Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

The last few days I've been devouring AC material ravenously. I've read the forum's AC faq, most of its links/linked threads and the faq at http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html#part18.
I am seriously intrigued and compelled by much of the logic and I wanted to throw a few of the ideas that have cropped up in my head out here to see what supporters and detractors of AC alike think of them, and to test my reasoning.

1.) AC-land vs. AC principles

To begin with, I love imagining AC-land along with you guys and I think it's a very worthy and relevant undertaking. I think that lines about AC being worthless because it's only a theory, or it's ivory-tower, or it's unrealistic/impossible etc. are supremely stupid. All political ideas are essentially abstract theories. Democracy is abstract theory, monarchy is abstract theory, economics is abstract theory, but abstract theory guides the course of concrete action. What people believe in drives the choices they make and the courses of action they pursue, regardless of that belief's generally held plausibility. If AC-land is the best imaginable society, that is extremely important, because if it is the best, that means it will be convincing to intelligent people, and those intelligent people will think of ways to make it convincing to less intelligent people, and that is how large shifts in cultural attitude can happen.

That said, I think I would like to see more discussion of the principles of AC applied to current situations, and I would like to see these discussions not always regressing (imo) into emotional debates on the minute details of AC-land. I want to know how the principles of AC can guide analysis and action in the here and now, and I think this is primary. As important as AC-land is, I think it only gets its importance from the principles that can be derived from it.

2.) Marketing AC: state corruption of language

If AC is at its heart a theory of free market and competition, then I think it's important to evaluate this theory as one of many competing theories in the market of ideas. The state, a criminal, tyrannical organization (of this I was easily convinced by the AC logic), has a monopoly on force, justice, minting, etc. but it still hasn't achieved a monopoly on ideas (God help us if it ever does). Of course, the state uses its monopolistic power to push its enabling ideologies as hard as it possibly can, but the human mind retains the power of choice, which means the market of ideas remains free, however large a share the state has managed to control. I think it's important for anyone who is looking to change minds (which is the core of the AC mission, right?) to not shy away from this competition.

It seems to me that one of the main ways the state maintains its ideological dominance is by controlling language and meaning. It literally redefines words within a culture's understanding in order to influence opinion. Think of the words communism, atheism, terrorism, democracy, etc. These words have one meaning in political discourse, but their culturally accepted meanings have been totally corrupted in order to deter the masses from embarking on lines of thought that will eventually reveal to them the realities of state brutality and greed.

Perhaps you've guessed where this is leading. I HATE the term Anarchocapitalism. It's accurate enough, sure, but I hate it from a marketing perspective. The word anarchy has been linked to fear of chaos and war among the media-conditioned population, and the seeds of this conditioning can remain even the minds of very intelligent and intellectual people. They see that prefix "Anarcho" and you've immediately lost them. Their minds will close and they will go into defense mode and they'll never seriously consider a word you write or say. If the goal is convince through solid reasoning, I think it's important to present your ideas to others in such a way that they will be forced to confront the logic, perhaps initially believing that it SUPPORTS their position, instead of giving them an easy pretext for dismissing it out of hand according to deep, irrational prejudices that words like "anarchy" will call up.

I don't think I'm at all qualified to come up with new labels, but I'll give it a try anyway. Here are just a couple ideas:

Free Market Society

I like this one because, while it is a perfectly accurate descriptive term for the ideas of AC (as I understand them) it subversively plays off of values that the state itself promotes: freedom, capitalism, social unity. It doesn't throw controversial, polarizing terms in the reader's/listener's face. I mean it sounds positively groovy! What republican won't listen in on this one to hear his supposed "free market" bias confirmed? And those on the left should be piqued by the word "society".

Free Market Government

Same basic idea; though AC is certainly anarchist in the political theory sense, it also certainly provides for the existence of government as the common American thinks of it. Rights, laws, courts, enforcement, military will all exist; it seems important to establish this up front.

Somewhere in the reading I recall a selection about one of the state's major accomplishments being creating a false identification within the populace of law and order and government with the state. A label like this tackles that dichotomy immediately and hopefully sidesteps a lot of anti-anarchy prejudice.

