Page 3 of 8 <12345>Last »
Topic Options
#12891 - 10/19/08 07:14 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3882
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I think, perhaps, it is you that doesn't know what a state is. The burden of proof is on you to show what is wrong with my examples.

You have yet to move from making bald assertions to making any sort of cogent response.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#12911 - 10/20/08 02:22 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
This is goddamn pathetic. You are the one claiming it is possible to have stateless societies nowadays and let's not forget the 'free market without monopolies' gem. I just ask you if you are for real because if you'd stick that head of yours out of the window, you'd see that reality tends to prove pretty nicely what I claim.

Hell, you've been dancing around the subject all the time without being able to deliver some goodies. You know what, you're with your back against the wall and you and I know it.

I expect more here from someone disagreeing with me but it isn't that important, shallow shit seems to be the sign of times.

D.

Top
#12931 - 10/20/08 01:05 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I decided to be the nice guy, look for my silver spoon and tell you what I think of anarchy.

All kinds of people today call themselves "libertarians," especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they're anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It's a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don't want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That's the Libertarian movement.

Ayn Rand



Although I don't necessarily agree with everything Rand says, I do think she brilliantly describes what anarchists really are; a bunch of wannabe hippies.
A Satanist promoting anarchy as a societal structure is the same as a hippie promoting rape as a way to share love.

The big mistake of anarchy is to be found in what they demand of humans to make the system work; acting upon common sense. It requires everyone involved to have common sense and act upon it. If everyone had common sense and acted upon it, there was no need for anarchism in the first place. They act as if the system makes humans do evil things and if you present them with another solution they would change and happily coexist together. That's Christianity in a political suit. The devil makes people do bad things and if they'd take the side of god, they'd all live happily together. It's the same sort of collectivism and bullshit Satanism is at war with. Wake up; people do bad things because they choose to do bad things.

People don't always act upon common sense and hell, too many of them don't even know what common sense is. We got a system with rules, laws and punishment and still our prisons are flooded. If you release them in public and tell them to act upon common sense from now one, they'd eat every anarchist alive.
Social Darwinism, might is right, alphas and followers; does it ring a bell? How the hell are you going to handle that problem in an anarchistic structure?

Ownership and money; how does it fit? You really think I am going to give a profit-share to a dishwasher when I have a restaurant? He should be lucky I want to pay him. Who's going to take care of the public part in a society; housing, schooling, public roads… We gonna rely on goodwill of all participants and hope they use their common sense? Or are we going to make a committee for everything and end up with a zillion committees and act as if that isn't a governmental system?

Who's gonna protect us from the bad guy next door that is organized? We gonna solve that with directly changing everything in a brave new world?

I know there is genetic (reciprocal) altruism in nature but don't get your hopes up high because we and other animals display it. It only works in small communities where there is social control and most important: punishment. In large societies, anonymity overrules our genetic altruistic tendency and most become cheaters. That's why prisons are filled that nicely.

Anarchism is a theoretical model upheld most of the time by college students and hippies that just had a haircut. It is at no point a realistic model for a society and every attempt will be at mercy of the predator living next to them or within. The individuals are as free as the individuals under communism. Even fascism is more in touch with Satanism.

Now, if you like to dream about anarchism, it is your right. In lala-land we are allowed to imagine everything. In my dreams I run around chasing children and clubbing them like baby seals but I don't take my fantasies out of lala-land.

If you are smart enough to realize how humans are, you should be smart enough to know what works and what doesn't when they coexist.

D.

Top
#12991 - 10/20/08 09:54 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3882
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Anarchy is simply absence of government, thus advocating government is to make a positive claim that requires justification. In other words, the burden of proof to show why a government is necessary belongs to you. You have yet to do anything close to this.

As for monopolies, I am still waiting for you to produce an example of this ever happening. Since it never has, I won't hold my breath.

 Quote:

Although I don't necessarily agree with everything Rand says, I do think she brilliantly describes what anarchists really are; a bunch of wannabe hippies.

