Comment Thread for Debate: The Merits of Anarchocapitalism

[cpk]

Fellas: Shouldn't we be discussing the debate rather than engaging in [censored]-waving?

FWIW, I think valenzuela is cleaning Linus' clock. Linus let himself get bogged down in the utilitarian defense of the state, which is the way ACers want the debate to be framed.

I'm not sure how I would've proceeded in Linus' place. I'm still thinking the whole issue over. There's a lot to like about the concept a voluntary society where I get to also own lots of stuff. But something is fishy about AC--I don't know what it is, though.

I could see an interesting attack on the negative lie behind three ideas:

* As a system, market capitalism has always relied on the state.

* AC wouldn't abolish the state, it would simply privatize it.

* Unrestrained capitalism is appealing to those who fit the board's target demo--high-earning, intelligent, able-bodied people. The nature of capitalism and reality is that the number of people with these traits will always be extremely low. Therefore, AC would never be adopted as a system. Most people would not perceive anything to gain from it.

Of course, there are pretty strong ACer rebuttals to these ideas, but the game would be on at that point.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Really the bottom line is that A/Cism is a utopian fantasy. It has no chance of becoming a reality anywhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you're down to the point where this is all you can muster... GG, thanks for playing.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Really the bottom line is that A/Cism is a utopian fantasy. It has no chance of becoming a reality anywhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you're down to the point where this is all you can muster... GG, thanks for playing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I was very impressed with Valenzuela in this debate.

edit: Fun little excerpt:
[ QUOTE ]
And if it were ever practiced anywhere, it would be a disaster. The nonviolent society ACers imagine, where property rights are respected - even though ACers themselves can't agree on what property are, or who should get them - is a fantasy. AC land would descend into chaos almost before it began.

Private, competing legal codes, every single person having to hire private security, private armies... it's really hard to take this stuff seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]
Assuming your conclusions FTW!

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]


We'd love to. Let us do it and you've got yourself a deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good luck. Hope your private army is bigger than your neighbor's.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But it seems the burden's on anarchocapitalists to produce the evidence. And if they can't, they should at least experiment on themselves, before advocating it for the rest of us.

[/ QUOTE ]
(important contextual quote you removed readded)
We'd love to. Let us do it and you've got yourself a deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good luck. Hope your private army is bigger than your neighbor's.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically you just said "hey, you guys should go try it on your own before encouraging everyone else to try it, but if you do, we'll attack you with our army and stop you."

[Girchuck]

[ QUOTE ]

A civilization has a lifespan. It has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Civilizations fall for any number of reasons - complacency, internal strife, climate changes, etc. - but when the government collapses, or is destroyed, the result is always the same - anarchy.

Anarchy is like darkness before you light a candle. Blaming the government for anarchy is like blaming a candle for the darkness.

It's not government that causes anarchy, it's the lack thereof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think about it. Civilizations have a lifespan and not a particularly big lifespan. Before civilizations, primitive tribal organization lasted for hundreds of thousands of years. No civilization can boast a life span even a hundredth of that. They all collapse much sooner. Why is that? Civilizations are not sustainable. Thats why. They take more than they give, and they eventually and quite quickly consume the resources needed to sustain them. The Roman Empire could only sustain itslef by constantly expanding. As soon as it was not able to expand it started to collapse. The loot pillaged by Roman Empire from the nations on its borders that it conquered paid for the expansion. You can see how unsustainable this scheme is. It looks like a pyramide scheme. And it is. Civilizations are prone to exponential growth which is not sustainable.
So, it is the civilization that bears in its very essence the seeds of its destruction. It is government that creates the kind of anarchy that is so unpleasant to you. Creates by the logic of the Empire, the drive to expand and consume and conquer.

[ShakeZula06]

Some of these responses are getting ridiculous...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


im not saying " no police" im saying " no monopoly on police", I want to give the customers more choices when choosing security.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, for example, if I'm pulled over for driving drunk, I can tell the cop, "Sorry, buddy, I'm the customer, and you're fired."?

