Anarchist Stuff

[Pseudo Nym]

On the one hand, you're saying the property owner is preying on the guy without property. On the other hand, you're implying (correct me if I am wrong) that the guy without should be able to prey on the guy who has stuff.

My perspective is this: once upon a time, all land and resources were freely available for anyone to use. When people first claimed land and resources for their own exclusive use, that eliminated the opportunity for anyone else to use it in perpetuity, at the owner's discretion.

In my view, this removal of land and resources from the commons is only justifiable insofar as it serves as a net benefit to everyone. NB, I'm only talking property rights in land and resources here, nothing else.

I'm not against exclusive access to land or resources, provided it meets the societal benefit litmus test. But I also believe that such exclusive access come with certain conditions regarding the use of the land or resources in question and the obligation of the nominal owner to society (or "everyone else").

In short, (nominally) owning land and capital is okay with me, because of the social benefit, but it needs to come with some strings attached.


In my little story, from my perspective, I was the one in the wrong for claiming the spring all to myself. My exclusive claim benefited only me, and was a cost to everyone else.


As an aside, in many European countries they recognize the right of people to access land (but with limitations on use), regardless of ownership, which is known as freedom to roam. It seems to cause no problems for them.

Do they really? Where?

Anytime anyone is forced by circumstance to sign over their time and efforts. If you don't recognize this as a daily occurrence for many, may I suggest to you that your social circle may benefit from some diversity.

if you don't believe that the use of violence is wrong, then we need to stop talking (I don't like sociopaths)

Can property rights be enforced without the threat of violence? If I consider all of nature to be every man's right, and if you shoot me for picking and eating an apple off "your" tree, then who has aggressed whom?

Why do you oppose unequal distribution of power and resources?

I don't, per se. Don't strawman me, bro. All I said was that a welfare state mitigates the most deleterious effects of capitalism. IOW, it makes life a little bit easier for those who get downsized, outsourced, etc., or just have bad luck.

The state doesn't operate on justice. It operates on political power. The majority of state welfare goes to corporations and big business. The amount of social welfare (which is a very recent thing, and totally unsustainable) is very small relative to the amount of resources the state consumes in graft, bailouts, handouts, kickbacks and militarism.

I think this depends a lot on which state you're talking about. The state I happen to live under? No doubt. But even then, entitlement spending is a pretty healthy chunk of the pie.

Your take on capitalism sounds very Marxian, but are you aware that Mises refuted most of Marx's core ideas on economics? Indeed, several Austrians I am fond of, are very keen on Marx's class analysis, however his economics are regarded as miserably bad by all schools of economics.

And the whole of Austrian economics is considered hardly worthy of a footnote by most serious economists.

So which experts you gonna believe? The ones that confirm your (generic you) bias, probably.

As far as the usefulness of the state, isn't that subjective? If you benefit from the state, then yeah, it's great. If you don't then it is miserable. I take care of my family, I look after my parents, I pay my own way, and the state bleeds me dry for it. Is this justice? I've hurt no one, I try to employ people, I work very hard, I try to do business honorably, I try to pay it forward all the time.

Why am I supporting single mothers who made bad decisions? People on unemployment who make so much they are disincentivized to look for new work? Why am I bailing out banks? Why am I sending money to Israel?

You know, I actually empathize with this position - the sentiment, commonly voiced by smalltown conservatives, to be left alone and have government out of their lives. Rural living is just a completely different way of life; people are much more reliant on themselves, their families, their communities. Guns are a tool and a way of life, and not problematic. They have no need for government interference. I get that. But I also empathize with the point of view more common to city dwellers - where family is often fractured, community non-existent, and inequality pronounced.

It's no surprise the country is divided, politically and ideologically, largely on rural/urban lines, as well as ethnic (ethnic populations being much higher in cities).

But that's the thing. Poverty hasn't been eradicated. In fact, with the massive amounts of debt in western economies, public more so than private, this whole thing will collapse.

It's not a matter of being a meanie or a propertarian, but a system needs to be rational. To be rational, it can't have inherent failures that ignored until they manifest. Welfare has all of the wrong incentives. Charity is infinitely superior.