As anarchism and hippies are absolutely unrelated, this statement leaves you looking pretty ignorant.
 Quote:

They act as if the system makes humans do evil things and if you present them with another solution they would change and happily coexist together.

Though the system doesn't make anyone do anything, the incentive structure insures that only people with evil ends have all the guns and all the power.
 Quote:

People don't always act upon common sense and hell, too many of them don't even know what common sense is. We got a system with rules, laws and punishment and still our prisons are flooded. I

So you think it's perfectly ok for a street gang to kidnap you and lock you up because you act against their will?
 Quote:

It's the same sort of collectivism and bullshit Satanism is at war with. Wake up; people do bad things because they choose to do bad things.

Actually it's the exact opposite. It is becoming more clear with every post that you don't understand what you are arguing against here. The ultimate form of collectivism, the biggest steaming pile of mob rule crap ever, is democracy. What I am advocating is individual sovereignty.
 Quote:

Social Darwinism, might is right, alphas and followers; does it ring a bell? How the hell are you going to handle that problem in an anarchistic structure?

Without ridiculous laws in place protecting the weak from themselves, I would expect you would see more of a problem now.
People would still be free to follow or lead as they so chose.
 Quote:

Who's gonna protect us from the bad guy next door that is organized? We gonna solve that with directly changing everything in a brave new world?

Now you are just being ridiculous. Do you really think peoples desires for security would evaporate in the absence of a state? You watch too many movies.
 Quote:

I know there is genetic (reciprocal) altruism in nature but don't get your hopes up high because we and other animals display it.

What does altruism have to do with anything? It's pretty clear now you are arguing against some ethereal straw man and not what I am saying at all.
 Quote:

Ownership and money; how does it fit? You really think I am going to give a profit-share to a dishwasher when I have a restaurant? He should be lucky I want to pay him.

Again, you are WAYYYYYY off track. I am not a mutualist, nor have I given any reason for you to make that leap of logic.
 Quote:

Who's going to take care of the public part in a society; housing, schooling, public roads…

Ever heard of the 'tragedy of the commons' problem? Public property is a very bad idea.
..By the way how is housing 'public'? I own mine...and I'd imagine those that don't would continue renting.
As for 'roads', the real problem is 'transportation' which the market could deal with quite easily.
 Quote:

Who's gonna protect us from the bad guy next door that is organized? We gonna solve that with directly changing everything in a brave new world?

In an armed population such a group would have a lot of trouble getting anywhere. For those that choose protection services could and would function as long as the market existed. Since security is a pretty big desire among most I don't see any problem there.
 Quote:

Anarchism is a theoretical model upheld most of the time by college students and hippies that just had a haircut. It is at no point a realistic model for a society and every attempt will be at mercy of the predator living next to them or within. The individuals are as free as the individuals under communism. Even fascism is more in touch with Satanism.

Perhaps this is true of whatever strawman you are arguing against. What I am advocating is a society without constraints in which the weak/stupid do very poorly due to a lack of social safety nets. A society where the very strong/clever can build an empire by their own hand.

You use the example of advocating rape, which is very interesting because you are right now advocating the initiation of coercion which is basically the same thing.
 Quote:

In my dreams I run around chasing children and clubbing them like baby seals but I don't take my fantasies out of lala-land.

Well aren't you just the antisocial fuckbag? Since you like to dictate what is Satanic and what isn't, how do you feel about hurting little children? hmmm..
 Quote:

If you are smart enough to realize how humans are, you should be smart enough to know what works and what doesn't when they coexist.

