Anarcho-Capitalism - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-07-2008, 04:21 PM   #31 (permalink)
Ba and Be.
jackhammer's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Location: This Is England
Posts: 17,331

Debate is all well and good but there has been some name calling in the thread. Can we please refrain from name calling and post on topic please.

“A cynic by experience, a romantic by inclination and now a hero by necessity.”
jackhammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2008, 11:45 AM   #32 (permalink)
Dancing Machine
Expletive Deleted's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,108

Bumping this because apparently political debate in a political debate is somehow not a very good idea. Anyway, because I'd really like to know what Inuzuka Skysword find so appealing about Anarcho-Capitalism, so copy/pasting from the other thread:

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.
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. :/

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.
Which is why you spent all those other posts arguing the merits of Anarcho-Capitalism. Right.

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.
Having now read this thread, obviously you do have a Wikipedia learned summary of Anarcho-Capitalism, and have been shown why it's a bit ridiculous to try and argue based on it.

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 the political system works.

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?

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.
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?

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.
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 know big companies are going to be overtaxed, which is unconstitutional since we are sort of prohibiting them to their pursuit of happiness.
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!"
Expletive Deleted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2008, 09:03 AM   #33 (permalink)
Music Addict
The Monkey's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 803

"Anarcho-Capitalism" is an oxymoron, as anarchy refers to the absence of all authorities, including market forces.

Besides, it's the most idiotic system in the world, next to marxism-leninism. The failure of the private enterprises, for example, in the US to provide even basic health and dental care to the people should scare even the most hardcore libertarian away from the though of a minimalistic state with no government intervention.
The Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2008, 03:08 PM   #34 (permalink)
Music Addict
riseagainstrocks's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 3,320

This thread made me laugh and I realized why I miss/didn't miss this place at all. Skysword got trumped left and right by citing unreliable data and backing an idea that has already fallen on its face.

Anarcho-capitalism fails to take into account the human element. Mankind is greedy. Greed gives rise to monopolies, monopolies replace government, and bam within 10 years you have an oppressive regime comprised of multinational, billion dollar firms. Sounds far-fetched? Yep. So does "Anarcho"-Capitalism working.
One note timeless, came out of nowhere...
riseagainstrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads

© 2003-2023 Advameg, Inc.