I don't know if I agree that charity is so much better. In my experience, at least in the US, both charity and government welfare are degrading experiences. If circumstance has compelled you to seek that help, humiliation and indignity are just kicking you when you're down. You might think, "well, maybe that'll motivate them to get off their lazy asses!" But the reality is a lot of people end up in those situations for physical or mental health reasons. Making a depressed person feel like an even bigger piece of worthless shit than they already feel like isn't going to help anything.

In contrast, in some countries, receiving government assistance doesn't carry the same stigma, and is therefore much less psychologically harmful. You might point to that as one reason their welfare states are destined to collapse, but I'm not so convinced. There's clearly a lot of room for nuance in implementation, and a lot of other things that factor into sustainability. One of the oldest welfare states in the world is Germany, and they're doing relatively well, at least in comparison to their neighbors.

I will agree though that welfare "traps" are a real problem, which is why I find the types of proposals from some libertarian economists compelling.

I am really struggling to believe that you believe, that bureaucrats and politicians aren't self-serving, and are instead noble and honorable people serving their constituents.

Well, they're people. I do think quite a large percentage initially get into politics because they genuinely want to make changes in the direction they consider "right." I'm sure some get cynical over time and compromise their ethics, or do the expedient thing rather than the right thing.

I guess the proof is in the pudding. Some countries are better than others. Every country has their problems. But based on the quality of life of the average Joe in any given modern industrialized democracy, I'd say it's pretty far from as bleak as you seem to suggest.

Let's not even touch on the war machine that is the state, and the horrible devastation it rains down on the most poor, sad and helpless people in the world.

By "the state" you mean mostly just the US. How many "sad and helpless" people were killed in military operations by Japan last year? The last ten years?

I'm not here to defend the state, really. I only acknowledge its de facto existence for the foreseeable future, and advocate for policies that would make life incrementally better for those living within it (and outside it as well; I'm definitely not pro-war).

You've sort of picked the very worst of economic theory here.

Have you read anything from Rothbard? Or Mises?

Friedman and Hayek are the worst now?

I don't believe either Rothbard or Mises are considered to be noteworthy as economists. Or philosophers, for that matter. You know Rothbard supported George H.W. Bush? How's that for consistency. He also had poor taste in movies.

 

[Napolean]

Just a difference of opinion in that case. I wouldn't consider what we have today as a worst case scenario at all.

that's because you're sitting comfortably at a computer posting on a forum.

you're not praying your home isn't the next one to get bombed by a predator drone.

you're not one of the 200 people who had their front doors kicked in, and family held at gunpoint by the DEA whether they had anything illegal in their homes or not.

you don't have any family in a cemetery today, thanks to your friendly police department.

all that aside, what is the difference between government and a giant corporation? both need money to run themselves. both are organizations. both have elected presidents.

In that case, we already have anarchy on this planet (like someone said on this forum a while ago)

The utopia with NAP and non-violence principles you talk about would require some enforcement.

Perfect voluntarism and non-aggression is the kind of shit where you're talking about some kind of enlightening on the genetic and spiritual level. Kind of thing where as per hindu philosophy, we're living in kalyuga and are due for a new yuga

A few posts above this just talked about why what we have today is not anarchy.

 

[crackp0t]

People forget that here has existed prosperous anarchistic societies such as the medieval viking age Iceland Free State which survived 300 years. Milton Friedman's son David Friedman has written on this topic.

Icelandic Commonwealth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you for mentioning that book and the history lesson (I love reading about history). I'm going to be getting that book on Amazon if possible when I finish up my work for the night.

 

[REIMktg]

Private property rights protects the environment. There is a great interview with Walter Block talking about it many years ago (while at the Fraser Institute) on Youtube.

While trying to stay out of the discussion because in a previous thread it was clear that Guerilla is arguing for an ideal founded on the belief that man can evolve. I disagree, but there's no point debating it.

With that said, because I wasted 45 minutes on the above video, thinking it would address some of my objections, so what the hell, figured I should post something.

The first thing is please, no one, watch the video. It does not help.

Funny thing is it is almost an environmentalists blueprint for the last 10 years. He talks about people.organizations buying and selling pollution credits, grocery stores charging for plastic over paper bags, etc. Though his arguments were that these were market solutions it is as if some Statist was watching it and figured it would work just as well if imposed on the population through laws.

