|
|
#11
08-13-2007, 05:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: ACism in one country or need for a world revolution?
[ QUOTE ]
That being said, even if an AC area were taken over by surrounding states this isn't really an argument against ACism. Lots of states get taken over by states all the time. If somebody wants to oppress you, and they're a lot more powerful than you, it's going to be difficult to resist oppression whether your an anarchist, a statist, a rhinoceros, whatever. [/ QUOTE ] My original question was not necessarly a knock on ACism, but a genuine interrogation: could it work without the abolition of all states? But if the AC area were to be taken over by more powerful states, it is obviously a huge argument against ACism. The main purpose of the state is to protect its citizen, not to oppress them. If this security cannot be achieve through ACism, then ACism is not viable, even if others states are to blame for this. 
|
|
#12
08-13-2007, 05:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ACism in one country or need for a world revolution?
I think ACism is a lot more meaningful to macroeconomics than microeconomics. Hell, in ACworld I would probably end up living on some sort of hippie commune that would resemble anarcho-socialism. Defederalize.
|
|
#13
08-13-2007, 05:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ACism in one country or need for a world revolution?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 1. Anarcho-capitalism cannot 'work'. Anarcho-capitalism cannot do anything because it is not an actor. Only people can act. [/ QUOTE ] You could define "working" as not resulting the emergence of a new state and not resulting in the eradiction of human life on earth. [/ QUOTE ] You could, yes, but I think pvn's deathstar argument comes into play. If you state something like the following, then I think we can get on board: "what kind of voluntary solutions can we think of that provide the service of security and or regional defense?". [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 2. A stateless society is possible without the abolition of all states. It would thus be a stateless area. [/ QUOTE ] I agree with this. The only real worry would be that states out there would be in a position to profitably charge their citizens for a war with your territory, so the AC land would need a territorial defense force that would act like a national army. [/ QUOTE ] Given that you view the states as criminals, as I do, looking for solutions would be fruitfull. Hoppe addresses your specific question eloquently, btw: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...5911&hl=nl
|
|
#14
08-13-2007, 05:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ACism in one country or need for a world revolution?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 1. Anarcho-capitalism cannot 'work'. Anarcho-capitalism cannot do anything because it is not an actor. Only people can act. [/ QUOTE ] 1.Sorry if English is only my third language and I do no take time to see if all my sentences are worded correctly on an internet forum...but thanks for the correction anyway. 2.I don't know the state has a lot of international functions. A huge stateless area would cause tons of problems few questions: Immigration? fight against terror? [/ QUOTE ] Immigration is awesome. More people to trade with and more prosperity for all. Terror is a non-issue in a stateless society. It would make no sense and would be nothing more than murder. [ QUOTE ] Military? I know the Ac arguments for private security but not private compagny would ever be powerful enough to defend alone that kind of territory without becomming de facto another state. [/ QUOTE ] Why would any one organization have to defend the entire stateless area? [ QUOTE ] A lot of arguments of ACist are far less compelling if we envision a stateless society surrounded by other states. I just thought it was a theme woth debating. [/ QUOTE ] Check this out: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...5911&hl=nl
|
|
#15
08-13-2007, 06:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ACism in one country or need for a world revolution?
[ QUOTE ]
Immigration is awesome. More people to trade with and more prosperity for all. [/ QUOTE ] Ok, cool, good discussion. Obviously openning completly the borders in the US and only in the US has no disadvantage..Sorry I missed that.
|
|
#16
08-13-2007, 06:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ACism in one country or need for a world revolution?
[ QUOTE ]
Terror is a non-issue in a stateless society. It would make no sense and would be nothing more than murder. [/ QUOTE ] This is so stupid and ignorant on so many levels.. but a classic and interessting There will be no problems in my utopian society because I say so. Even If you were right, it is a bad response cause were are not talking about a stateless world but a stateless area. Terrorism could still exist due to the others states and be a problem that the stateless area has to deal with. terrorim would make no sense!!!!!!!!! oh my god!!!I thought that blowing yourself up to be greeted by 40 virgins was always a rationnal decision!My bad, I guess. Even if you decide to call it murder, it does not change the fact that it would still exists. Suppose that the motivation of a terrorist is his belief that the whole world has to convert to his religion? Why would he not pose bomb in the great stateles area?
|
|
#17
08-13-2007, 06:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ACism in one country or need for a world revolution?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Immigration is awesome. More people to trade with and more prosperity for all. [/ QUOTE ] Ok, cool, good discussion. Obviously openning completly the borders in the US and only in the US has no disadvantage..Sorry I missed that. [/ QUOTE ] 1. The borders are open. Millions of people come in every year. 2. The US is not a stateless society. It's a mega welfare warfare state. That changes things dramatically. Still, the idea that immigrants are bad is really a weird myth. 5 most common myths about international trade http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...2726&hl=nl
|
|
#18
08-13-2007, 06:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ACism in one country or need for a world revolution?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Terror is a non-issue in a stateless society. It would make no sense and would be nothing more than murder. [/ QUOTE ] This is so stupid and ignorant on so many levels.. but a classic and interessting There will be no problems in my utopian society because I say so. Even If you were right, it is a bad response cause were are not talking about a stateless world but a stateless area. Terrorism could still exist due to the others states and be a problem that the stateless area has to deal with. terrorim would make no sense!!!!!!!!! oh my god!!!I thought that blowing yourself up to be greeted by 40 virgins was always a rationnal decision!My bad, I guess. Even if you decide to call it murder, it does not change the fact that it would still exists. Suppose that the motivation of a terrorist is his belief that the whole world has to convert to his religion? Why would he not pose bomb in the great stateles area? [/ QUOTE ] So you are talking about a complete lunatic? Not people who are trying to rid their area from criminal invaders (like the Iraqees)? Ok, then you are talking about straight up mad men who kill for no reason. Well, it would be interesting to think about some voluntary solutions to problems such as those. For the rest, I don't see your point really. It's up to you to show why violence is justified (i.e. statism), and not up to me to provide a solution for every conceivable problem.
|
|
#19
08-13-2007, 07:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ACism in one country or need for a world revolution?
[ QUOTE ]
Check this out: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...5911&hl=nl [/ QUOTE ] I can't believe I watched this...It is amazing how his argumentation heavily relies on skewing historical facts or given them a very narrow meaning, but I don't want to discuss the first 30 minutes of this video in this thread. Anyway back to his defense argumentation. He does not make a difference beetween winning a war and simply not winning it. Does he really thinks that Algerian won against the French. Or that North Vietnam defeated the US. He should check the casualties...the fact that you prevent your ennemy to enjoy this stay does not make it a really viable defense system. I really wonder if the society he describes can dissuade an Us intervention more than an nuclear North-Corea. He forgets how important dissuasion is today's world, and guerrilla warfare is not that dissuasive.
|
|
#20
08-13-2007, 07:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ACism in one country or need for a world revolution?
[ QUOTE ]
1. The borders are open. Millions of people come in every year. [/ QUOTE ] Does not mean that every one can come. [ QUOTE ] 2. The US is not a stateless society. It's a mega welfare warfare state. That changes things dramatically. Still, the idea that immigrants are bad is really a weird myth. [/ QUOTE ] First never say that immigrants are bad and I don't need lecturing on that subject. The thread is not wether a stateless society would be good or possible but if it would be good and possible if others states still exists. Still there would be a massive influx of immigrants that would be pretty hard to deal with...And wouldn't the place become a haven for traffics of all sort and that would be severly frown upon by the surronding countries? Anyway, immigration is not neccessarly the most important point, but the absence of home state would be quite problematic. Who would protect your rights abroad. What about international law?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
