difference between anarchy and anarcho-capitalism - Page 4

Borodog · #31 06-16-2006, 02:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When you get right down to it, thers'e not a lot of difference between anarcho-capitalists and Marxists. Although they envision a very different types of utopian societies. Both have equal probability of actually happening in the real world. Zero.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an odd comment, given that both quasi -anarchist and quasi -Marxist societies have existed historically.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what happened to them?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does it matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

wow...just a complete loss for words. sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Typical of your arguments.

.......... · #32 06-16-2006, 02:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When you get right down to it, thers'e not a lot of difference between anarcho-capitalists and Marxists. Although they envision a very different types of utopian societies. Both have equal probability of actually happening in the real world. Zero.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an odd comment, given that both quasi -anarchist and quasi -Marxist societies have existed historically.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what happened to them?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does it matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

wow...just a complete loss for words. sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Typical of your arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I've gone into detail on a number of occasions despite my sometimes unorthodox ways thankyou.

And as if you're not equally as guilty.

As for your original question, your quazi-anarchist societies do not last because of the inevitablity of the most powerful and superior entity to rise up and sieze control of any society in which it has the ability to do so.

Borodog · #33 06-16-2006, 02:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
As for your original question, your quazi-anarchist societies do not last because of the inevitablity of the most powerful and superior entity to rise up and sieze control of any society in which it has the ability to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. Thanks for saying absolutely nothing.

"The reason that states arise is that it is inevitable that states arise in societies where states can arise."

Nielsio · #34 06-16-2006, 03:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
When you get right down to it, thers'e not a lot of difference between anarcho-capitalists and Marxists. Although they envision a very different types of utopian societies. Both have equal probability of actually happening in the real world. Zero.

The state isn'g going to "wither away" in either a capitalist or socialist economy. The best we can hope for is to keep some limits on the power of the state.

[/ QUOTE ]

The existence of the state is based on the number of people that believe in it's virtue. In the middle ages the church had their own paid mob. This was still a +EV strategy, because of the relative small number of people they had to chase around and torture. And this was because of the mental grip the church had on the people's minds. Then things started to change. There was progress in rational thinking and there was a shift towards deism and doubt in the church. At that point, the power of the church withered away. The small mob was no longer sufficient to keep the crowds down.

Present Canada has 85.000 people in the military and 5.000 troops it can actually employ (yes, that's govt efficiency for you). Canada has 32.5 million 'citizens'. As long as most people believe in the state, you can gun down a few people who refuse to obey you. But there is a critical mass of people where this strategy cannot work anymore; and the state will crumble in days, if it cannot collect the money to pay for all the people who are sucking at it's teet.

Also, states grow and states self-destruct inevitably because of their violent, short-term, win-lose strategy.

So to say that we can never get rid of the state is pretty silly.

.......... · #35 06-16-2006, 03:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for your original question, your quazi-anarchist societies do not last because of the inevitablity of the most powerful and superior entity to rise up and sieze control of any society in which it has the ability to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. Thanks for saying absolutely nothing.

"The reason that states arise is that it is inevitable that states arise in societies where states can arise."

[/ QUOTE ]

It has been explained to you guys over and over as to why it is inevitable. This thread is now about calling each other idiots.

Also thanks for saying absolutely nothing.

"The reason that states do not arise is that it is inevitable that states do not arise in societies where states can arise."

Borodog · #36 06-16-2006, 03:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for your original question, your quazi-anarchist societies do not last because of the inevitablity of the most powerful and superior entity to rise up and sieze control of any society in which it has the ability to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. Thanks for saying absolutely nothing.

"The reason that states arise is that it is inevitable that states arise in societies where states can arise."

[/ QUOTE ]

It has been explained to you guys over and over as to why it is inevitable. This thread is now about calling each other idiots.

Also thanks for saying absolutely nothing.

"The reason that states do not arise is that it is inevitable that states do not arise in societies where states can arise."

[/ QUOTE ]

Try to at least make your strawmen marginally coherent.

QuadsOverQuads · #37 06-16-2006, 05:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why? I took no force in taking there land. I had no role and was born 200 years after it happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

So theft is ok as long as you launder it through a third party?

Buying stolen property is ok?

Selling stolen property is ok?

If I steal something from you and sell it to someone else "based on our mutual valuation of the (stolen) property's value" (etc), then I guess that means the theft is validated and you no longer have legitimate claim to the property that was stolen by me?

As I said : your conception of "property rights" is a thin sham. What you believe in is that which benefits you personally. Just like every other interest group in history.

q/q

pvn · #38 06-16-2006, 07:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When you get right down to it, thers'e not a lot of difference between anarcho-capitalists and Marxists. Although they envision a very different types of utopian societies. Both have equal probability of actually happening in the real world. Zero.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an odd comment, given that both quasi -anarchist and quasi -Marxist societies have existed historically.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what happened to them?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does it matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

wow...just a complete loss for words. sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. States, on the other hand, are invulnerable.

Results-oriented thinking worked for me!

pvn · #39 06-16-2006, 07:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why? I took no force in taking there land. I had no role and was born 200 years after it happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

So theft is ok as long as you launder it through a third party?

Buying stolen property is ok?

Selling stolen property is ok?

If I steal something from you and sell it to someone else "based on our mutual valuation of the (stolen) property's value" (etc), then I guess that means the theft is validated and you no longer have legitimate claim to the property that was stolen by me?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say I buy a hot dog. It's stolen, but I don't know it. The rightful owner finally tracks me down... but I've already eaten it! What to do? His property has now been irreversibly incorporated into my property (my body). His only recourse is to pursue damages claims against the party that actually caused him damages, by stealing the hot dog in the first place.

There's lots of land in the US that was used by natives long ago. there's also lots of land that wasn't. Those parties that were damaged were prevented from pursing claims, because the party that damaged them also happened to monpolize the legal system.

QuadsOverQuads · #40 06-16-2006, 07:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Those parties that were damaged were prevented from pursing claims, because the party that damaged them also happened to monpolize the legal system.

[/ QUOTE ]

But from what the "ACers" are telling me, that is completely irrelevent.

So what if the government barred them from pursuing their claims in government courts? This is a MORAL issue, an issue of RIGHT. According to the ACer party line, the government cannot invalidate the rights of those the land was stolen from, so barring them from the court system doesn't change the validity of their right to the land. Not now, not ever. It's still theirs BY RIGHT. Or are you telling me that GOVERNMENT has the power to extinguish that RIGHT and establish a RIGHT for someone else (who is now in possession of stolen property)?

q/q