He had me when saying that property rights extended to the pollution side effects my factory may have on an adjacent property owners property. He lost me on a whole system whereas an optimal amount of pollution produced would be determined and then there would be a market where people could sell their allocation to others etc. Ridiculous. What happens when I deny the pollution? Say I am fracking and ruining the neighbors well water - who's to say?


He moves on to incentives for proper logging and privatization of forests. His equation fails to take into account if I have multiple businesses - Maybe raping my forest assets for cash that I reallocate to another business with a better ROI than the long term return of the forest?

Now I know the above can be answered within AnCap models to the satisfaction of the AnCaps and not to me, but this post is about the video and my trying to save others from a wasted 45 minutes.

 

[guerilla]

While trying to stay out of the discussion because in a previous thread it was clear that Guerilla is arguing for an ideal founded on the belief that man can evolve. I disagree, but there's no point debating it.

Sure, you're incapable of evolving. You're the lowest form of human, ethically and intellectually, right?

In fact, let's take your position one step further. You're basically the same level of human that existed 10,000 years ago, right?

I appreciate your honesty, that you actually don't believe in the capacity for people to learn, to share knowledge, to improve. I think it's ridiculous, but at least your beliefs are consistent. You think so little of humans (and presumably yourself) you can't strain to imagine a world where men can another level of peace.

Maybe it's a Christian thing. You believe in original sin or something. I dunno. It's funny though. Such a sad view of life. No hope for a better future.

With that said, because I wasted 45 minutes on the above video, thinking it would address some of my objections, so what the hell, figured I should post something.

The first thing is please, no one, watch the video. It does not help.

LOL

Why would you ask people not to expose themselves to other ideas?

Funny thing is it is almost an environmentalists blueprint for the last 10 years. He talks about people.organizations buying and selling pollution credits, grocery stores charging for plastic over paper bags, etc. Though his arguments were that these were market solutions it is as if some Statist was watching it and figured it would work just as well if imposed on the population through laws.

First, remember that you're a statist. ok?

Next, they are market solutions. Do you understand how markets work?

That the state co-opted market ideas by imposing costs is nothing new. It's not the costs that are the issue, but that the state imposes them based on political considerations, not market feedback that is the issue.

That is essentially Mises brilliant argument as to why Socialism cannot work. The lack of rational (market-derived) price feedback, which is crucial information for resource allocation, means that a Socialist economy cannot adjust, and if it adjusts, it must adjust irrationally (where it doesn't manage to get totally lucky).

He had me when saying that property rights extended to the pollution side effects my factory may have on an adjacent property owners property. He lost me on a whole system whereas an optimal amount of pollution produced would be determined and then there would be a market where people could sell their allocation to others etc. Ridiculous. What happens when I deny the pollution? Say I am fracking and ruining the neighbors well water - who's to say?

Sounds like you didn't understand this at all. If you pollute my property, you're liable for the damage in a private property society. There may be an amount of pollution I will tolerate if you will compensate me with cleanup, or straight payoffs.

Again, free market solutions.

As far as a market in pollution rights, why not? By having a market for acceptable levels of pollution (and let's face it, all industrial production has by-products which are costly to dispose of) people who under-pollute would be able to trade the rights to people who have more production, and hence more pollution. Apparently you have not heard of Carbon Credits.

Again, free market stuff. Please learn what markets are, why they work, and why they are so badly needed.

He moves on to incentives for proper logging and privatization of forests. His equation fails to take into account if I have multiple businesses - Maybe raping my forest assets for cash that I reallocate to another business with a better ROI than the long term return of the forest?

But you're still raping your own assets. It's irrelevant. It's like arguing there is a meaningful distinction between keeping your wallet in your right pocket or your left pocket.

This has nothing to do with Ancapism. You have a very poor understanding of economics. Seriously, please read up on the subject, if you want a reading list, PM me.

 

[dsm56]

I recommend that people who are interested in real life examples of periods with no government read [ame="http://www.amazon.com/McMafia-Journey-Through-Criminal-Underworld/dp/1400095123"]McMafia[/ame] (McMafia by Misha Glenny)

I think it has arguments for both sides, about what humans are capable of when there is "no government"

They are capable of both cooperation and exploitation, I don't have enough information to claim why one happens or the other.

The fascinating thing about the book is that in the majority of cases, when there is no government, people do actually co-operate, and what we call mafia is actually just a privatised police force.