3.) AC as a utopian petri dish

I think the thing that excites me most about AC's ideas is the potential I imagine for a free market of competing societal models. I am in truth more of a utopian or socialist anarchist at heart but I recognize the enormous impracticality issues, the most serious of which is that using any form of power to reorganize society is a form of tyranny no matter how noble its aims and cannot be acceptable. I see AC not as an end but as an intermediary phase between the dark ages of statism and a final golden age where humanity would be free to experiment with millions and millions of different societal models. If the rapid natural selection of the market can't solve the issues of human nature that plague utopian ideals, then nothing can. And if we can never create a worldwide utopia, at least we'll be free in the meantime, and perhaps opportunities for many small utopian pockets of society will exist.

I think many socialists in these discussions have been way way off in their criticisms of capitalism. The important part of AC isn't capitalism, it's freedom! AC would present unparalleled opportunities for socialists to recruit VOLUNTARY followers, and spread their humanist messages through a truly free media. Private property is indeed a myth, but it's a myth that is necessary for making a smooth, non-violent transition to a decent civilization.

Thoughts?

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

0. Great

1. Sure, fine

2. The myth exists and renaming your worldview isn't going to change that. But yeah, I guess some connotations can go. But think about this: when you introduce the idea of no state to someone, they auto-response with "BUT THAT WOULD BE ANARCHY/CHAOS". -> So what you want to do is break down the myth. For example you can show people how anarchy in the food market is a great thing. This also ties in with the term I like to use: market anarchist. This means that I don't want any part of the market to be monopolized. People think monopolies are bad, so therefore this connotation could be good.

People are also using 'voluntary' and 'stateless' society.

3. I think you're a bit off here, probably due to the fact you're still new to really understanding all facets of markets. See this thread for someone with similar traits and the responses: http://freedomainradio.com/board/for...ead/49122.aspx .


In conclusion: you're on a great path and you're doing great. Du Bist Ein AC-er!!

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

Nice post.

I don't think this is such a great idea though:
[ QUOTE ]
Free Market Government

[/ QUOTE ]

It's all very well to remove the word "anarcho" from the name but you can't remove the meaning. If there's any kind of government involved it would be minarchism, not AC.

Just my 2c.

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

I like youre post, I think voluntary society its better

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

[ QUOTE ]

1.) AC-land vs. AC principles

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It's easy to let nitpickers bog you down with details. Ultimately, these debates about "how will such and such work in AC land" are undecidable. And anyone who says that shows a weakness in AC is completely missing the point. But that's really the only semi-effective strategy against AC in this regard; go after details and hope the AC-proponent drowns trying to nail everything down.

Of course, statism is vulnerable to the same attacks.

See my previous OPs: A big problem for evolutionists and A big problem for statists.


[ QUOTE ]
2.) Marketing AC: state corruption of language

They see that prefix "Anarcho" and you've immediately lost them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Marketing is not to be neglected. Precision is nice, but isn't sexy.

"Free market society" or "voluntary society" or whatever you want to call it, it's all good.

[ QUOTE ]
Somewhere in the reading I recall a selection about one of the state's major accomplishments being creating a false identification within the populace of law and order and government with the state.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It certainly was no accident. You can't have people thinking they can actually help themselves! Just look to (e.g.) the UK, where self defense has become dangerously close to being outlawed. Keep in mind, of course, that the state gives itself no responsibility to defend you; they will try to let you *think* it's their responsibility, but when the chips are down, governments alieviate themselves of this burden.

[ QUOTE ]
3.) AC as a utopian petri dish

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh boy. I don't like seeing that.

[ QUOTE ]
I see AC not as an end but as an intermediary phase between the dark ages of statism and a final golden age where humanity would be free to experiment with millions and millions of different societal models.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I kinda see where you're going with that. But AC isn't just the "C" part; while some facets of AC may be hardcore capitalist, there's no requirement for that, as you've already realized. The final golden age is *still* AC, though I agree that over time it will look different.

[ QUOTE ]
The important part of AC isn't capitalism, it's freedom!

[/ QUOTE ]

Winner. Once that is achieved, *whatever* comes next is good.

Great post. Finally, one of the posters we were promised would be coming, bringing elevated discourse with him.

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

Great post. You understand a lot more about AC then most the others that come around "knowing" AC "can't work". Very interesting take on the name. I've noticed that not only does "anarchy" get a bad rap but so to does the "capitalist" part. A lot of people in the world hear the word capitalist and think of a bunch of greedy capitalist pigs running a global sweat shop ring. Or at the very least assume life will return to what it was like during the Industrial revolution.

