Animal cruelty and child molestation in AC land

[2OuterJitsu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What happens to the child molester in ACLand?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well first, he reads the thread . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Sorry I wasn't clear. I'm convinced there would be less crime under AC. What I'm not aware of is what happens after "conviction". There are no prisons, so a parent/adult is molesting his/her/a child. Now what?

[Borodog]

Two large ones are at mises.com and freedomainradio.com. There are other smaller ones; google is your friend.

A "very small percentage" of hundreds of millions of people is still millions of people.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What happens to the child molester in ACLand?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well first, he reads the thread . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Sorry I wasn't clear. I'm convinced there would be less crime under AC. What I'm not aware of is what happens after "conviction". There are no prisons, so a parent/adult is molesting his/her/a child. Now what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah. Sorry for the snark then.

Hard to say. It would depend on the culture. Possibly exile, possibly simple removal of the child and economic ostracism, who knows.

[hmkpoker]

borodog and neverforget:

Unless one of you is a Republican or Democrat, this is a pretty silly discussion. Both anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-syndicalism are very minority positions.

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
Two large ones are at mises.com and freedomainradio.com. There are other smaller ones; google is your friend.

A "very small percentage" of hundreds of millions of people is still millions of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, those are not large communities.

[ QUOTE ]
borodog and neverforget:

Unless one of you is a Republican or Democrat, this is a pretty silly discussion. Both anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-syndicalism are very minority positions.

[/ QUOTE ]

mutualism! but yes, I never claimed mine was large either. But there are certainly more identified "anarchists" that oppose capitalism than support.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm not aware of is what happens after "conviction".

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently whatever the "convict" and the "judicial" entity agree is appropriate.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Two large ones are at mises.com and freedomainradio.com. There are other smaller ones; google is your friend.

A "very small percentage" of hundreds of millions of people is still millions of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, those are not large communities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, both of them have many times more free market anarchists than the 2+2 Politics forum, which disproves your point.

[ QUOTE ]
borodog and neverforget:

Unless one of you is a Republican or Democrat, this is a pretty silly discussion. Both anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-syndicalism are very minority positions.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmk, I'm not sure what disucssion you think I'm having. The contention was, jokingly, that the free market anarchist contingent of 2+2 constituted half of those in existence implying, non-jokingly, that only a few dozen people in the world could possibly be free market anarchists, not that anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-syndicalism were not "very minority positions."

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I'm not aware of is what happens after "conviction".

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently whatever the "convict" and the "judicial" entity agree is appropriate.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but have a <font color="orange"> * </font>.

[iggymcfly]

This isn't directly on-topic, but I've got a question for AC supporters: If anarchic capitalism was implemented, what would keep it in place? History throughout the world has shown that when there's no government that takes its authority from the consent of the governed, the powerful usually form another more restrictive governing entity.

What's to stop the most powerful businessmen from deciding that things will be infinitely more profitable if they enforce their will on the people. Will "neutral arbiters" stop the system from being overthrown? I just don't see how AC sustains itself or how it is remotely practical.

As a Libertarian, I agree with the general contention that the state oversteps its bounds and is overly powerful throughout the world, but in order to prevent a new state from arising and enforcing a totalitarian regime, it is necessary for at least some minimal level of government. How else will the system be stable?

Also, I'd like to know what objection if any, the anarchic capitalists on the board would have to an elected Libertarian government where the government's sole goal was to protect the rights of the individual. Laws would still be in place only to prevent violent crime and to protect property. There would still be a military to prevent the government from being usurped internationally, but said military would not be greatly reduced and would not interfere needlessly in the affairs of other nations.

Overall, the government interference in day-to-day life would be greatly reduced and the only taxes that would be collected would be those absolutely necessary to protect the rights of the individual. What objections would you have to living under such a system and in what way do you think AC would be superior?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't directly on-topic, but I've got a question for AC supporters: If anarchic capitalism was implemented, what would keep it in place? History throughout the world has shown that when there's no government that takes its authority from the consent of the governed, the powerful usually form another more restrictive governing entity.

What's to stop the most powerful businessmen from deciding that things will be infinitely more profitable if they enforce their will on the people. Will "neutral arbiters" stop the system from being overthrown? I just don't see how AC sustains itself or how it is remotely practical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take a look at this thread. While it isn't exactly centered on your question, if I remember correctly I do basically lay out what the conditions were that led to the advent of coercive governments (in my opinion, of course), and why they no long hold in modern technological societies based on a high degree of the division of labor.

[ QUOTE ]
As a Libertarian, I agree with the general contention that the state oversteps its bounds and is overly powerful throughout the world, but in order to prevent a new state from arising and enforcing a totalitarian regime, it is necessary for at least some minimal level of government. How else will the system be stable?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're just assuming your conclusion, making an assertion. There is no possibility of limited government, as I argued in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I'd like to know what objection if any, the anarchic capitalists on the board would have to an elected Libertarian government where the government's sole goal was to protect the rights of the individual. Laws would still be in place only to prevent violent crime and to protect property. There would still be a military to prevent the government from being usurped internationally, but said military would not be greatly reduced and would not interfere needlessly in the affairs of other nations.

[/ QUOTE ]

We had this. We had a libertarian government that was so small it barely escaped being no government at all. The inevitable happened. Powers were quickly usurped, the government grew like a cancer, and basically every libertarian principle it had been founded on was repudiated within less than a century. This occured because even though the populace was very much individualist, they still believed that government was somehow necessary. No culture where the majority of people believe that it is right and even necessary for a class of people to do things that for everyone else are universally recognized as criminal cannot last.

[ QUOTE ]
Overall, the government interference in day-to-day life would be greatly reduced and the only taxes that would be collected would be those absolutely necessary to protect the rights of the individual. What objections would you have to living under such a system and in what way do you think AC would be superior?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are no taxes required to protect the rights of the individual. How would you identify such a tax? It would always be subjective. Special interest groups will argue persuasively that their pet projects are critical and are "absolutely necessary to protect the rights of the individual." Those who have the power to make those decisions and impose those taxes and fund those programs will always use those powers for their own gain at the expense of the governed. They will always seek the most expansive interpretation of their powers and will ceaselessly seek to expand their power.

There are no such things as "public goods" because there is no such animal as a "market failure". "Market failures" and "public goods" are made up things that people use to justify seizing the coercive apparatus of the state to fund their pet projects forceably when people simply don't want to fund them voluntarily. There is no way to look around the market and decide there is the "wrong" number of some good or service being provided. You can't look around the market and claim, "By Jove! There aren't enough barbers! I will have to collect some thugs, shake down the local citizenry, and subsidize a Barbers College to increase the supply."

The free market is always superior because it is simply a superior method of solving problems. Any entrepreneur can attempt to solve problems, and consumers will choose among competing alternatives. Good solutions thrive, poor solutions fall by the wayside. In the government process a monopolist of decision making and problem solving uses a limited number of brains to come up with a "solution" that is then institutionalized. There is no competition. Indeed the consumer often is not even allowed to simply not choose to "buy" the "service" in the first place.

That certain products and services are currently monopolized by governments in some places is not evidence that the market could not provide those things (unless it is something that people really don't want, like deathcamps; governments are much better at providing those sorts of "public goods" than the free market is). In fact, all of the things that statists claim cannot be provided by the free market in fact are routinely provided by the free market. Most security it privately provided, and most disputes are privately resolved. Police are almost never around and government monopoly courts are so costly and lengthy to use as to be totally inaccessible to most, yet society is orderly. Private roads thrive where they are allowed to, while public roads wallow in traffic jams and pot holes.