I didn't know I had to argue something that was so obviously self-evident. Ron Paul is far too right-wing in his policies to EVER stand a chance winning the Republican primary much less the general election. I'm not sure what else there is to even say.

How am I misinterpreting what Anarcho-Capitalism is? Obviously America wasn't founded as an Anarcho-Capitalist state, but it's obvious that Thomas Jefferson and other Classical Liberals were influenced by it, and that it's influence is still felt today. I think you're the one that fails to see how Anarcho-Capitalism relates to other political theory.

Because, as I already pointed out, it is obviously an inherently flawed system. There's no reason to enact an Anarcho-Capitalist state if it would only inevitably fail. Pure Communism and pure Capitalism can never work in practice if they don't even work in theory.

Social contracts don't create individual rights, social contracts create governments which guarantee individual rights. The definition of a social contract implies that some authority is given to a government.

I understand what Anarcho-Capitalism is. You simply have an idealist view in which you actually believe that a capitalist police force would actually provide us with individual rights. Aside from the fact that this completely ignores the competitive nature of capitalism in which one, singular police force is unlikely to prevail, how would a police force protect individual rights if there is no legal apparatus with which to guarantee us those rights? And please, please, please don't say that our Anarcho-Capitalist courts will or I'm just going to laugh really hard.

Oh, and I believe in social democracy.

EDIT: Reading back, all you've really shown me in this thread is that you don't even have a basic understanding of the view you claim to support. Just a really general, Wikipedia-learned summary of Anarcho-Capitalism. You didn't even try and refute what I said about any of the problems with it (free riders, etc.), it was just, "Problems? What problems? If Anarcho-Capitalists say it can work than it will." Talk about a logical fallacy.

"All significant truths are private truths. As they become public they cease to become truths; they become facts, or at best, part of the public character; or at worst, catchwords."

-TS Elliot

Anarcho-Capitalism, Social Democracy, Social Contracts, Communism. The core of this and most political arguments is simple: Everyone has a private definition of true happiness and\or freedom.

I don't see a viable argument against increased personal choice as an improvement for the vast majority.

Which is funny considering he dropped out of the race awhile ago.

I don't think he does, which is why I almost over-support him. I think that the younger people in America, mostly the people in their collage/late high school stages are starting to wake up a bit from this totalitarian nightmare that we will endure if we don't challenge the government. This is exactly why I am not some Obama freak because I know that when we put him in there we will be overtaxed and universal healthcare will be put in place. I know big companies are going to be overtaxed, which is unconstitutional since we are sort of prohibiting them to their pursuit of happiness. Even if he doesn't have a big chance I believe he has a very small chance. If he doesn't win, than at least he will have popularized the message of liberty more because the other candidates sure as hell aren't doing it.

Classic liberals were influenced by a minimal government system. The modern day anarcho-capitalist theory was created by Murray Rothbard who wasn't even alive until the 1900s. Anarcho-capitalism is a radical libertarian stance, which means it is rooted in libertarianism. Our constitution was greatly influenced by the Enlightenment, which was way before the anarcho-capitalist theory was really formed. It isn't a simple theory that states anarchy with a capitalist economy. It is much more than that.

Capitalism works in theory because if one person messes up than not everybody else is affected. The problems you stated would not affect everybody so it doesn't really downgrade capitalism. The point of capitalism is that an individual is not responsible for someone else. So something that only affects certain people, such as the free rider problem, would not be everybody's problem.

The government does not necessarily have to be the state, which was my point. Under anarcho-capitalism, the government is the market (basically) and the protectors of those rights are the companies that you buy a PDA with.

There is the PDA you sign with the company who owns the police force. If that company violates the contract then you leave the company, which would result in a loss for them and a gain for another company. If this was publicized, many people (if they had common sense,) would leave that company with them because of the fear that the company may repeat that action again. Therefore, the company loses a lot if they are not reliable.

Thank you for ruining America! It is because of you that people can't pursue their happiness if they believe it comes with riches.


The reason I didn't refute the problems is because I did not want a thread about the election to turn into another debate about radical political beliefs. I prefer more to talk about the election in the election thread, ya know.

BTW, I do not just have a wikipedia learned summery of anarcho-capitalism, which even if one did I don't see why that would be such a problem. My political choice was based off of internet readings, but I do not see how that undermines the theory because all the sources are based off of the famous anarcho-capitalist theorists.