Free market society has a good ring to it.

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
But think about this: when you introduce the idea of no state to someone, they auto-response with "BUT THAT WOULD BE ANARCHY/CHAOS". -> So what you want to do is break down the myth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree breaking down the myth is also a useful undertaking. I think my point is to be mindful of who your audience is. Are you debating, recruiting, or preaching to the choir? Each activity requires a different kind of vocabulary, a style of rhetoric, and lends itself best to some topics over others. I think AC has a big leg up on some other radical ideologies like communism because it shares many fundamental philosophical values with the dominant paradigm instead of rejecting them. I think it's always better to establish agreement and common beliefs before launching an attack on someone. It gives them a chance to let their guard down; kind of like a Trojan horse.

So breaking down the myth is important, but it seems like it's only useful once the person has reached a certain level of understanding. Or perhaps you could also come at it from a completely different angle that doesn't involve AC.

In some cases I wonder if it isn't possible to simply sidestep the myth by espousing the free market and completely avoiding anarchy. If the person is more open to this line of argument, perhaps he can become convinced of the vast potential of the free market, then back his way into anarchy when he realizes that the state could in fact be made obsolete.

[ QUOTE ]
For example you can show people how anarchy in the food market is a great thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd definitely be interested in an explanation of this or a link.

[ QUOTE ]
This also ties in with the term I like to use: market anarchist. This means that I don't want any part of the market to be monopolized. People think monopolies are bad, so therefore this connotation could be good.

People are also using 'voluntary' and 'stateless' society.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like all these, especially voluntary society.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you're a bit off here, probably due to the fact you're still new to really understanding all facets of markets. See this thread for someone with similar traits and the responses: http://freedomainradio.com/board/for...ead/49122.aspx .

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm definitely new to understanding markets. I know very little about economics or political economy. I took a political theory course my first year of college but I skipped all the classes about Marx and I found Hobbes/Locke unreadable [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

In the thread you linked, you write:

[ QUOTE ]
So when there are no territories, what is left (and what can flourish) are people interacting voluntarily (i.e. the market). So if that is the case, how can there be any socialism or communism?

Another aspect of property: there is a difference between communes and communism. Most families are communes, where the whole family shares in property. But the difference with communism is that communes choose to participate in this type of relationship. Under communism people are forced to give up control over their property.

[/ QUOTE ]

So is the issue with the -ism portions of communism and socialism? I wouldn't advocate trying to force anyone into any form of society, so if that's what -ism implies, I won't use those terms anymore.

I think I'm an Anarchocapitalistsocialist (lol). As long as the state exists, it seems likely I'll be against the state. As soon as it's gone, I'd probably one of the first in AC-land trying to come up with models for voluntary egalitarian societies and trying to convince everyone that worrying so much about money and property and status is a huge waste of time. Am I missing something with this mindset? It seems like it fits into the AC system well enough.

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
If there's any kind of government involved it would be minarchism, not AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you defining government? If you define it as a system of law, order, and defense, then government does exist in AC-land, right? It just doesn't have any connection to state power. It seems like stressing the governmental role which a free market can provide could be a good way to defuse many of the fears that are generally associated with anarchy. It also sounds less radical and stresses the critical difference between government (law, order, defense) and state (tyranny) which many many people never realize.

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

Thanks for your reply. Your posts in the AC threads have been my favorite out of the whole AC gang. You're very good at eloquently applying AC principles to real world situations.

[ QUOTE ]
The final golden age is *still* AC, though I agree that over time it will look different.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I didn't state that quite right in my post. The way I said it sounds like AC is something to be replaced, but really it will always continue to be AC at its core no matter how far it evolves, just like on some level we humans are still monkeys, and I'm very excited by the prospects of this evolution.

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there's any kind of government involved it would be minarchism, not AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you defining government? If you define it as a system of law, order, and defense, then government does exist in AC-land, right? It just doesn't have any connection to state power. It seems like stressing the governmental role which a free market can provide could be a good way to defuse many of the fears that are generally associated with anarchy. It also sounds less radical and stresses the critical difference between government (law, order, defense) and state (tyranny) which many many people never realize.