And as quite a few people have pointed out, mafia don't have an interest to kill people. They have a lot more power and influence when a society is working well than if there is chaos.

 

[REIMktg]

1. Sure, you're incapable of evolving. You're the lowest form of human, ethically and intellectually, right?
2. In fact, let's take your position one step further. You're basically the same level of human that existed 10,000 years ago, right?
3. I appreciate your honesty, that you actually don't believe in the capacity for people to learn, to share knowledge, to improve. I think it's ridiculous, but at least your beliefs are consistent. You think so little of humans (and presumably yourself) you can't strain to imagine a world where men can another level of peace.
4. Maybe it's a Christian thing. You believe in original sin or something. I dunno. It's funny though. Such a sad view of life. No hope for a better future.

1. Why a presumption of the lowest form? Because I said we cannot evolve? Are you assuming everyone is born at the same starting point?
People do not evolve. The culture and norms around them change, people simply adapt and yet they will still exhibit inconsistent rational thoughts and behaviors as well as inconsistent application and adherence to any code to live by. It's our nature.

The typical argument against this is that Man, in seeking self interest, will find it in his self interest to pursue a common good. This assumes a consistency that do not see in Man. Man is not consistently rational nor logical.

2. I do not know how things were 10,000 years ago. If we start by looking at societies with enough data to study - you tell me if the population had emotions, motivations, and personal behavior that is similar to today. You cannot point out societal or cultural norms, that's the advancing of society. For Man to have evolved then you need to have examples on the personal level. I see these societies had crimes, laws, punishments, exploitation, money, greed, power seeking, and prostitutes.

3. I can see where an increasing percentage of the world can be educated and taught and as a result there would be a worldwide "lifting up" and a connected decrease in anti-social behavior as people find it easier to conform. But do not mistake this with a change or evolution in their emotions, reason, or character. Nothing has changed, you still have the the violent, the irrational, and those willing to sacrifice the long term good for their short term pleasure.

I understand the tendency of the WF crowd to relate to SciFi type worldviews. Where there are worlds or ideal societies/worlds that were once like Earth and then they evolved toward a "higher existence". I just do not buy it. Things can improve, but mans nature will not. Some men will find in an advanced world/economy that it is better to conform and behave, but do not take this as that person "evolving".

4. Yes my worldview is influenced by and consistent with my religion. It does not make it wrong. As always I am open to another understanding. Believe me, I will be the first to dump my religion if I found it to be wrong. [/QUOTE]

Why would you ask people not to expose themselves to other ideas?

The ideas were fine if I were a teenager, but 45 minutes for such simple concepts? I worked through those scenarios within seconds of being introduced to AnCap . I simply do not agree that it is workable and it is the exchange for one Govt over another. Yes, I have read and understood the refutations to this objection and frankly the refutations fail.

First, remember that you're a statist. ok?
Next, they are market solutions. Do you understand how markets work?
That the state co-opted market ideas by imposing costs is nothing new. It's not the costs that are the issue, but that the state imposes them based on political considerations, not market feedback that is the issue.
That is essentially Mises brilliant argument as to why Socialism cannot work. The lack of rational (market-derived) price feedback, which is crucial information for resource allocation, means that a Socialist economy cannot adjust, and if it adjusts, it must adjust irrationally (where it doesn't manage to get totally lucky).

No argument from me. I was just pointing it out because I found it funny. Just like how I remember when I was first introduced to the term Political Correctness" in the 1980's. I just find it funny to see how ideas are implemented.

Sounds like you didn't understand this at all. If you pollute my property, you're liable for the damage in a private property society. There may be an amount of pollution I will tolerate if you will compensate me with cleanup, or straight payoffs.
Again, free market solutions.
As far as a market in pollution rights, why not? By having a market for acceptable levels of pollution (and let's face it, all industrial production has by-products which are costly to dispose of) people who under-pollute would be able to trade the rights to people who have more production, and hence more pollution. Apparently you have not heard of Carbon Credits.
Again, free market stuff. Please learn what markets are, why they work, and why they are so badly needed.

