AC Already Exists

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
First post in this forum in quite a while.

The third level is the national level. The United States of America, like the other two levels, desires for what is in the best interests of the nation as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems like the intent here is to create more power at this level, not necessarily what is in the best interest of the country as a whole.

By the way...the best interest in who's opinion? Mine? yours? Borodog's? Hillary's? GW Bush's? A 51 percent majority?

Anytime I hear "best interest" or "common good" I can assume a big ole sheeeot samich is going to follow. I have yet to be suprised in my assumption.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there will be TOO much aggression for my liking.

[/ QUOTE ]
More or less then now? Here's a response to someone I made a little while ago when someone said something familiar
----
For starters, a state creates tons of violence. In the 20th century 10s of millions of people were killed either by their own state, or in state on state wars. It's not even a matter of which prevents more violence, the state has always been a leading factor in violence in it's history. The Iraq War simply wouldn't have been possible for a free market to do. From an investing standpoint the Iraq War has been a very -$EV decision. The people making money off the war (contractors and mercenary forces) differ from those that pay for it (taxpayers who really had no say in the matter at the time).

Simply put, on a free market the rewards of cooperation outweigh the "rewards" (quotations because it's rarely profitable) of conflict. Now, unfortunately some will make the -EV decision to turn to aggression rather then cooperation, and people should defend against that. We don't think planning ahead of time is particularly useful. No one could really predict ahead of time how the free market would solve various problems. When the internet was created, do you think anyone could accurately predict then how the internet would unfold? Of course I doubt you see anything wrong with the internet, but just wait, congress will begin soon enough to regulate the internet, making up reasons and fear mongering the whole way (just like the justifications for the internet gambling bill, the government wasn't getting their piece so they decided Americans need to spend their money in ways that they could). Government really is a mafia. They want a piece of everything. And of course one of a mafia's first objectives is forcing people to pay their protection money "for their own good".

In a free market people have various problems, and someone acts to meet those demands (usually for profit but often through charity too). I see no reason why hiring a police agency would cause any free riding problems at all. Delagating security to another company may not even be as effecient as simply using your own means of protection. Although it's 21 pages The not so wild, wild west may have some answers on how a decentralized area would work. There was very little government to be had at all and violence was much lower then it's eastern and southern couterparts at the time (not to mention a lot lower then violence seen today). In the years following state intervention, crime rates immediately began rising.
------
[ QUOTE ]
My argument is that there can't be a long-lasting anarchic society of any type.

[/ QUOTE ]
There have been examples of anarchic areas lasting over hundreds of years.
[ QUOTE ]
Think about this: There had to have once been a point where there was no government of any type. There are two possibilities in my mind of how the first one came to be. There is the Social Contract Theory, which I think of as largely theoretical, and a force theory, where people were conquered and forced to join the new power or die (more likely).


[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe, thousands of year ago when people lived in worse then 3rd world oncidtions, time preferences were incredibly, incredibly high, people were obviously not nearly as intelligent, and as a general rule people resulted to conflict over cooperation.
[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, no matter how perfect AC-Land seems to be, there will be those enterprising individuals that will eventually make it so that government will be recreated, one way or the other.

[/ QUOTE ]
In the modern world, gangs of people toppling the rest of society (and everyone else's contracted security) especially in a society that whole-heartedly rejected government, this simply is nothing more then pathological.

Either way, it's much easier to turn small government into big currupted government then it is to turn an AC area into big government.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
Anytime I hear "best interest" or "common good" I can assume a big ole sheeeot samich is going to follow. I have yet to be suprised in my assumption.


[/ QUOTE ]

Collectivist thought is useful for controlling large amounts of people. If people really wanted to maximise societies collective utility they would argue for letting individuals determine what is in their own best interests.

[noosecents]

My next question for the A/C theory would be what about border security issues? If there was no form of National Government do you not see a mass migration to richer countries?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
My next question for the A/C theory would be what about border security issues? If there was no form of National Government do you not see a mass migration to richer countries?

[/ QUOTE ]


If trade is good, then why is more trade not also good?


Robert Murphy - Five Most Common Myths about International Trade
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...2726&hl=nl

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
My next question for the A/C theory would be what about border security issues? If there was no form of National Government do you not see a mass migration to richer countries?

[/ QUOTE ]
Where's the problem?