I am smart enough to do my homework and research a subject before attempting to argue against it. I suggest you do the same.
http://www.mises.org/
http://www.graveyardofthegods.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=4305
http://www.freedomainradio.com/podcasts.html
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#13051 - 10/21/08 04:56 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
First let me mention I don't like the serial quote of death too much as a manner of responding. Quoting is there to take a fragment of a post as an indicator of what you are going to reply to, but I think it becomes negative in a debate when it is overused. Mainly because some replies are a whole and if you are going to vivisect all parts, you aren't debating the point made but the different parts; which taken out of context can lead to different conclusions. It also seem to lead towards criticism of the sentence written, often without the required argumentation.
I think it is possible for both of us to write a coherent reply without the need of serial quoting. I assume our memory is good enough to know what we wrote a couple of hours ago and our brain functions at the required level to know what the other talks about.
That being said, you are free to use whatever approach you like, none can force you.

Let's first get to monopolies because it doesn't fit too much into the rest. If I'm not mistaking, I claimed that monopolies are a logical result of a free market. The only way to avoid it is having a regulated market. Your claim, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that it IS possible to control monopolies (which is avoidance too) in a free market. The burden of proof is on you on this one because we don't have a free market. If you'd look at the USA, you'd notice that the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act are control mechanism already implemented at an early stage. In a true free market, there would be none of those controlling mechanisms and monopolies would flourish. It's a logical result in economics and if there is a manner how to avoid that without applying control or depending on global common sense, it escapes me. There is no economic deus ex machine that jumps in when required. If there is, then the proof is upon you, the current reality lacks it.

Ok, onwards to anarchism; hippies and anarchists.

 Quote:
The Yippie "New Nation" concept called for the creation of alternative, counterculture institutions (food co-ops, underground newspapers, free clinics, etc.). Yippies believed these cooperative institutions and a radicalized hippie culture would spread until they supplanted the existing system.

"We are a people. We are a new nation," YIP's New Nation Statement said of the burgeoning hippie movement. "We want everyone to control their own life and to care for one another... We cannot tolerate attitudes, institutions, and machines whose purpose is the destruction of life, the accumulation of profit."

The goal was a decentralized, collective, anarchistic nation rooted in the borderless hippie counterculture and its communal ethos. Abbie Hoffman wrote: "We shall not defeat Amerika by organizing a political party. We shall do it by building a new nation — a nation as rugged as the marijuana leaf."


Absence of government does not exist in nature. Absence of government as we know it does. It is not because tribes have no democratic, theocratic or fascist government that they are not governed. If all members of a tribe would have the freedom to have a say, and decisions would be made upon that, and logic concludes that what the majority decides would happen; you'd have a true democracy.
I'm sorry but I did not make it this way; social evolution through times, combined with darwinistic selection ended up in the systems we know today. If it shouldn't have happened it wouldn't have happened and although this can be regarded as a strange argument, it is one. The proof is in where we are today and in what we came from in the past. Throughout history we have had social evolution and change which ended in what we have nowadays. It does not imply that the social and governmental structures we have today are the best or will be there forever; this is a transitional stage. So you see, I don't need to prove why we need government; nature and history did that for me and if you think there can be a solution which does not require governing and in such a manner that it would not quickly shift in either chaos or tyranny, you have to come with pretty good arguments. I don't need to create a straw man to prove it isn't possible, my straw man is man as he is. Man as we recognize him in Satanism. To prove anarchy is possible, we have to create a universal man because without him, the status quo that is required to stabilize anarchy isn't possible.

On people with evil ends I do not see your point. Why would I think it is ok for a street gang to kidnap me and lock me up? I know, you probably used that as a metaphor for cops or a governmental structure but it doesn't matter. Even with or without government, the fact that street gangs could kidnap and lock me up, or murder me would not change. If all are free to govern themselves, they are free to form a street gang and dominate all that go against their will. You cannot avoid that, the only thing you can do is try to control it. In a non-governmental system it will be pretty hard without forming controlling organism and ending the status quo. You will be applying your will upon others and limit their self-control. Having a governmental system with laws and punishment is, like I said some replies ago, necessary damage control. You are confusing the potential or actual errors of a government with the need for a government. It's a strange leap which isn't logical at all.

