (on any measure).As power struggles will always occur among humans, it follows this would occur under an anarchy as well. People will still form power relationships. Only, this time the powerful will grow unabated and unchecked even more so, it would corrupt further and wider because there are no limits�*– no limits on what one can do if he knows no one can do anything about it, just as is the case with any dictator. These agencies you talk about won't watch each other as you suppose but scheme, collude, bribe, coerce – sure you could play 'legitimately', but what good is it when some start playing dirty?

Kleptocracies, dictatorships, kingdoms, that's just what anarchic societies will always turn into.

Which is exactly that "one big power" you say we need to get rid of.

We're all human, we're all the same, therefore nobody is allowed to "set rules" for other people.

I agree with you here. Most people would.

However, this is a philosophy that must be enforced to be realised because it doesn't just happen as you think it might, as evidently some douchebags always get too power hungry and ruin it for everyone.

This enforcement can only come from a minimal and clearly defined government.

Whether or not a gun physically gets pointed at us, is not to say that this threat is not being used against us. If I went up to you and kinda said "you better pay me $100 or when you come back to your house, it kinda MIGHT be burnt down". Threatening people in this way is an immoral thing to do yes? So why do you excuse the govt for doing it?

The government is using force as determined by how much they can get away with it, just as with any entity. In communist or dictatorship governments that's a lot. In modern democratic ones it's a WHOLE lot less, because they have a lot more to account for, their power is directly relative to their public image and trust�*– the Vietcong won because they brought the war into the American consciousness, despite losing every single major engagement.

This way, it's not worth it to engage citizens with force without a damn good reason, with "good" being defined by the public's trust.

 

[volition]

On second thought, I'm not sure if I would use the words "People want power" because it kind of suggests that people want to take power. I think it's probably more accurate to say "Power corrupts people", which is more along the lines of, once you give someone this power, they won't use it for good.

These agencies you talk about won't watch each other as you suppose but scheme, collude, bribe, coerce – sure you could play 'legitimately', but what good is it when some start playing dirty?

This is the same argument for why businesses would price collude. In a free market, they simply couldn't do it, because their peer businesses would be keeping them in check. Maybe watch this video on "imploding monopolies" Anyway, the gist of it is that even if there were a bunch of people colluding, the ones who weren't in on the collusion deal mightn't know what price to charge, and so they would sort of think "oh well what i have is the same product! And I can do it for cheaper than the cartel, so I'll just sell for less". There's even an incentive for the people inside the price collusion cartel to "cheat on the collusion deal" and just drop their prices and increase their market share.

As for this idea that DROs would collude together to take over power, this is forgetting that if any one/group of them actually does get too big and scary, it would pay for other DROs to point this out. They'd run ads and stuff, to convince people to switch away from the potentially rogue one, because it can't function without funds anyway.

Ok, so maybe DROs would have to really convince people that they're really not going to turn into a state. Maybe they'd put in terms like "If you find evidence of us with black helicopters in our hangar bays, we will pay you $10 million" or enough that it wouldn't make sense for them to do it.

People would want to remain free, so if they ever found out about these kinds of insidious plans, they'd leave that DRO immediately.

I agree with you here. Most people would.

However, this is a philosophy that must be enforced to be realised because it doesn't just happen as you think it might, as evidently some douchebags always get too power hungry and ruin it for everyone.

This enforcement can only come from a minimal and clearly defined government.

Well "some douchebags" didn't get too power hungry in the Irish example, they just got invaded by the British. And both them and the Vikings had been going for longer than the USA has even been around!

Do you actually have any kind of justification for what the state does? Or are you just saying "its a necessary evil" ?

I still can't see how anyone could realistically think that a government can be kept small. It didn't take long for the US govt to break the bounds of its constitution, which was even designed to constrain it.

Interesting point to finish off this post: Check out a book called "Democracy: The God That Failed" by Hans Herman-Hoppe, its basically a look at why monarchies are actually better than democracies. Here's a short discussion on it.

Both kings and presidents will produce bads, yet a king, because he "owns" the monopoly and may sell or bequeath it, will care about the repercussions of his actions on capital values. As the owner of the capital stock on "his" territory, the king will be comparatively future-oriented. In order to preserve or enhance the value of his property, he will exploit only moderately and calculatingly. In contrast, a temporary and interchangeable democratic caretaker does not own the country, but as long as he is in office he is permitted to use it to his advantage. He owns its current use but not its capital stock. This does not eliminate exploitation. Instead, it makes exploitation shortsighted (present-oriented) and uncalculated, i.e., carried out without regard for the value of the capital stock.

To use economics speak, its about "time preferencing" and how in a democracy the leadership don't really give a shit about what happens after their own term, so they can just use and abuse. On the other hand, a king is more likely to care about the future of the nation.

Although no state is better of course, but Hoppe says that perhaps the order goes more like this:
No state > monarchy > democracy

Which goes against the 'normal' trend where most people think a democracy is better than a monarchy. Food for thought.