You need to relax on your assumptions about peoples intelligence and understanding. I understand Carbon Credits and I think they are stupid. If you live within 100 miles of my factory, just know that my 10,000 acres of Ecuadorian forest that are a backdrop to my beach property are making you whole. This is in reference to the Carbon Credit models we see currently, not the AnCap application where I am assuming that what - The credits I buy will somehow make properties owners decreasingly whole as I move out from my property. Too bad for the guy Downwind, oh I am certain the credits will account for that too. Does anyone not see the ridiculous nature of this?

What about water rights?
What about competing claims on Ocean fishing? (as mentioned in an earlier post)
Air rights?
and on and on we go. This is not even a refutation from the nature of Man, but examples of failures of the AnCap model. I have read and watched a lot of the AnCap material presented here. Most of it is just the same ideas over and over again without a real solution.

You see - Ideas are great until you have to build a workable system for those ideas to function. That's when it all collapses. Just as with business. I know a lot of people with ideas, but when they come to me to build an operational system (part of my offline world) they are confronted with questions, expenses, and problems that must be resolved for that system to function.
AnCap's the same thing. They are always talking about private solutions that will work it out, but they fail to actually paper it. Talk is cheap. When you do a system or system concept "walkthrough" its a disaster.

But you're still raping your own assets. It's irrelevant. It's like arguing there is a meaningful distinction between keeping your wallet in your right pocket or your left pocket.
This has nothing to do with Ancapism. You have a very poor understanding of economics. Seriously, please read up on the subject, if you want a reading list, PM me.

I have been reading up. The comment was related to the video and because it likely is not fresh in your mind you may have jumped to argue outside of that relative reference point.

He was arguing the Environmentally Friendly nature of his ideas. From that perspective he does not, nor do many around here, in any way account for competing self interests. Yes, I am still raping my asset. But I have decided to destroy one asset in favor of another that is producing a much higher ROI. Now where does his assumption of environmentalism stand? The argument was too simple and would hardly sway anyone that already distrusts the market, yet that was his goal. Not to convince me, someone that believes in private efficiency etc - the problem was his argument and its ineffectiveness.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Ha, maybe you are talking about Hellb or Unarm G or someone, but if not, I more than once specifically referred to "Marx's communism."

Yeah he's referring to me where in this thread he called Marx and Stalin both "communists", even though their ideologies were almost diametrically opposed. Anybody that thinks Marx and Stalin were both communists, clearly doesn't understand the subject matter. But as we all know, trying to correct guerilla when he's wrong is an exercise in futility.

Carry on.

 

[Moxie]

I understand the tendency of the WF crowd to relate to SciFi type worldviews.

 

[guerilla]

1. Why a presumption of the lowest form? Because I said we cannot evolve? Are you assuming everyone is born at the same starting point?

You're the one making the argument that man can't evolve or learn, not me.

People do not evolve. The culture and norms around them change, people simply adapt and yet they will still exhibit inconsistent rational thoughts and behaviors as well as inconsistent application and adherence to any code to live by. It's our nature.

If that is true, why do things continue to change, socially, intellectually, morally, etc?

Do culture and norms change independent of human intervention? What changes them? God introduced rock'n roll music? Mother Nature invented reality TV?

The typical argument against this is that Man, in seeking self interest, will find it in his self interest to pursue a common good. This assumes a consistency that do not see in Man. Man is not consistently rational nor logical.

If you read Mises, you'd know that man is always rational. That point aside you've got the self-interest argument wrong. Apparently you haven't read Atlas Shrugged. The common good is in the self-interest of man. That is precisely why there is much more good in the world than evil. Evil is the abberation, our norm, our "nature" isn't to hurt one another.

The exceptions come, when humans are lied to, kept ignorant and cranked up to hate and fear (the absence of knowledge/enlightenment). Then, like Nazi soldiers, they are able to rationalize any atrocity as necessary and righteous. Nuke some japs, embargo 500,000 Iraqi kids to death, occupy and terrorize people in their own countries etc...

or Man to have evolved then you need to have examples on the personal level. I see these societies had crimes, laws, punishments, exploitation, money, greed, power seeking, and prostitutes.

Are slavery, women's rights, protection of children, care for animals/environment ancient norms?

Why do you appeal to man the individual, then refer to societies, which are abstractions of the individual? Changing the measuring stick mid-argument doesn't help make your point.

But do not mistake this with a change or evolution in their emotions, reason, or character. Nothing has changed, you still have the the violent, the irrational, and those willing to sacrifice the long term good for their short term pleasure.