[/ QUOTE ]

Government = taxing coercive territorial monopolist. There isn't a "critical difference between government (law, order, defense) and state (tyranny)". Government = state = taxing coercive territorial monopolist, regardless of whether it uses those funds to invade countries, pay judges, or subsidize farmers.
I don't know how many defense and law AC threads you've gone through, but we have these debates constantly. Some of the statist newcomers reply like you are describing, with "ZOMG PEOPLE WILL RUN AROUND KILLING EACH OTHER." But there are actual discussions about the viability and efficacy of free market solutions to certain essential services that the government monopolizes.

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

Ok, that makes sense. I'm just using the word government wrong.

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1.) AC-land vs. AC principles

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It's easy to let nitpickers bog you down with details. Ultimately, these debates about "how will such and such work in AC land" are undecidable. And anyone who says that shows a weakness in AC is completely missing the point. But that's really the only semi-effective strategy against AC in this regard; go after details and hope the AC-proponent drowns trying to nail everything down.

Of course, statism is vulnerable to the same attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can see this tactic in action right now; xorbie is using it in his "freedom" thread, trying to hold AC up to a standard that statism has never met.

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

[ QUOTE ]

I think I'm an Anarchocapitalistsocialist (lol). As long as the state exists, it seems likely I'll be against the state. As soon as it's gone, I'd probably one of the first in AC-land trying to come up with models for voluntary egalitarian societies and trying to convince everyone that worrying so much about money and property and status is a huge waste of time. Am I missing something with this mindset? It seems like it fits into the AC system well enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally understand what you mean, and actually I'm with you in a lot of ways. Capitalism is good for macroeconomic activity, but (voluntary) socialism has a lot of merit in microeconomics.

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

I just don't see how you can expect a self regulating market to keep wealth distribution in check. Extremely unnatural constructs like tax bracketing and constructs against monopolies and oligopolies are in place in most capitalist governments. You can't speculate what it would be like to live in a market driven society without centralized government without considering this.

Anarchocapitalism would lead to horrendous problems in distribution of wealth (.01% wealthiest owning 99.99% of the wealth).

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

m_theory,

a) why are you focused on wealth distribution as opposed to the absolute wealth of the lower classes? the market is not a zero-sum game. the rich are rich because they create wealth, not because they steal it.

b) your statistic is completely absurd. 01% controlling 99%...yeah right.

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Anarchocapitalism would lead to horrendous problems in redistribution of wealth

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

Thats the whole point! To remove ppl who think like you from our lives and pockets forever. Not to mention the fringe benifits of universal equality for once.

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

[ QUOTE ]

a) why are you focused on wealth distribution as opposed to the absolute wealth of the lower classes? the market is not a zero-sum game. the rich are rich because they create wealth, not because they steal it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because that's the only way you can make communism not look horrible vs. capitalism.

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long) *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by [censored]

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
wasting 400 billions dollars on killing thousands and thousands of ppl.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love how you make it sound like the stated goal of the mission is primarly killing people.

That's not to say people aren't dying, but them dying is a by-product of the stated goal (the stated goal might very well be a complete waste of time as well, but the whole "OMG THE ARMY JUST WANTS TO KILL PEOPLE!!" routine is lame)

If the government wasn't wasting the money on the war it'd be wasting it on something else.

However the conclusion "Well the government isn't perfect, so we simply must disband government period!" is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Government is a necessary evil.

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
However the conclusion "Well the government isn't perfect, so we simply must disband government period!" is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Now when you find someone who has come to that conclusion, you let me know. I know ACists have other, much better reasons.

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't see how you can expect a self regulating market to keep wealth distribution in check.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) The single greatest concentration of power and wealth (the state) does not exist.

2) Corporations will not exist, because no court would hold a ficititious business entity as culpable rather than the human beings operating the business. This means that businesses can no longer go public with extremely limited liability, thus making it much more difficult for businesses to grow to some of the market-irrational sizes we see today.

3) The state cannot provide protection for drug companies, insurance companies, banks and other massive businesses, meaning that they must face the brunt of competition. (With a six-figure loan and a handful of mexicans, I could produce morphine and thebaine derivatives more cheaply than Merck. I don't think they'd like that.)

