Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   The Lounge (https://www.musicbanter.com/lounge/)
-   -   Anarcho-Capitalism (https://www.musicbanter.com/lounge/30852-anarcho-capitalism.html)

Inuzuka Skysword 06-02-2008 07:07 PM

Anarcho-Capitalism
 
Does anyone else embrace Anarcho-Capitalism on this forum? I hope I am not the only one.

More information (Anarcho-Capitalism) for the curious:
Wikipedia - Anarcho-Capitalism

Good FAQ for Anarcho-Capitalism Though it does not answer all.

655321 06-02-2008 07:53 PM

i believe capitalism is a necessary evil in america, but i dont believe in anarcho-capitalism if any form of anarchy were to work i believe it would be a sort of anarcho-communism

Gates_of_Iscariot 06-02-2008 08:20 PM

communism is made of fail
are you not entitled to the sweat of your brow?

655321 06-02-2008 08:28 PM

anarcho-communism isnt quite like that mike and i just found a picture of you on my computer err actually several, in one im pretty sure you've pissed yourself

TheBig3 06-02-2008 09:01 PM

I'd think that was cool if I was 15.

When you grow up and have mommy and daddy problems you get a better understanding of why you need government for anything to work in a fashion we know it to now.

Gates_of_Iscariot 06-02-2008 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 655321 (Post 486830)
anarcho-communism isnt quite like that mike and i just found a picture of you on my computer err actually several, in one im pretty sure you've pissed yourself

...
lol
why am i on your computer

and i realize its obviously not the same, but working for others does not appeal to me, no one deserves my work.

Inuzuka Skysword 06-03-2008 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 655321 (Post 486820)
i believe capitalism is a necessary evil in america, but i dont believe in anarcho-capitalism if any form of anarchy were to work i believe it would be a sort of anarcho-communism

No it wouldn't. It would last for like two seconds. Somebody could easily take over an anarcho-socialist community because everyone in the community would be somewhat poor.

Quote:

I'd think that was cool if I was 15.

When you grow up and have mommy and daddy problems you get a better understanding of why you need government for anything to work in a fashion we know it to now.
Did you read any of the links I posted because you seem like that kind of a person who believes that anarchism is always utopian and a thought of the young people.

Yeah, I don't think you read it seeing you didn't state any specific problems. Anarcho-capitalism is not anti-government. It is anti-state. There would be a sort of governing force under anarcho-capitalism, just not one like we have. That is why you need to read my resources.

anticipation 06-03-2008 02:30 PM

anarcho-capitalism reminds me of christian humanism,



because they're both bullshit.

Inuzuka Skysword 06-03-2008 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gentleman Johnny (Post 487042)
anarcho-capitalism reminds me of christian humanism,



because they're both bullshit.

Did you read the sources? Just wondering...

TheBig3 06-03-2008 03:03 PM

Let me just point this out, when the state does not intervene, it leads to monopolies, and when you have a monopoly, you no longer have capitalism.

By having no state intervention, you eventually lose capitalism. I'm not going to waste my time reading further into something that is so theory based and ignores practiced experience.

Inuzuka Skysword 06-03-2008 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog (Post 487050)
Let me just point this out, when the state does not intervene, it leads to monopolies, and when you have a monopoly, you no longer have capitalism.

By having no state intervention, you eventually lose capitalism. I'm not going to waste my time reading further into something that is so theory based and ignores practiced experience.

Prove it using logic. This was already answered in one of my sources so I still fail to understand why you underestimate something that has an affiliation with Anarchism. So many terrible prejudices...

The Unfan 06-05-2008 12:36 AM

I can't say I do embrace it. However, I think having no state intervention is better than having a lot of state intervention. I still think a minor amount of interaction from the state should exist, mainly to help people and not much else.

Barnard17 06-05-2008 05:30 AM

Moderator cut: image removed

This guy also argues political debates on the internets. You can see from his appearance the general IQ of such people.

Your "sources" are a pro-Anarcho-Capitalist info site and an informational Wikipedia article any Tom, **** or Harry can walk in or edit. Useful sources in such discussion are ones that provide an in-depth look at what it it is and what the pros AND cons are. Ergo, come back when you've trawled a library with a Dewey decimal index in hand looking for books that provide detailed information on the subject, along with information sources on alternate ideals. Furthermore, stop saying "have you read my sources" until a) you provide actual sources, and not a fluffy load of nonsense and b) you've actually properly read up on the subject yourself and have a good understanding of it and surrounding debate potentials.

bsmix 06-05-2008 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fal (Post 487407)
Moderator cut: image removed

This guy also argues political debates on the internets. You can see from his appearance the general IQ of such people.

Your "sources" are a pro-Anarcho-Capitalist info site and an informational Wikipedia article any Tom, **** or Harry can walk in or edit. Useful sources in such discussion are ones that provide an in-depth look at what it it is and what the pros AND cons are. Ergo, come back when you've trawled a library with a Dewey decimal index in hand looking for books that provide detailed information on the subject, along with information sources on alternate ideals. Furthermore, stop saying "have you read my sources" until a) you provide actual sources, and not a fluffy load of nonsense and b) you've actually properly read up on the subject yourself and have a good understanding of it and surrounding debate potentials.

Yeah you're way smarter than him. I believe that. Does he think he is some kind of comedian? He obviously has a low IQ too, look at his appearance!! This is so on topic also. I mean this picture IS online... I can't take anything serious. Thank you. I mean that's not nonsense.

TheBig3 06-05-2008 01:57 PM

That guy went to harvard you ****ing moron.