The structures also don't insure that only people with evil ends have all the guns and power. If you'd look at the favelas in Brazil, you'd notice that it isn't exactly the systems structures that dominate there. Again, to make this argument of yours be valid, it requires a universal man, which by structures is provided to act upon his evil impulses. Crime proves this isn't the case. Ted Bundy didn't need any structure to act upon his needs.

That people would still be free to lead and follow as they choose in an anarchistic system is a contradiction. If people would have that option, they also have the option to destroy the status quo and ending the system. If I am free to lead, I could gather enough followers in my region to control it; I could then control the neighbouring regions. Without governmental structures everyone would be at the mercy of the law of the jungle. And although many think that is pretty nice for a satanist, I can assure you that we are all too spoiled to really want to live in such a situation. Again, individual sovereignity requires a universal man, some sort of sameness that makes it work. Just by looking at our fellow man, we realize that isn't going to happen very soon.

You seem to be advocating some sort of anarchism in which we just remove the current government and assume things will keep functioning as they are, but better. As if the whole system will keep on rolling when all are governing themselves. It might be my lack of logic but I don't see it happen. Like I mentioned in my previous posts, how are you going to tackle problems like war, crime and all public requirements without dissolving the status quo? How are you going to structure it? City-States comes to mind but alas, it conflicts with anarchy.

I really would like to see you give me some answers here so I can point out how you unavoidably are promoting something that conflicts with anarchy and is very much aligned with government. I know you can do better then adding some links and are perfectly capable of arguing your own position.

I'm not a staunch defender of democracy, as you seem to conclude. You confuse my position on the need for a system with the approval of this system. We already live in systems where the strong/clever dominate. In fact, in all systems this is the case. The fact that you and I aren't ruling maybe indicates that we either lack the strength/cleverness or just don't know how to adapt to get there.

And about my lala-land fantasies; it's amusing to see that people really require emoticons or a haha nowadays. It shows how deep their thinking goes.

But you are right on one thing; I'm an antisocial fuckbag, I'd be offended if you'd call me the opposite.

D.

Top
#13096 - 10/21/08 01:02 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3882
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Well, thank you for bringing the hostility levels down. When it becomes a battle of emotions and not reason it degenerates into a head ramming contest. I am glad you kept your tone civil this time, and in turn I will return the courtesy.

You claim that monopolies are a logical result of a free market, and I used to believe the same thing. I asked you to provide an example of a monopoly arising in a 'free market', which you recognized as rhetorical as there are no free markets to draw examples from. My point being , of course, that if it has never happened how can you be so sure it would?

Let me first point out that I was a minarchist for YEARS before arriving (a)politically where I am today, through a TON of reading and studying. I doubt I will be able to convince you of anything so complex with a few soundbites, so bare with me if I ask you to do some reading.
The myth of the natural monopoly
http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE9_2_3.pdf

On hippies and anarchy;I don't deny there are a lot of leftist fuckwads that use the label 'anarchist'. To their credit, and unlike the 'theistic satanists' that darken our doorstep, they really do have a legitimate claim to the word, but then again so do I. (for the record I am a Market Anarchist, which is basically an-cap with a few modifiers) Anarchy simply means 'no rulers' (It should be kept in mind this is not synonymous with 'no rules') When arguing against my points keep in mind I am not a mutualist, an com, or any of that other leftist shit.

On government, I think you are confusing government and society. Society has rules, social norms, faux pas, and a host of other cause and effect based checks and balances that keeps it all cohesive. Government is an external coercive force that manipulates society to its own ends. All animals have 'society', but pretty much all animals are free to go rogue. Not so with people living under the thumb of a robber-baron. Try not paying your taxes for a while and see what happens?
Here is one example of a society without government
http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1121

 Quote:

On people with evil ends I do not see your point. Why would I think it is ok for a street gang to kidnap me and lock me up? I know, you probably used that as a metaphor for cops or a governmental structure but it doesn't matter. Even with or without government, the fact that street gangs could kidnap and lock me up, or murder me would not change.