4) The rich have substantially less access to cheap credit, making it both more difficult for them to hoard valuable assets (real estate), and easier for the poor who no longer have to pay for their free lunch through inflation.

5) Technological improvements lead to lower barriers to entry, making the phenomenon of a natural monopoly more difficult as time progresses.

6) As competition becomes more intense over time, greater capital reinvestment is demanded of the business owners. This means that a greater percentage of the profits must be reinvested in the resource department (the employees) in order to keep the business afloat.

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
2) Corporations will not exist, because no court would hold a ficititious business entity as culpable rather than the human beings operating the business. This means that businesses can no longer go public with extremely limited liability, thus making it much more difficult for businesses to grow to some of the market-irrational sizes we see today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you expand on this? If company X caused Y billion dollars of damage, who pays?

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Well the government isn't perfect, so we simply must disband government period!"

[/ QUOTE ]

The government is pretty much perfect at achieving it's intended goal. It's the stated goals that aren't being achieved but then they were never meant to be.

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can you expand on this? If company X caused Y billion dollars of damage, who pays?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the company had the cash, the company would just pay it. If not, the shareholders of the company would pay, pro rata. Probably. It depends on the "libertarian law code," but almost all ACers don't believe in limited liability, though there's nothing preventing liability indemnification schemes from emerging. If you were going to be a passive investor in a company, you'd probably want to purchase some form of liability insurance, or you could end up being ruined.

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

Right, so why wouldn't you have big public corporations?

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Right, so why wouldn't you have big public corporations?

[/ QUOTE ]

A corporation is a government entity that specifically protects the owners from liability for the acts of the corporation. Without the government protection, it becomes too risky for people to invest in goliath companies where you can't even keep track of a thousandth of what is being done in your name and it's much safer to invest in smaller businesses.

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

So, who invests in the next generation Intel fab which will cost 10 billion dollars? Where are we going to have the tech breakthroughs if we can't get the money to build better computers?

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right, so why wouldn't you have big public corporations?

[/ QUOTE ]

A corporation is a government entity that specifically protects the owners from liability for the acts of the corporation. Without the government protection, it becomes too risky for people to invest in goliath companies where you can't even keep track of a thousandth of what is being done in your name and it's much safer to invest in smaller businesses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why can't you get around this in AC where contracts are king? Suppose a drug company releases a harmful drug. All they have to do, when selling the product, is writeup a defacto limited liability agreement with the user.

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

ACist being against limited liability is kind of silly as other posters have mentioned. risk mitigation is serious business and in anything even close to an ACist society there would be all sorts of contracts and insurance companies that would pool and redirect liability away from passive investors who don't desire taking on all the liabilities resulting from owning their chosen investment vehicle.

Sole proprietorships aren't going to be able to build planes trains and automobiles so backing away from corporations and governments is silly.

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Government is a necessary evil.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're assuming your conclusion.

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't see how you can expect a self regulating market to keep wealth distribution in check.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) The single greatest concentration of power and wealth (the state) does not exist.

2) Corporations will not exist, because no court would hold a ficititious business entity as culpable rather than the human beings operating the business. This means that businesses can no longer go public with extremely limited liability, thus making it much more difficult for businesses to grow to some of the market-irrational sizes we see today.

3) The state cannot provide protection for drug companies, insurance companies, banks and other massive businesses, meaning that they must face the brunt of competition. (With a six-figure loan and a handful of mexicans, I could produce morphine and thebaine derivatives more cheaply than Merck. I don't think they'd like that.)

4) The rich have substantially less access to cheap credit, making it both more difficult for them to hoard valuable assets (real estate), and easier for the poor who no longer have to pay for their free lunch through inflation.

5) Technological improvements lead to lower barriers to entry, making the phenomenon of a natural monopoly more difficult as time progresses.

6) As competition becomes more intense over time, greater capital reinvestment is demanded of the business owners. This means that a greater percentage of the profits must be reinvested in the resource department (the employees) in order to keep the business afloat.

[/ QUOTE ]
Very good post hmkpoker. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right, so why wouldn't you have big public corporations?

[/ QUOTE ]

A corporation is a government entity that specifically protects the owners from liability for the acts of the corporation. Without the government protection, it becomes too risky for people to invest in goliath companies where you can't even keep track of a thousandth of what is being done in your name and it's much safer to invest in smaller businesses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why can't you get around this in AC where contracts are king? Suppose a drug company releases a harmful drug. All they have to do, when selling the product, is writeup a defacto limited liability agreement with the user.