 

[_dhj_]

On second thought, I'm not sure if I would use the words "People want power" because it kind of suggests that people want to take power. I think it's probably more accurate to say "Power corrupts people", which is more along the lines of, once you give someone this power, they won't use it for good.

The correct statements are "some people want power" and "power corrupts some people". But only the corruption aspect is problematic from our point of view, not the mere fact that someone gets in power. I suspect your definition of power is too narrow. A person can exert power through ordinary discourse, circumstances (e.g. an employer may have "power" over an attractive junior employee), physical means and symbolic messages. Preventing one type of exertion of "power" - the type that is likely to minimise other types of exertions of power - seems arbitrary because any type of power might corrupt certain individuals.

 

[volition]

Just found a few interesting links about privatised national defence and private law, I'll just chuck em here in case you're interested.

The Possibility of Private Law, an article by Robert P. Murphy - http://mises.org/story/1874

Two entire books on anarcho-capitalist theory:
Chaos Theory - http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf
The Myth of National Defense - http://mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf

I've got exams coming up the next week or so, so I'll kinda not be on here so often til they're over. I haven't read this material myself, but I'm sure you'll find it an interesting read. I plan to read them later myself when I get the time.

 

[volition]

I suspect your definition of power is too narrow. A person can exert power through ordinary discourse, circumstances (e.g. an employer may have "power" over an attractive junior employee), physical means and symbolic messages. Preventing one type of exertion of "power" - the type that is likely to minimise other types of exertions of power - seems arbitrary because any type of power might corrupt certain individuals.

Yeah ok i see what you mean, but when we're referring to power in the area of govts and private law etc, we're talking about violent coercive power, and not "market power" if you get me.

Like, its fair enough that people working in industries with low labour supply, get to "use their market power to get a relatively high wage", because that's not violating anybodys property rights. On the other hand, a govt does violate property rights, and its not a voluntary thing, so this is immoral.

 

[flappinghippo]

Well "some douchebags" didn't get too power hungry in the Irish example, they just got invaded by the British. And both them and the Vikings had been going for longer than the USA has even been around!

I'll spell it out for you.
The British were the power hungry douchebags.

"oh well what i have is the same product! And I can do it for cheaper than the cartel, so I'll just sell for less".

Cartels we've seen in recent times operate within a framework of law. They commit a lot of time finding loopholes, erasing a paper trail, bribery, etc. to escape prosecution, in order to maintain a monopoly.

Without the constraints framework, what's to stop these cartels from resorting to other further, insidious means that trump legitimate business practice? ie. violent coercive means? Would it be outside the realm of possibility for companies to start doing so when a supreme power limiting that ability disappears? Obviously they wouldn't resort to it without a cost-benefit analysis (like customer confidence).. but could there be a situation where the benefits outweigh the costs/risks involved?

Government ensures that cost is vastly higher (but not insurmountable). Anarchy ensures nothing.

Case in point

Ok, so maybe DROs would have to really convince people that they're really not going to turn into a state. Maybe they'd put in terms like "If you find evidence of us with black helicopters in our hangar bays, we will pay you $10 million" or enough that it wouldn't make sense for them to do it.

Right, and then directly after "But if somebody else looks like they will, we'll start making black helicopters straight away for your protection."

Whatever sells, right?

Although no state is better of course, but Hoppe says that perhaps the order goes more like this:
No state > monarchy > democracy

Which goes against the 'normal' trend where most people think a democracy is better than a monarchy. Food for thought.

Hahaha, a monarchy is better than a democracy? You have to be kidding.

In most cases, a monarch or dictator only gives a shit about his country insofar as to ensure he stays in power. That's because he got there by illegitimate means and will be on the constant look out for coups – Mao, Stalin, you name it�*– look at the goddamn body count racked up by these evil pricks. And, as you fire off a truism that power corrupts, we all know it follows that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I mean, jesus christ, have you forgotten that whole continent full of dictators that use their nation's economies as their personal piggy banks? ( A F R I C A )

Hoppe sounds like the classic case of the intellectual professing his superior knowledge over the human condition; what shit.

 

[volition]

I'll spell it out for you.
The British were the power hungry douchebags.

This only works if the Irish would have found it easier to repel the British with a government.

Cartels we've seen in recent times operate within a framework of law. They commit a lot of time finding loopholes, erasing a paper trail, bribery, etc. to escape prosecution, in order to maintain a monopoly.

Govts help monopolies exist by creating barriers to new firm entry. Regulations, Minimum wage laws, even handing monopoly rights over to firms via its patents and IP systems.

Anyway, the current bunch of firms we have now cannot really be compared to what they would be like under anarcho-capitalism. We may see price fixers and collusion happening in todays society, but yea, don't expect me to defend the current crop of businesses. Many businesses these days are in the ear of politicians, and many of them are on the govt life line of corporate welfare or grants or subsidies etc. Many of them are getting extra legal protections in areas, helping them stay afloat where they might not have in a free market.