Again with the argument that no one makes progress through life, or that progress passes through generations.

You're entitled to this view (of course with the errors pointed out above) but you're trying to argue you're a Philistine.

Believe me, I will be the first to dump my religion if I found it to be wrong.

You can't, you've already made the case that you can't evolve your activity, rationale, or emotions. How oh how can you then claim you're interested in seeking truth and shedding falsehood?

The ideas were fine if I were a teenager, but 45 minutes for such simple concepts?

Most people don't have any conception of property rights. Someone asked in thread about this very issue and the interview shows how unaware the interviewer was to this point of view, she having a more mainstream perspective.

You need to relax on your assumptions about peoples intelligence and understanding.

I don't have to assume. I reference your posts line by line.

I understand Carbon Credits and I think they are stupid. If you live within 100 miles of my factory, just know that my 10,000 acres of Ecuadorian forest that are a backdrop to my beach property are making you whole.

That has nothing to do with Carbon Credits. Apparently, you don't know what they are, but I don't doubt you've already judged them stupid.

not the AnCap application where I am assuming that what - The credits I buy will somehow make properties owners decreasingly whole as I move out from my property. Too bad for the guy Downwind, oh I am certain the credits will account for that too. Does anyone not see the ridiculous nature of this?

I see how ridiculous it is since it is wrong. Apparently you didn't watch the video you claim no one else should watch.

Full marks for finally being consistent about something!

What about water rights?
What about competing claims on Ocean fishing? (as mentioned in an earlier post)
Air rights?
and on and on we go.

This stuff has all been written about and researched. How much of the research have you checked out?

Just because you're ignorant about subject matter, doesn't mean that the subject matter is incorrect or doesn't exist. The burden on you is to do some research before making a judgment call. If you're interested in being intellectually honest.

This is not even a refutation from the nature of Man, but examples of failures of the AnCap model.

As many have explained, we don't have, and haven't had an Ancap model, so I am not sure how you will illustrate it's failure.

And actually, how would you solve air rights? How would you solve water rights? What is your solution? I hope you can speak somewhat intelligently about your own opinions.

I have read and watched a lot of the AnCap material presented here. Most of it is just the same ideas over and over again without a real solution.

Ancap isn't a solution. It's an ethical system which leads to positive outcomes for certain values. No one claims Ancap solves any or all problems. It's simply a better way (presuming you value justice and prosperity) to do things than how we do them now.

You see - Ideas are great until you have to build a workable system for those ideas to function. That's when it all collapses. Just as with business. I know a lot of people with ideas, but when they come to me to build an operational system (part of my offline world) they are confronted with questions, expenses, and problems that must be resolved for that system to function.
AnCap's the same thing. They are always talking about private solutions that will work it out, but they fail to actually paper it. Talk is cheap. When you do a system or system concept "walkthrough" its a disaster.

Can you provide even one example of this "disaster" which Ancap has caused?

He was arguing the Environmentally Friendly nature of his ideas. From that perspective he does not, nor do many around here, in any way account for competing self interests. Yes, I am still raping my asset. But I have decided to destroy one asset in favor of another that is producing a much higher ROI. Now where does his assumption of environmentalism stand?

I don't know how to reply to this. Do I address that you don't understand what he was saying? Do I point out that you don't understand econ 101 concepts like opportunity costs? Or that you don't understand environmentalism?

Honestly dude, I would be ashamed if I posted this sort of stuff on a topic like PPV, or NFL football, or astrophysics, all fields I am ignorant of.

The argument was too simple and would hardly sway anyone that already distrusts the market, yet that was his goal.

How do you know who has or has not been swayed by his lectures, interviews, debates and books? How much did you know about Walter Block before you watched that interview?

You've got to break this terrible habit of forming opinions from a position of ignorance.

Not to convince me, someone that believes in private efficiency etc - the problem was his argument and its ineffectiveness.

You don't believe in private efficiency. You support the state.. Your solution to everything is to apply violence.

If your approach was consensual and private voluntary interactions then you need to adjust a lot of your views to be consistent with that value.