In a society that hasn't been declawed with gun regulations, (to keep the power relationship between govt and people asymmetrical, of course)and one in which people weren't conditioned to be reliant on said government and instead valued freedom, it would be very hard for such a gang of thugs to get started. So hard, in fact, that the incentive to do so would all but evaporate. Have you read much on Austrian economics?

On incentive structures and the status quo:
http://mises.org/story/2265

 Quote:

You seem to be advocating some sort of anarchism in which we just remove the current government and assume things will keep functioning as they are, but better.

I prefer to think of it as the absorption of the functions that the state currently fills into the free market. This would necessarily be a slow process, yanking out the tablecloth from the dishes so to speak is a very bad idea. Free market alternatives to current things such as transportation and protection would need time to build infrastructure.
But there are very sound theories, books, articles, and essays, written by a bevy of brilliant thinkers and economists that detail very cogent theories about how such things would and could arise given the right circumstances.

 Quote:

City-States comes to mind but alas, it conflicts with anarchy.

Here we have a critical misunderstanding. People would be more than free to join any sort of voluntary society that would arise within a market anarchy. I would imagine there would be communes, city states, and everything in between. Sovereign people would tend to live however best suits them. If a city state arises that provides what I want, ie increased security, better transportation, or whatever, I could enter a contract with them that I may be subject to their laws in return for their services.
The key separator here is that it would be voluntary, and I could leave if I so chose.

On democracy. This is a relatively new concept, and in my view a small step towards a truly free society. Certainly not the final step, or even close. You seem to think it is how it is because it could be no other way;the chips of determinism have fallen into place and here we are. With that I agree.
That doesn't mean tomorrow will be the same as today. traditionally it hasn't been.

It is good to see your responses have gone from bald, 'matter of fact' assertions to honest inquiries. I think we are getting somewhere.

I'll deconvert you from statism yet.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#13190 - 10/22/08 07:33 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Don't confuse my words with my emotions, I can be blunt (some call it offensive) or pressing at times but most of the time it's only words. I'm not half as serious or agitated as I might appear from reading my replies. I prefer reason myself when debating but there's nothing wrong with spicing it. It at least scares away those not being able to look beyond it and thus, separates the mice from men.
That being said let me mention that I enjoy this debate, I can be a whore at that level and even when my true interests are at different fields, debating political or philosophical abstracts can be enjoyable. Except you making me read horribly boring documents of course. Economic writers should be forced following creative writing classes but hey, I'll struggle through it. I'm also glad you provided links to articles and not to rather chaotic websites; before it made me feel as if I was arguing with someone that said; it's not true and if you wanna know why, google it.

On monopolies

I read the Myth about natural monopoly article and I don't say I disagree with much there but I think there are some gaps which are problematic for a free market. In laissez-faire capitalism, as defined by Rand, you will have a true free market, separated from the state (church is a no-brainer and shouldn't be added). But I agree with her that some problems arise. How are you going to handle copyright and patents in a true free market.

If one company spends a zillion of dollars on R&D before they bring a new product on the market, what prevents another company from just copying that product and distributing it at a lower price, possible only because they had to invest close to zero at R&D?
The same with copyright; does it require a regulation or not?
If you want to regulate those, you need a third independent governing party that is responsible for it.
The only solution I see to not affect a true free market is declaring everything free game. Personally I don't really consider that a good idea.

I agree totally with: the enduring forces of competition -including potential competition- will render free-market monopolies an impossibility. Competition is a permanent process indeed and nothing lasts forever. At one point there will be a loss of need, a substitute or just another competitor that breaks the status quo. But in my opinion it only implies that there will be no everlasting monopolies. If I invent something new and produce it on mass, I will have a natural monopoly.

Problematic will be a market where the R&D is ridiculously high or where the facilities cost fortunes. I have no problem admitting that there is likely no natural monopoly in telephone services, or cell phone nowadays, but if you look at the facilities cell phones require; satellites, you can't avoid seeing problems arise with monopolies. Again, they won't last forever but does that really make it that much better?