[/ QUOTE ]

More work for lawyers. And who exactly is enforcing this infinitely complicated web of contracts and limited liability agreements. How long is it going to take to litigate? At what costs? Who is paying the litigation costs? Are these costs just the costs of doing business? Is any wealth created by paying them? How are the companies controlling these costs so that it is still worthwhile to produce a product? Just saying that contracts will get around the difficulties is not enough. If the necessity of these contracts creates a large class of parasites who draw income without producing wealth, why is this a better system?

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

Don't look at me, I'm a statist, who is deeply skeptical about a non-state run legal system.

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
m_theory,

a) why are you focused on wealth distribution as opposed to the absolute wealth of the lower classes? the market is not a zero-sum game. the rich are rich because they create wealth, not because they steal it.

b) your statistic is completely absurd. 01% controlling 99%...yeah right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is something I didn't realize when I was young; or at least didn't internalize. Back in November matt maroon linked this article by paul graham in his blog: A stunning defense of capitalism. I wish I had read it when I was younger. There are a few things I vaguely disagree with, namely that he glosses over the very rich using unscrupulous and illegal means to get rich.

[ QUOTE ]
It will seem to someone still implicitly operating on the Daddy Model that it is unfair when someone works hard and doesn't get paid much. To help clarify the matter, get rid of everyone else and put our worker on a desert island, hunting and gathering fruit. If he's bad at it he'll work very hard and not end up with much food. Is this unfair? Who is being unfair to him?

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Part of the reason this subject is so contentious is that some of those most vocal on the subject of wealth—university students, heirs, professors, politicians, and journalists—have the least experience creating it. (This phenomenon will be familiar to anyone who has overheard conversations about sports in a bar.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

To whomever,

'Government is necessary evil' is self-contradicting. Either it's good or it's evil. If it's evil it cannot be necessary. If it's necessary it cannot be evil.

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

[ QUOTE ]


...(_______) is necessary evil is self-contradicting. Either it's good or it's evil. If it's evil it cannot be necessary. If it's necessary it cannot be evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why, do you suppose only good things can be necessary?

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why, do you suppose only good things can be necessary?

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. Sometimes the necessity is greater than the evil.

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why, do you suppose only good things can be necessary?

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. Sometimes the necessity is greater than the evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely if something is necessary then it cannot be evil by definition. A medicine may not taste good but if it is necessary for your survival it is good or at the very least it cannot be evil.

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why, do you suppose only good things can be necessary?

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. Sometimes the necessity is greater than the evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely if something is necessary then it cannot be evil by definition. A medicine may not taste good but if it is necessary for your survival it is good or at the very least it cannot be evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Surely"...and "by definition." Pardon me, but that doesn't strike me as very convincing.

So...something that is necessary "cannot" be evil. Can it be good, though? If something necessary can be good, then why can't something necessary be evil? Why does good have priority in these matters? why can a good be necessary but not an evil?

I'm not trying to be difficult; this just doesn't really seem to make sound sense to me.

The taking of your medicine example is just one. Try putting yourself in the place of the wild gazelle being torn apart by a pack of hungry hyenas. That might be necessary, and it might be good from the pack's perspective, but it is probably evil from the prey's perspective. So from one point of view it is a good; from another point of view it is an evil. And it is necessary.

I'm bringing this up because I don't believe that "something necessary must by definition be not evil" and since that axiom was used to argue about government.

Re: Some newb thoughts on AC (long)
 

Good post, Dane. I especially agree with your point about the negative connotations in the word "anarchocapitalism" and I've touched on this before.
When most people hear the word "anarchy", they completely shut down in wanting to have any kind of reasonable discussion, I know from experience. While it's mostly a case of them being just plain stubborn and close-minded, it's still a difficult barrier for us to break through when it comes to attracting new people to AC.

I also agree with Shake that capitalism has similar negative connotations. This is because a lot of people think that the USA is somehow the pinnacle of capitalism. They equate capitalism with government's helping out corporations. They hear capitalism and think Haliburton. It is, again, a difficult hoop for us to jump through.

Anyways, good post all around.