|
|
#1
01-23-2006, 02:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Audio Primer: FAQ about the Economics of the Stateless Society
In an attempt to nip some of the Government of the Gaps argumentum ad ignorantium objections to anarchocapitalism (or, to use a new term I picked up from this very lecture that I really like, free market anarchy) anyone interested in the subject, even if only to argue against it, might like to take a listen to this lecture from the Mises Institute:
FAQ about the Economincs of the Stateless Society 
|
|
#4
01-24-2006, 02:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Audio Primer: FAQ about the Economics of the Stateless Society
[ QUOTE ]
No. Monopolies can only arise with the aid of government. [/ QUOTE ] did microsoft rise as a monopoly because the government aided them in doing so?
|
|
#5
01-24-2006, 02:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Audio Primer: FAQ about the Economics of the Stateless Society
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] No. Monopolies can only arise with the aid of government. [/ QUOTE ] did microsoft rise as a monopoly because the government aided them in doing so? [/ QUOTE ] I imagine they would not be able to do what they did without the government enforcing copyright laws.
|
|
#6
01-24-2006, 02:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Audio Primer: FAQ about the Economics of the Stateless Society
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] No. Monopolies can only arise with the aid of government. [/ QUOTE ] did microsoft rise as a monopoly because the government aided them in doing so? [/ QUOTE ] Perhaps you are unaware of the definition of "monopoly." Microsoft isn't one.
|
|
#7
01-24-2006, 03:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Audio Primer: FAQ about the Economics of the Stateless Society
[ QUOTE ]
don't you think anti-monopoly laws are important? [/ QUOTE ] No. Other than in the case of "natural monopolies" (e.g., utility companies), there's never been a case of an actual monopoly that existed without government support. Standard Oil had been the classic example, but that has been debunked. (Microsoft is not a monopoly, and the antitrust case against it did not allege that Microsoft is a monopoly.) In the case of natural monopolies, there's going to be a monopoly with or without government involvement; and whether government involvement tends to do more harm than good in such cases is a disputed question.
|
|
#8
01-24-2006, 03:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Audio Primer: FAQ about the Economics of the Stateless Society
I'm going to assume, before listening, that this FAQ will assume that everyone behaves rationally, or at least conveniently ignore the irrational bents of prejudiced rich people.
Now I will listen and see if I'm right.
|
|
#10
01-24-2006, 04:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Audio Primer: FAQ about the Economics of the Stateless Society
Okay, well this guy doesn't ignore it. He freely admits that under AC, gross human rights violations would occur. He just says that he thinks they would be temporary.
Right. The main problem with AC is this. Human beings don't live very long as individuals. We get about 100 years and that's it. That's not a very long time to learn everything there is to learn. We, as a species, rely on things learned long before we individuals were ever born in order to be successful. Scientific principles discovered hundreds or thousands of years ago make our lives easier today because we abide by them. The same could be, theoretically, true for ethics and politics. The Bill of Rights are amendments based on the knowledge that individual liberty makes a society more successful. It was a discovery about human nature that we survive *better* in a system of political and social liberty. Thus we design legal systems based on these principles that apply to the entire country and therefore protect *all* citizens around the country. This system helps protects the individual from the might of the majority should the majority go apeshit. Take integration in the South, for example. To claim that the South would have been integrated faster in an AC system than by government intervention is ridiculous. There would be no "market pressure" for it to occur. It may have happened eventually, but certainly not at as fast a pace. Human beings are often irrational. In large groups, this is even more common. Constitutional Democracy prevents the irrationality of a large group of people hurting the smaller group *much* better than an AC system *ever* could. The whim of the majority *rules* in AC. The end result would be, in *every* case, an agglomeration of small, extremely homogenous societies in which individualism is repressed and social conformity encouraged. Constitutional Democracy, *by nature*, limits the damage potential of irrational large groups of people better than any anarchist system ever could.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