Another is that competition leads to better pricing. Again I agree on that, I seldom see competition increase prices over time but that's only when you look at the direct costs. If you'd look at indirect costs for the consumer, you'd notice that competition isn't always improving things. Outsourcing leads to better pricing but at what price for others?
I work in a free-market environment at many levels. There are no fixed prices for the jobs I do and you can't avoid seeing the effects here. There is an economic need for people in certain industries but instead of paying better to attract them, companies are importing low-cost workers. First we had the Polish working at about half the price of a normal guy, now we are even trying to get some from further at an even lower price. I don't mind it too much, they will always need people with half a brain and the ability to speak a couple of languages but as you see, in this case competition does lead to better pricing but it's not the competitor that pays the difference.

To state or not…

I think we have two different conceptions of state. I use this definition: a state is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area and representing a population. Of course like in Iceland, isolated from neighbours, there is very little need to identify with the state; a state requires a competitor to transform into THE state. That's why I said before that even tribes carry the blueprint of states.
Even without that abstract transformation, to me, Iceland during that period of time was a state. They have the political structure, the territorial demands and they represent a population. Iceland is also a perfect example of what I meant when saying that anarchy requires a status quo that is very fragile. Iceland had the predator within and lasted 290 years before he devoured it. With a predator next door, it can be assumed they would have never lasted that long. Competition is a permanent process in a free market but it is also a permanent process at societal level. Anarchy can be regarded as a natural monopoly; either it isn't possible or it isn't everlasting.

Privatising

I'm not a big fan of government having a finger in too much, I'm more libertarian at some levels but I don't find it a good idea to privatise everything. One of the main problems I see in this all, as you already know, is the human. I am convinced that humans fuck things up and no matter what happens or how we restructure everything, humans will keep fucking up. Either because they want to, or because they can't do anything else. I think we both agree that a government with a supporting police force can be a tricky thing. Not because the concept is bad but because the concept has room for exploitation. If we'd privatise law and order, we would only move the same 'room for exploitation' to the next structure. Even more, I think private law and order has an even bigger need to guarantee them being needed and will likely be exploited faster.
Another big problem is defence. An army doesn't function without hierarchy. In some ways, an army is like a state in itself and a minority controls the whole force. Now government (besides banana republics) controls an army. How is one ever going to maintain control over a private army? Again, if there is no universal human, potential problems will arise.
Also, how is anyone ever going to convince Joe Six-pack that it is in his best interest to pay for law and order or for global defence? People have a tendency to only see the need of something when the bad guy is hissing in their neck.

I see much more problems in voluntarism but they aren't as huge as these.

Like I said, I am not a staunch defender of current democracy but to me the price paid now is less than the costs I see arise in a stateless voluntary society. Good luck trying to deconvert me.

Oh, and the stop paying your taxes argument; wrong guy to use that argument against; I quit paying income taxes some years ago. ;\)

D.

Top
#13214 - 10/22/08 11:23 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Just to jump in for a moment...

Dan, where do education and medicine fit in?

For that matter also paving highways?


Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#13284 - 10/22/08 06:33 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Morgan]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3882
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

How are you going to handle copyright and patents in a true free market.

You don't . Intellectual property is bullshit.
I see what you mean about R&D, but I would imagine if someone with an idea but lacking the financial power to produce it without someone doing it better would probably sell the idea to someone that could.If not and they get outdone by someone that can do it better, so be it. No matter what happens the consumer wins.
 Quote:

a state is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area and representing a population.

Well by that definition neither Canada nor the United states are states.
My interests are not represented by any politician.
Think of it like this; no matter who becomes the representative, there is no way their views can align with everyone within their constituency. In fact, they would necessarily be diametrically opposed to a large segment of those they are supposed to be representing.
Also, how is said sovereignty gained? Unless it is with the consent of every person living within the borders it claims, it isn't legitimate. It would be like me saying 'I AM NOW TEH KING' and annexing your swimming pool peter griffin style.

