Barnard17

I was a member of my schools debate club, yo. I got crazy mad credentials.

Because the precursor to a good debate is good resources. Wikipedia is NOT a good resource. If it's "extremely elitist" of me to reject wikipedia as a viable source, it's extremely plebeian of you to encourage it's use.

Then why not suggest those as the sources instead? I am, of course, assuming that you yourself have read these books?

I am presenting an argument. Here's my source: Dictionary.com.

TheBig3

burn

__________________
I've moved to a new address

Miltamec Soundsquinaez

I didn't really understand this concept. In reading through, it said that it basically wanted to do away with government, with the exception of police, courts, and judges, and it seemed to suggest those would be funded by the free market, since there aren't taxes, which would create an endless amount of police corruption. Their only incentive would be to make money, by constantly fining and arresting people for stuff they didn't even do.
Also, without taxes, you could still have water in the free market, although the highly sophisticated process of dillusion, and water testing, things of that nature may no longer be as viable. How would you control sewage? There's no money in that. How would we build roads? We would have no incentive, since they don't make money, unless they instituted an outrageously expensive toll system.
Also, in the critique, it said something about needing to be protected against the protectors. I'm not sure exactly what it was talking about. What is this system's policy with advocating and handling war? Sorry, I got tired reading that and couldn't understand all of it.

TheBig3

Don't be sorry, the original draft was written in crayon.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

Miltamec Soundsquinaez

No, it wasn't you lying piece of sack. It was like 10 pages. I figure it would just be better to ask the op to clarify rather than read a book about it.

Inuzuka Skysword

You are talking about companies under a mixed economy. I am talking about total capitalism where anything goes. This means a company could go up and down really quickly. The people's demand will change over time and if one company is starting to make to much, then you switch PDAs (public defense agencies.) This would cause a mass amount money to move from one company to many others. AS long as this money doesn't diffuse too much, then it should be fine. It won't diffuse too much though because everyone will want the same thing, protection. They are going to want the best, or a company that will give them more rights. See, when you sign up for a PDA you make a contract demanding your rights. You barter for the most amount of rights you can get. If they don't give it to you then you demand to go to another company. Then they will either let you go or give you your rights.

There was a study done by Nature where Encyclopedia Britannica contained three errors per article. Wikipedia contained about four. Now if EB is acceptable, then that is total hypocrisy. By denying sources that are edited by the people you are saying that the smart people will always be right. Well, Phrenology was believed to be true because the smart people were smart and no one should object. Well it was later proven wrong.

Yeah, well you have yet to bring up an intelligent point against anarcho-capitalism so I really don't know where those came from.

I haven't actually read them. I have Machinery of Freedom coming up on my reading list. The point is that both the wikipedia source and the other source were based off of these books.

Well, the police, courts, and judges would be paid for by the companies. That is the problem, which I mentioned earlier. Without one written document of law it will be hard to uphold the law because everyone's rights will be different. With computer's changing, this may change though. I don't agree with the police corruption. This is because the companies will not want to pay the police for their work because the companies will want more money. At the same time. they will want a good reliable police force so that it will be an incentive for someone to sign with them.

As for roads and sewage systems, they would all be privatized. I don't see how this would be such a problem either. The big thing to remember is that this is a TOTALLY free market, unlike the US's mixed economy. If someone charges a high toll for the road then some other company, in order to make money, will build a similar road with a less price to cross. This means the other company will need to lower there price to get more money. It's the same thing with sewage.

War will be somewhat unlikely under this system, but it could happen. See a war, if it were to happen, would most likely happen when to companies go on trial against each other because a client of one violated the property (rights) of the other. If one of the companies does not give in to a deal from the other and they can't compromise, then you have war. The only thing is, why would these companies really want to fight? They will end up losing money if they do and fall in the market. Since it could cost them their company, they will most likely not have a war.

Barnard17

Goddamnit you've got me there. I really shouldn't have been advising you guys to use the Encyclopedia Brittani ... wait a minute!

An encyclopedia is a reference tool for a very basic knowledge on a subject. You can use it to perhaps help define what you're debating, but you can't use it for anything further because it's ... well, a broad reference tool not a specific, deep information resource of the level needed to embark on a debate.

Nihil ad rem. Thank-you for the short history of psychology lesson though.





Oh? So the point you were making about how awesome Anarcho-Capitalism is is based on ... two websites; one biased and another brief and far from above scrutiny? Just that we're clear on this.


Excuse me for being brusque; please come back when you have a ****ing clue.

Inuzuka Skysword

It is based on those books. Mainly Man, Economy, and State, but the rest are contributors. Again, you shouldn't even be posting since you don't even bring up a circumstance that would prove anarcho-capitalism to be denied without a shout of a doubt.

Miltamec Soundsquinaez

You don't seem to realize that over $200 billion are spent annually in the U.S. on roadwork. I seriously doubt tolls could pay for that. Also, what about schools? They're all privatized now, so poor people can't afford to send their kids to school.
Also, I was speaking about international wars. I'm about as anti-war as you can get, but I do believe we should have a military for the sake of national defense, at least.

Barnard17

Shadow of doubt. If you don't even know a phrase, don't bother trying to use it.

Yet again, read the books yourself as opposed to using the conclusion reached by someone else. Try and make an argument after you've formed an informed opinion, rather than assuming that the people you're reading from have done all the proper leg work for you.

You seem not to have noticed I'm not arguing for or against Anarcho-Capitalism, I'm arguing that you don't have the knowledge basis required to be starting a debate on the subject. As someone once said;