Inuzuka Skysword 06-05-2008 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fal (Post 487407)
Moderator cut: image removed

This guy also argues political debates on the internets. You can see from his appearance the general IQ of such people.

Your "sources" are a pro-Anarcho-Capitalist info site and an informational Wikipedia article any Tom, **** or Harry can walk in or edit. Useful sources in such discussion are ones that provide an in-depth look at what it it is and what the pros AND cons are. Ergo, come back when you've trawled a library with a Dewey decimal index in hand looking for books that provide detailed information on the subject, along with information sources on alternate ideals. Furthermore, stop saying "have you read my sources" until a) you provide actual sources, and not a fluffy load of nonsense and b) you've actually properly read up on the subject yourself and have a good understanding of it and surrounding debate potentials.

I don't understand why you obviously don't know how to debate. So far we have only had a few people actually state your opinion. You were not one of them seeing that all you did was criticize my sources, including wikipedia, (which is extremely elitist of you.)

Seriously, share your opinion or get the **** out of the thread. I want people who are willing to state the opinion and/or their argument. Both of those sources provide great books for you to read such as, The Machinery of Freedom, Man, Economy, and State, and The Economics and Ethics of Private Property.

While I am an anarcho-capitalist and support it I do see its faults and I will admit that this style isn't a perfect way to live. For one, it will be hard for justice to be served because there will not be anything that will truly have a monopoly on force.

So there you have it. Present an argument or GTFO.

Laughing Boy 06-05-2008 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword (Post 487476)
I don't understand why you obviously don't know how to debate. So far we have only had a few people actually state your opinion. You were not one of them seeing that all you did was criticize my sources, including wikipedia, (which is extremely elitist of you.)

Probably because wikipedia CAN be edited by everyone and isn't really considered a legit or credible source.

TheBig3 06-05-2008 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword (Post 487086)
Prove it using logic. This was already answered in one of my sources so I still fail to understand why you underestimate something that has an affiliation with Anarchism. So many terrible prejudices...

Well actually theres nothing pre-judged about it. We know what anarchy is. You can talk about the conceptual basis all you want, but at the end of the day its a lack of government.

That being said. Companies will eventually monopolize an industry. We know this because it has happened. Talk theory and statistics and the normal curve all you want. Thoery isn't reality, and the reality is, we've had and continue to have monopolies.

Tell me who interupts a monopoly if there is no government?

The Unfan 06-05-2008 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog (Post 487479)
Tell me who interupts a monopoly if there is no government?

The people. You can willingly choose not to support a company. You can willingly start your own company. It doesn't seem that hard to comprehend really.

TheBig3 06-05-2008 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unfan (Post 487483)
The people. You can willingly choose not to support a company. You can willingly start your own company. It doesn't seem that hard to comprehend really.

holy **** why didn't I think of that? In that case argument over.

We're talking about a companey thats attained such a level of power and money it can afford to drive out competitors by any means needed. Post WWII we have the oil companies bombing trolly car lines in Ohio. Walmart is constantly accused of destroying mom and pop stores.

And the people have the ability everytime. And they do nothing. Microsoft and Google are poised to rule the planet, and whos to stop them?

You underestimate the power of comfort.

Barnard17 06-06-2008 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword (Post 487476)
I don't understand why you obviously don't know how to debate.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword (Post 487476)
So far we have only had a few people actually state your opinion. You were not one of them seeing that all you did was criticize my sources, including wikipedia, (which is extremely elitist of you.)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword (Post 487476)
those sources provide great books for you to read such as, The Machinery of Freedom, Man, Economy, and State, and The Economics and Ethics of Private Property.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword (Post 487476)
Present an argument or GTFO.

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

TheBig3 06-06-2008 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fal (Post 487671)
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.

burn

Miltamec Soundsquinaez 06-06-2008 10:36 PM

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 06-06-2008 10:56 PM

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

Miltamec Soundsquinaez 06-06-2008 11:32 PM

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 06-07-2008 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog (Post 487485)
holy **** why didn't I think of that? In that case argument over.

We're talking about a companey thats attained such a level of power and money it can afford to drive out competitors by any means needed. Post WWII we have the oil companies bombing trolly car lines in Ohio. Walmart is constantly accused of destroying mom and pop stores.

And the people have the ability everytime. And they do nothing. Microsoft and Google are poised to rule the planet, and whos to stop them?

You underestimate the power of comfort.

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.

Quote:

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.
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.

Quote:

I was a member of my schools debate club, yo. I got crazy mad credentials.
Yeah, well you have yet to bring up an intelligent point against anarcho-capitalism so I really don't know where those came from.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.
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.

Quote:

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.
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 06-07-2008 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword (Post 488035)
Now if EB is acceptable, then that is total hypocrisy.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword (Post 488035)
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.

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


Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword (Post 488035)
Yeah, well you have yet to bring up an intelligent point against anarcho-capitalism so I really don't know where those came from.

:crazy:


Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword (Post 488035)
I haven't actually read them.

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 06-07-2008 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fal (Post 488037)
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.



:crazy:




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.

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 06-07-2008 11:40 AM

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 06-07-2008 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword (Post 488087)
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.

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;

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword (Post 487476)
I don't understand why you obviously don't know how to debate.


jackhammer 06-07-2008 03:21 PM

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.

Expletive Deleted 07-08-2008 10:45 AM

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:


Quote:

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. :/

Quote:

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.


Quote:

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?

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.
Quote:

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!"

The Monkey 07-09-2008 08:03 AM

"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.

riseagainstrocks 07-09-2008 02:08 PM

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.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:27 PM.


© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.