Which is why I said I want Obama to win so Ron Paul has a chance becoming the nominee in the next election. That would be our last hope because he is getting quite old. :(

EDIT: If you really want to continue this debate search up the anarcho-capitalist thread I made and post in there. Otherwise, we may end up polluting the thread. Whatever floats your boat.

Sorry, but the world doesn't work that way. As long as people interact with one another throughout society, you can never truly act in a way that doesn't affect anyone else. Even in capitalism, if a company or an entrepreneurs fails it will most definitely send ripples throughout the rest of the economy. That's why government regulations exist in the first place, to insure that during times of economic crisis people have a safety net with which to fail back on. Hence government welfare programs, etc. Not to mention, what happens to poor people in your Anarcho-Capitalist society?

Also, you didn't really address the free rider problem at all except to say that somehow Capitalism will magically solve it. :/

Which is why you've spent all these posts arguing the merits of Anarcho-Capitalism. Right.

Because you've shown time and time again that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of government and economics. To you, Anarcho-Capitalism exists as one political theory that what, evolved out of nowhere? And it can only exist in practice when it's followed through completely? Sorry, but that isn't how politics works.

:laughing: You're welcome.

This is such an obviously impractical scenario I don't even understand how you can believe it would work. What happens when your neighbor signs a contract with another police force? Or a criminal? What if all the police forces don't have the same laws or regulations? Does each police force have their own jail? Who controls the court system? Does the police force? If so, what protects you from any criminal rights abuses on their part? And if the courts are run by more companies, who decides which company to prosecute you under? Can the companies just change the laws whenever they feel like? And, most importantly, what's to stop these companies from simply gaining a monopoly and creating a totalitarian state?

My problem with your internet readings is that you understand what theorists write, but you don't understand the principles behind them. It's like learning a math formula. It's easy to plug numbers in, but do you understand why you're doing it? I'm completely honest when I ask this, have you ever taken a class in government & politics? Not even a college course, maybe just a simple high school one.

Reality check, once again, Ron Paul has absolutely no chance of winning. Plus, it's funny that you say that young voters are finally waking up to our current government, because guess what? They're reacting against a conservative Republican government, and moving to the left, not the right. Hence all the support for Obama, who, despite having relatively moderate, centrist policies, is portrayed as a sort of liberal messiah.

I'm sure that will hold up in the Supreme Court. "That's right, Chief Justice Roberts, sir! Government regulation is unconstitutional because it makes the CEOs unhappy!"

Although I don't pretend to be a political science major, I know a few things about the workings of government, and I hate to say it, but the system which we live under isn't working. America is still the largest economy in the world, but China is fast approaching, and the national debt and trade deficit grows larger every day. This is a glaring problem which has only been exacerbated by President Bush's misguided ideas. I understand that there are many, MANY reasons for the economic recession we're in now and that the war in Iraq is a only a fraction of its cause, but it remains a dire problem.

I think many young Americans (like myself) feel ostracized by an aging veteran like Senator McCain, especially considering his views regarding the war in Iraq. I admire him for his service to this country, but we're electing a President, not a pope. As a global energy crisis looms on the horizon, our country will need someone capable and cogent enough to handle it with intelligence and fair judgment. I believe that Senator Obama is able to meet these needs.

Bob Barr not on the list? WTF? lol

So i'm leaning Obama simply because he has a more modern, realistic view of the world and where it is heading. McCain will do a good job keeping America America but I believe Obama will help America transition into the next era of our world. We're living in a post post-WWII world and Obama realizes that. McCain does not and will not take our country in the direction the future requires.

John McCain. Because in all seriousness I think since George Bush got elected we've been going on a steady route to becoming the greatest, best country God has ever given man on the face of the earth and John McCain (unlike that nutcase Obama) wants to keep us on that route towards, well perfection.

I've been weary of Obama ever since his use of what was later found out to be a "terrorist fist jab"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph...ma_678374c.jpg

I'm keeping my eyes on you >: [

I don't understand why in a time of War we'd elect someone with no military service whatsoever. I mean between Rove, Cheney and Bush we've got a well of experience to draw on I don't want some never seen combat newbie taking over.