 Quote:

Anarchy can be regarded as a natural monopoly; either it isn't possible or it isn't everlasting.

Well, nothing is everlasting.

 Quote:

I am convinced that humans fuck things up and no matter what happens or how we restructure everything, humans will keep fucking up.

The weird thing is, I see this as a point for my case. If people are naturally power hungry, greedy, selfish, etc, how is it better for a very few to wield ALL the power rather than having very many wield little? Certainly to me the latter sounds less problematic.


 Quote:

If I invent something new and produce it on mass, I will have a natural monopoly.

But you will not be able to practice monopoly pricing as long as even one competitor exists. Short of heavy handed tactics there will always be someone that wants some of the gravy, and if the consumers knew about such behavior boycotts would be inevitable.
Without monopoly pricing monopoly isn't a problem.
 Quote:

If we'd privatise law and order, we would only move the same 'room for exploitation' to the next structure.

Not really. As it is now the police have no real incentive to do a good job or not exploit people. It isn't like there is another police force waiting in the wings to steal the contract if the first provides less than adequate service. (which is certainly the case, well, everywhere)
 Quote:

How is one ever going to maintain control over a private army? Again, if there is no universal human, potential problems will arise.
Also, how is anyone ever going to convince Joe Six-pack that it is in his best interest to pay for law and order or for global defence?

A Market Anarchist territory would necessarily be very weak for offensive military action, but being that the territory would not be 'declawed' as is the case in most states, it would be very hard to take it over. For more serious problems maybe a contract between competing DROS (dispute resolution organizations) with an invasion clause. Honestly it is pretty hard to predict exactly HOW it would work, given that the market often gives us solutions we might not expect.
 Quote:

Also, how is anyone ever going to convince Joe Six-pack that it is in his best interest to pay for law and order or for global defence?

probably through his own fears. I see fire/police service working sort of like how renters insurance works today. If some people are too stupid to do what's in their best interest, and flounder because of it, all the better. They will serve as examples of why you want to pay for those services. The fact that you will not be losing a good chunk of your pay automatically to bullshit taxation leaves more money for things like that.
 Quote:

Oh, and the stop paying your taxes argument; wrong guy to use that argument against; I quit paying income taxes some years ago. ;\)

Good for you. For every person that does that we are one step closer to bringing down the beast. Hopefully no gangsters take you away for not paying their protection racket!
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#13285 - 10/22/08 06:46 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Morgan]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3882
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Just to jump in for a moment...

Dan, where do education and medicine fit in?

For that matter also paving highways?


Morgan


Hi Morgan. I'll tell you this, socialized medicine is a really bad idea. Come to Canada and wait 7 hours to get stitches if you don't believe that.

In a territory with no such things as 'public property' the problem of 'roads' is actually a problem of 'transportation'. Who knows, if not for all the subsidization of public transportation and roads we might all be flying around with jet packs by now.

Assuming for a second roads are deemed fit by the market to be a primary source of transportation, I would imagine people that need the roads would have them built and probably charge tolls. Since the idea of a toll booth on every property line is ridiculously untenable, perhaps a committee of landowners jointly owning tolls at more reasonable intervals? This is just off the top of my head, and given the think tank power of those that actually NEED the services, I would imagine some sort of balance between consumer happiness and landowner/business owner satisfaction would be reached in no time.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#13337 - 10/23/08 05:33 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
On copyright and patents

If there is no copyright or patent you will have serious implications. Actually what it implies is that theft is allowed as long as it isn't physical what you steal. The whole music and artist scene will love you for that.
It implies I can just reprint a book printed in whatever country, slap my name on the cover and sell it as my book. Or I can reprint your artwork, copy your music and just make a profit out of your labor.

