Comment Thread for Debate: The Merits of Anarchocapitalism

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
The large, large majority of poker players haven't been ripped off by Costa Rica, Gibralter, or "wherever".

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever. Huge numbers of gamblers have been ripped off by offshore sites that are beyond the reach of the law. It's a common and well-known problem, and it's documented all over the internet. The comparison between internet and legal gambling is not even close.

[ QUOTE ]
That's a great point. It was also caused by government.

[/ QUOTE ]

You guys think everything bad happens because of the government, don't you?

If the roads deteriorate when there's no government, it's because of the government.

If property rights are not secure in the absense of government, it's because of the government.

If offshore, unregulated casinos steal your money... Again, it's because of the government.

These kinds of arguments might work when it comes to you guys trying to convince each other, but you do realize - don't you - that this isn't going to work when you're trying to convince somebody who hasn't already bought into your agenda?

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think there would be 157?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice comeback. Look, this is your imaginary utopia, not mine. If you can't tell me how it's going to work, who can?

[ QUOTE ]
What about AC land makes private armies highly profitable that a state makes it not (highly profitable)?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the absense of government, whoever has the biggest army makes the rules.

[WordWhiz]

[ QUOTE ]
In the absense of government, whoever has the biggest army makes the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that does sound bad. Good thing we have governments to prevent this terrible state of affairs.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the absense of government, whoever has the biggest army makes the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that does sound bad. Good thing we have governments to prevent this terrible state of affairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Government can also have a talent for imposing itself arbitrarily, so something more is needed. Namely the rule of law. Government is only a means to that end. There are lawless governments just like there are lawless private armies.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the absense of government, whoever has the biggest army makes the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that does sound bad. Good thing we have governments to prevent this terrible state of affairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Government can also have a talent for imposing itself arbitrarily, so something more is needed. Namely the rule of law. Government is only a means to that end. There are lawless governments just like there are lawless private armies.

[/ QUOTE ]

An fine example of a lawless government would be the United States of America, who has clearly demonstrated that they have every intention of completely ignoring the laws that bind them (the Constitution).

[Girchuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think we can go back to tribal ways. There are too many of us, and hunter gatherers have a very large ecological footprint. This is why we have government in the first place. Our government is an artefact of agricultural society, and it is most useful to organize agricultural production on a large scale. But government is a net cost to society. The resources invested in it produce diminished returns. And very quickly it becomes so complicated, that total return becomes negative. This is when we have government-organized wars that destroy wealth on a large scale. No anarchy can possibly organize destruction and genocide on the same scale as government, and governments do it quite regularly. And now, the governments on this planet are capable of killing everyone. How is this for wealth creation. Are you happy with your government now?

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]


An fine example of a lawless government would be the United States of America, who has clearly demonstrated that they have every intention of completely ignoring the laws that bind them (the Constitution).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a sometimes-critic of the USA myself.

But saying that the US "completely ignores" the constitution... it's the kind of thing that gives ACism a bad name. It invokes the image of wild-eyed fanatics, the kind who form militias in Montana, and get into shoot-outs with the FBI.

Plus, it's just factually wrong.

Enormous amounts of intellectual effort have gone into interpreting and applying the constitution. A whole branch of government is dedicated to making sure the other two branches act within the law - act according to the limits imposed by the constitution.

You may disagree with the conclusions reached by the people who have dedicated their lives to the issue of applying the constitution to the real world, but to say the government "ignores" the constitution... well, it's just wrong.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
No anarchy can possibly organize destruction and genocide on the same scale as government, and governments do it quite regularly. And now, the governments on this planet are capable of killing everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anarchy can build roads, courts and sewers. It can maintain the electrical grid, the telecommunications network, and the rule of law. It can provide for self-defense.

But anarchists can't build bombs?

I don't get it.

[m_the0ry]

[ 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 ]

And basically you just said "hey, come jump off this cliff I promise the grass is really really green at the bottom."

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever. Huge numbers of gamblers have been ripped off by offshore sites...

[/ QUOTE ]
No, relative to the amount of players that haven't been ripped off this is not a "large number". And because the US government had forced these companies out of their jurisdiction, people who do get ripped off are unable to seek reprisal.
[ QUOTE ]
You guys think everything bad happens because of the government, don't you?


[/ QUOTE ]
I like how after I refute your point instead of conceding it you go off on wild tangents. So do you agree with me on the fact that since the US forced them out of their juridiction people who do get ripped off are unable to seek reprisal from these online rooms?
[ QUOTE ]
If the roads deteriorate when there's no government, it's because of the government.

If property rights are not secure in the absense of government, it's because of the government.


[/ QUOTE ]
Nope, no one has said this. What HAS been said that typically in the aftermath of government there is a lot of poverty because that government consumed tons of resources before collapsing, which is true.

Now, in a society enscounced in poverty, how well do you think anarchy will do compared to say a nation that is relatively not poor? Your assertion that anarchy is in typically poor areas therefore anarchy causes poverty is pretty much the definition of correlation=causation.
[ QUOTE ]
If offshore, unregulated casinos steal your money... Again, it's because of the government.

[/ QUOTE ]
No they did not *cause* it, but they set the situation up.
[ QUOTE ]
These kinds of arguments might work when it comes to you guys trying to convince each other, but you do realize - don't you - that this isn't going to work when you're trying to convince somebody who hasn't already bought into your agenda?

[/ QUOTE ]
I always love this type of response. What kind of "agenda" do we have? You think we're all just sitting around waiting for government collapse and then BAM we'll take over the world? We simply argue for anarchocapitalism because we believe it to be superior to government.
[ QUOTE ]
Nice comeback.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not a comeback, we're not in highschool. You asserted that it would be 157 legal codes. He asserted there would be a small number, two to five. Why should he have to back up his assertion but not you, the first person to make the assertion?
[ QUOTE ]
Look, this is your imaginary utopia, not mine.

[/ QUOTE ]
This right here shows how unqualified you are to have a one on one debate over the merits of ACism. No one says AC is a utopia, and by defintion it's not.
[ QUOTE ]
If you can't tell me how it's going to work, who can?


[/ QUOTE ]
You're reversing burden of proof here. Since you're the one that supports force (goverment) to achieve your goals, and I'm the one that supports inaction (lack of government) the burden of proof is on YOU to show (don't confuse this with assert as you have so much in this debate) why YOUR government is justified by force.

Your question is ridiculous anyway. What if the government monopolized shoe production, and statist's reply was "Well how much shoe companies will there be?" There is no way to know. There would likely be only two to five because it seems likely the market demand would only be for two to five.
[ QUOTE ]
In the absense of government, whoever has the biggest army makes the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]
With governments whoever has the biggest army makes the rules. Government also makes war profiteering profitable, in essence creating wars. Not to mention you didn't answer my question.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No anarchy can possibly organize destruction and genocide on the same scale as government, and governments do it quite regularly. And now, the governments on this planet are capable of killing everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anarchy can build roads, courts and sewers. It can maintain the electrical grid, the telecommunications network, and the rule of law. It can provide for self-defense.

But anarchists can't build bombs?

I don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wars can only be profitable when the party waging it can externalize the costs somewhere, typically to duped taxpayers. Simple evaluation, taking all the funding for Iraq, what's the government's ROI? It's in the negatives and it's not close.