community and anarchy - pt I

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
statelessness is good and beneficial in and of itself and that rough egalitarian distributions are necessary to maintaining that condition of statelessness. In essence that rough equality is not the antithesis of liberty, but rather one of its bedrocks.

[/ QUOTE ]

So how does the "rough equality" exist without a state to enforce it? It seems like you are just taking a circuitous route to claiming that a stateless society cannot exist.

If you have no state to enforce equality, how will you stop people from capitalizing on their talents and their trade advantages? If you want to postulate a world where nobody wants to leverage their talents for social or material advantage, then you are simply making the claim that a stateless, egalitarian society is impossible, since human nature dictates people will do so. And since you are claiming (without backing it up yet I'll point out), that a non-egalitarian society cannot survive and will return to a state, you are just taking a very long time to say that anarchy is impossible, which has been said many times on this forum.

[ QUOTE ]
if you want to argue that free market capitalism is to the great benefit of all humans be my guest, but recognize that it is not compatible with a stateless society.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the onus is still on you to show why people would not engage in commerce without a state around.

natedogg

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
Niet: you're right: if most anarchocapitalists "recognize" that no monopolies would exist without a state, it's pretty hard to see why any monopolies would exist without a state.

With logic like that, it's surprising you guys haven't convinced everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

The logic explaining how monopolies cannot arise and last without a state is something that has been gone over before in this forum in depth.

Nietz simply pointed out the glaring flaw in your inane hypothetical. Your smarmy attitude is getting old. If you want to actually learn something (and its clear you have a lot to learn) then start acting like an adult.

[neverforgetlol]

You're saying that we know a priori that in a stateless society there would be no monopolies? Wow. Let me guess, Austrian?

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
You're saying that we know a priori that in a stateless society there would be no monopolies? Wow. Let me guess, Austrian?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't believe Ive ever said that.

I for one am not well versed in the monopoly debate and am not fully convinced one way or the other to be frank.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Niet: you're right: if most anarchocapitalists "recognize" that no monopolies would exist without a state, it's pretty hard to see why any monopolies would exist without a state.

With logic like that, it's surprising you guys haven't convinced everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

The logic explaining how monopolies cannot arise and last without a state is something that has been gone over before in this forum in depth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, obviously if the ACists in the Politics forum have settled the issue, there's no point in discussing it anymore.

[ QUOTE ]
Nietz simply pointed out the glaring flaw in your inane hypothetical. Your smarmy attitude is getting old. If you want to actually learn something (and its clear you have a lot to learn) then start acting like an adult.

[/ QUOTE ]

Val, why don't we take your personal attacks to this thread, so we don't derail late's thread any further.


PS - It's funny how ACists switch from "you can't prove it WON'T work" when defending their own theory, to "the onus is on YOU," when attacking somebody else's.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, obviously if the ACists in the Politics forum have settled the issue, there's no point in discussing it anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]
Simple question. Can you name a monopoly that has occured without government intervention? Also I'd tell you to read the faq, but you seem to be more preoccupied with trolling then actually engaging in an honest debate or leaning something about a theory you seem to like talking about a lot.
[ QUOTE ]
It's funny how ACists switch from "you can't prove it WON'T work" when defending their own theory...

[/ QUOTE ]
Link to any ACist doing this ever plz.
[ QUOTE ]
to "the onus is on YOU," when attacking somebody else's.

[/ QUOTE ]
The onus is on the statist. Government is an intervention on a person's natural liberty. You should have to be the one to prove that government is +EV over ACism.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
You're saying that we know a priori that in a stateless society there would be no monopolies?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly--we know a priori that monopolies are far less likely to occur in a stateless society than a statist one.
It also depends on what is meant by 'monopoly'. Most Austrians apply the term only to cases where there are entry barriers enforced with physical force, so it seems obvious that these would be far less likely to happen without State coercion.
If though by monopoly you mean 'the only company in a given geographical area', or something like that, it still seems obvious that a highly decentralized society will have a much easier time avoiding monopolies than a highly centralized statist one.

[ QUOTE ]
Let me guess, Austrian?

[/ QUOTE ]

Austrian and [censored] proud of it! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
PS - It's funny how ACists switch from "you can't prove it WON'T work" when defending their own theory, to "the onus is on YOU," when attacking somebody else's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, the extent to which 'ACists' do this is probably pretty equal to the extent that any other group on this forum does this. I really find it unlikely that one group commits this fallacy with such great frequency that they need be singled out.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
PS - It's funny how ACists switch from "you can't prove it WON'T work" when defending their own theory, to "the onus is on YOU," when attacking somebody else's.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the difference between these two positions?

Also, note that there is nothing to prove when it comes to AC. Do I need to prove that, for example, not swimming will "work" or not?

Even if you could prove that it would "work" or not (I'm not really sure what it means for it to work, but that's irrelevant), nothing changes, since the use of force against unwilling parties is still not justified.

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]


Not exactly--we know a priori that monopolies are far less likely to occur in a stateless society than a statist one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think we know that, logically. It may be true but not before the fact.

[ QUOTE ]
It also depends on what is meant by 'monopoly'. Most Austrians apply the term only to cases where there are entry barriers enforced with physical force, so it seems obvious that these would be far less likely to happen without State coercion.


[/ QUOTE ]

But even now when you say "state coercion" that is coercion of government working with capitalists!! If you are an Austrian you must know that barriers to entry are levied by firms, using the law, to harm competitors.