Another problem -and here I'd like to include Morgan's remark- is indeed medicine. If all is on a voluntary base (to be funded) and there are no patents, why is anyone ever going to try look for a cure for Progeria? After all, only 1 in about 8 million has this condition and the R&D will be far greater in costs than the eventual profit. Of course we can say; it's only like 750 kids affected in the whole world; sucks to be them but that's natural selection. But at the same time it is fairly possible a potential cure for Progeria has effects on aging for all. I'd sure would like to look like 30 when I'm 80 even though I am fairly sure I'll even be sexy when old. When there are no patents and medicine works on a voluntary financial base, there will only be invested in cost-profit reasonable medicine or it will become secretive. Secretive never has been an advantage for consumers; one of the biggest advantages in many sectors nowadays is free sharing of some information because they know it is protected by either patent or copyright. I'm not gonna deny there is room for abuse.

On politics

I agree that there is never going to be a representative that is going to represent every person's views. It is not possible; even in a true democracy where everyone is allowed to cast his/her vote on whatever subject, rule or idea, there is a problem that at one point a decision has to be made. It's going to be either what the majority wants or a compromise, but at no point there will be an outcome that all desired. It's a problem of numbers, the more people there are, the less likely all will be satisfied.
The idea that you can just leave if you don't like the way things are going is a nice one but it doesn't work that way. If you'd be living in a city and at one point there is a decision made on whatever subject which you are opposed; you could end up with having to make a decision to either freely submit and continue where you are; or don't submit and pack your things and go somewhere else.
Now, this is less problematic in a hunter/gatherer society but nowadays, it would imply, you'd give up all the security and provisions you have and would be forced to move somewhere else. Somewhere else could also be somewhere on your own.
Voluntarism gives you the freedom to choose either way but if you'd have a family and are responsible for their survival and future, how free are you?

On anarchy and predators

I don't agree that an anarchistic structure would be very hard to take over. If you'd look at all the great empires in the past, you'd notice that their strength was organization. Nowadays we have the impression that fighting non-organized troops is somewhat harder, when looking at Iraq or Afghanistan.
It's not because they are unorganized as much as it is because current warfare is civilized warfare. If the USA would have stormed in and unleashed their potential, they would have owned the country right now. It's because they don't drop daisy cutters on Baghdad and execute all the opposition that people get the impression that it has become hard to conquer something. If a predator isn't ethical and gives a rat's ass about other opinions, they are fast and lethal.

D.

Top
#13352 - 10/23/08 07:03 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
In general, in who would pay the teacher, the doctors, and the construction crews?

Would doctors or teachers be held hostage to remain in a given area?

Would an Atlas Shrugged situation develope?

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#13366 - 10/23/08 10:58 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Morgan]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3882
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

one of the biggest advantages in many sectors nowadays is free sharing of some information because they know it is protected by either patent or copyright.

You should check out the GNU GPL.

I will address the rest of your post later, I had a long day and don't have that kind of energy at the moment \:\)
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#13367 - 10/23/08 11:04 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Morgan]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3882
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
In general, in who would pay the teacher, the doctors, and the construction crews?

Whomever it is that wants their specialized services. I don't imagine the demand would be radically different than it is now.

 Quote:

Would doctors or teachers be held hostage to remain in a given area?

Of course not! What I am talking about here is total freedom.

 Quote:

Would an Atlas Shrugged situation develope?

Morgan

As I have never read it, I couldn't tell you. ;\)
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#13406 - 10/24/08 06:37 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Hmm, so pay as needed for teachers and doctors.

I could see the world becoming stupidier, and more stratified every generation.

The teachers and doctors would come to be quite valuable. At least doctors, I could see a community getting pissed if their only doctor wants to pack up and leave the area.

Atlas Shrugged is a book you should read.
I think it gets to the bones of some of the issues that you are not fully seeing the long term ramifications of.

People tend to be on average, stupid, lazy, mean, and looking to do the least amount of work for the most amount of money.
If you think that your world would change that, I believe you are sadly mistaken.

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
Page 3 of 8 <12345>Last »


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.033 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.