[/ QUOTE ]
yes, because that's how the free market works.

Security guard: You can't steal store merchandise sir.
Consumer: I'm the consumer, you're fired.
Security guard: Well damn, you're right

[ QUOTE ]
You have more food options than anyone in history. And you can thank the government - which paved the roads, keeps them safe, and pretty much does all the things that make industrial society possible.


[/ QUOTE ]
The ole' if government didn't do it no one would fallacy.
[ QUOTE ]
There are some areas of the globe where there is no government, or very little. They're all impoverished, violent places you wouldn't want to visit.


[/ QUOTE ]
Correlation =causation FTW!!

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Internet gambling is a poor example for the case for non-regulation. There are thousands and thousands of cases of people getting ripped off by offshore sites located in Costa Rica or Gibraltar or wherever.

[/ QUOTE ]
Great OP on this topic
The large, large majority of poker players haven't been ripped off by Costa Rica, Gibralter, or "wherever".
[ QUOTE ]
True, you might get ripped off at a casino in Vegas, but if you are, at least you have some recourse. When it comes to internet gambling there is really no recourse.


[/ QUOTE ]
That's a great point. It was also caused by government. The government put online poker sites into a black market by making it illegal to run one in the states (read: within it's monopoly on legality). Now that it's overseas and subject to a different legal code, it's impossible to sue an online casino headquatered in Costa Rica with it's own legal code.
[ QUOTE ]
If the industry were regulated - if people did have a recourse - the industry as a whole would be much better off. Many millions of people don't gamble online because they don't trust offshore sites that are beyond the reach of the law with their money.


[/ QUOTE ]
Regulate whatever you want. Just use money that you gained through voluntary measures and don't force any business to have to use your regulations.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes I understand, however we probably wouldnt have 157 competing legal system, Im guessing 2 to 5 is a more accurate number.

[/ QUOTE ]Why do you think that?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you think there would be 157?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you still want only one legal system then form a community with people that also want one legal system.

[/ QUOTE ] I've already done that.


[/ QUOTE ]
No you haven't. Others have forced on one legal system onto the community.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would anyone hire a private army, do you have any idea how costly a private army is?

[/ QUOTE ] I'm sure it's expensive. On the other hand, it'd be highly profitable, at least in AC-land.

[/ QUOTE ]
False assertion. What about AC land makes private armies highly profitable that a state makes it not (highly profitable)?
[ QUOTE ]
And no part of the globe where people lived in comfort or security consisted of anarchy.

[/ QUOTE ]
bzzzt!
Not to mention anywhere in the world where you'd say is "violent" is actually the result of the state's after effects. You're essentially blaming a hangover on being sober.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]


Think about it. Civilizations have a lifespan and not a particularly big lifespan. Before civilizations, primitive tribal organization lasted for hundreds of thousands of years. No civilization can boast a life span even a hundredth of that. They all collapse much sooner. Why is that? Civilizations are not sustainable. Thats why. They take more than they give, and they eventually and quite quickly consume the resources needed to sustain them. The Roman Empire could only sustain itslef by constantly expanding. As soon as it was not able to expand it started to collapse. The loot pillaged by Roman Empire from the nations on its borders that it conquered paid for the expansion. You can see how unsustainable this scheme is. It looks like a pyramide scheme. And it is. Civilizations are prone to exponential growth which is not sustainable.
So, it is the civilization that bears in its very essence the seeds of its destruction. It is government that creates the kind of anarchy that is so unpleasant to you. Creates by the logic of the Empire, the drive to expand and consume and conquer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if you're arguing that we should go back to hunting and gathering, or if you're arguing that tribes don't have government.

Either way, governments that build roads, courts, and enforce laws don't consume wealth - they create it.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
So basically you just said "hey, you guys should go try it on your own before encouraging everyone else to try it, but if you do, we'll attack you with our army and stop you."

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I'm saying AC land would self-destruct.