If you have a problem with monopolies, then why don't you have a problem with governments? The position of being against monopolies, but being for governments is inconsistent.

Right, and then directly after "But if somebody else looks like they will, we'll start making black helicopters straight away for your protection."

Whatever sells, right?

Well I reckon what they would do is have independent auditors verify their status, in much the same way that businesses now get audited. And most likely, people would be leaving these rogue DROs before they even got enough steam to start some kind of invasion.

But ok, if a defence firm did go rogue, then yes the others would have to band together to preserve the peoples freedom. But in this case it would be fair enough, there'd be no other choice. So I'm guessing your argument here is that, the "alliance" of firms might then decide to try and become a govt straight afterwards?

I think we also need to remember that part of the reason govts have so much authority now is because there are so many people that think they're necessary. Can you imagine what would happen if you suddenly took a population used to being free under anarchy and understanding how evil govts are, and then plunked a government in over them? I think that part of the reason governments were able to pop up in the first place is because people didn't reject their authority, back when the state was still small enough to actually resist. People back in the first few days of the US just labored under the fallacy that the government could be restrained, and now look where they are.

Can you imagine what would happen if, so many people didn't like the government, that only say, 10% voted? It would sound the death-knell for the legitimacy of the government and its immoral democratic process. Even if only 50% of the population rejected the government, there just wouldn't be enough resources and man power from the other half to sustain the governments control. I think it's only able to exert its control over us because enough people believe in these false gods of the state and the church.

If govts are stopped before they can implement a kind of enforceable tax system, it wouldn't be able to sustain itself, nor would its laws or police have any authority over the people. So in a way, I'm kind of saying, it wouldn't happen if we didn't let it, right from the onset while its still possible to resist being enslaved.

Government ensures that cost is vastly higher (but not insurmountable). Anarchy ensures nothing.

Government ensures nothing either, except for making it easier for evil people to steal/murder/abuse power. And get paid for doing it.

Hahaha, a monarchy is better than a democracy? You have to be kidding.

In most cases, a monarch or dictator only gives a shit about his country insofar as to ensure he stays in power. That's because he got there by illegitimate means and will be on the constant look out for coups – Mao, Stalin, you name it�*– look at the goddamn body count racked up by these evil pricks. And, as you fire off a truism that power corrupts, we all know it follows that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I mean, jesus christ, have you forgotten that whole continent full of dictators that use their nation's economies as their personal piggy banks? ( A F R I C A )

Hoppe sounds like the classic case of the intellectual professing his superior knowledge over the human condition; what shit.

Well I'm still reading about this stuff myself, so I'm not really decided one way or another, but I'm reading "The myth of National Defence" now and I found an interesting paragraph by the same guy (Page 6 if you're interested):

Traditional monarchies only resemble dictatorships superficially. Instead, dictatorships are a regular outgrowth of mass democracy. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao were distinctly democratic rulers as compared to the former Emperors of Russia, Germany, Austria, and China. Indeed, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao (and almost all of their smaller and lesser known successors) were outspoken in their hatred of everything monarchic and aristocratic. They knew that they owed their rise to democratic mass politics, and they employed democratic politics (elections, referenda, mass rallies, mass media propaganda, etc.) throughout their reign.

So it appears that he draws a distinction between dictatorships and monarchies. I think he might have been referring to monarchies as they existed traditionally?

Anyway, with those african nations,they might not even be better off under democracy. Heaps of those govts are corrupted with money grabbers anyway. money/power seekers who don't even make an attempt to hide it, unlike the politics of the western world where its all hidden behind appeals to the "common good".

 

[volition]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_somalia - check this link out, i'll paste some stuff here too:

"The data suggest that while the state of this development remains low, on nearly all of 18 key indicators that allow pre- and post-stateless welfare comparisons, Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under government."
--—Peter T. Leeson, Better Off Stateless: Somalia Before and After Government Collapse

The majority of the schools are provided by the free market, sustained by school fees; in cases where there are state-supported public schools, private schools are often coveted for their academic excellence, outperforming their public competitors in academic achievement tests. The number of primary schools have risen from 600 before the civil war to 1,172 schools today, with an increase of 28% in primary school enrollment over the last 3 years. Enrollment in secondary schools has also increased since 1998.

In 1989, before the collapse of the government, the national airline had only one airplane. Now there are approximately fifteen airlines, over sixty aircraft, six international destinations, and more domestic routes in Somalia.

A 2004 World Bank study of the Somalian economy concluded that "it may be easier than is commonly thought for basic systems of finance and some infrastructure services to function where government is extremely weak or absent."

So yeah, this is all from what was one of the world's poorest nations in 1991. It's definitely a promising result, with living standards appearing to be on the increase, along with the economy.