 

[Moxie]

God introduced rock'n roll music?

duh

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQRYVsqVT3M]Kiss - God Gave Rock And Roll To You II - HQ Music Video 1991 ... - YouTube[/ame]

 

[REIMktg]

It does not seem there is any point to this back and forth. We simply disagree. There is nothing new in the last post from Guerilla and I am certain he sees nothing new in mine.

https://itunesu.mises.org/journals/jls/21_1/21_1_3.pdf

rebuttal by Block

http://mises.org/journals/jls/19_3/19_3_4.pdf

Both of the above articles are good and highlight much of what we are discussing. They may also lead people to explore the rebuttals to anarchism that I find obvious.

The discussion is not if it is an ideal that we should want to achieve, but if the system itself would work given our opposite views of the nature and progress of Man.

One thing that fascinates me about the WF community is that there are many, G not being one as far as I know, that believe in full fledge secret societies, worldwide manipulation, and conspiracies and at the same time do not see how these could be present within an AnCap society. They might say these people would have less power without having the reigns of Govt, but if they control the private arbitration, defense, press, and other agencies how would it be any different?

 

[lukep]

One thing that fascinates me about the WF community is that there are many, G not being one as far as I know, that believe in full fledge secret societies, worldwide manipulation, and conspiracies and at the same time do not see how these could be present within an AnCap society. They might say these people would have less power without having the reigns of Govt, but if they control the private arbitration, defense, press, and other agencies how would it be any different?

1. The word conspiracy is something we all believe in, because it only means two or more people working together without telling others their intentions.

2. I'm guessing you meant people including myself when you poo-poohed belief in worldwide manipulation and secret societies. (Both almost as common as conspiracies, lest you are able to disbelieve that the Fed & the Bilderberg group exist and may hold some power.)

So I'll take a stab at explaining this simple issue about them existing in an ancap society... At least that's back on the thread's topic.

You must understand that above all else, The State is the biggest war party you could ever imagine. There is no larger gang, army, mob, militia, or gun than the one used for "official state business." If you're having trouble with this concept, please go to the front page of this thread and watch the cute little cartoon called "Pirates and Emperors."

The State enables both secret societies and worldwide manipulations on a scale far larger than anything a large business would be able to achieve, even if they had the monopoly over their entire industry at the time.

So your fear of secret societies and worldwide manipulations at the hands of say, AT&T is downright silly in comparrison to the secret societies and worldwide manipulations by the hands of the feds and congressmen... Who control the freaking US Military, the largest army in mankinds' history.

Further, the state legitimizes corporations in our world by granting them corporatehood. In an AnCap society, corporations could not exist in the first place! So clearly the large business that holds a monopoly over its' industry under an ancap system would have even less power due to the lack of state protection than AT&T has today.

Your fear is totally backwards on this point. It's actually kinda funny because of the extreme irony... But such is dealing with statists... You're like steak-bound cattle arguing that the farmer is your protector against the wolves.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

I didn't really want to post this in here, because this thread is supposed to be a repository for Anarchist info which should be respected. But it looks like it's turned into yet another back-and-forth about the merits of Anarchy.

Let me start by saying that the anarchists on this board are understandably irritated at the constant refrain about Anarchy not being plausible, and I think they deserve a better response than "it hasn't worked before, so it's silly to think it will work now or in the future". I've been guilty of giving some variant of this response because I didn't think it warranted much more explanation than that. But there are some very smart people that spend a lot of time writing articles and doing videos, giving speeches etc about the evils of the State and the rationality of Anarchy, so I think it deserves a better explanation of why Anarchy is probably unachievable.

The overwhelming majority of people are sheep. They want to be led, and many of them actually need to be led. All they want in life is to be shown/told what to do. Based on my experience as a marketer (and life in general), I'd say almost all women and children are sheep, and probably 3/4 of men are sheep, so I'd put the the overall number at about 90%. It's probably a little higher, but the point remains.

Political Freethinkers (which includes Anarchists and other "non-traditional" thinkers) are not sheep, they do not think with the herd and they have trouble understanding the behavior of the sheep. They have no desire to manipulate their fellow man, they just seek understanding and the betterment of themselves and society. This is a small percentage of people, maybe 3% of the population. I just pulled that number out of my ass, but whatever the percentage is, it's very small.

Then there are the shepherds. They understand the need for the sheep to be led and they use it to their advantage for their own gain. This includes almost all politicians, most marketers, and plenty of other people as well. This is also a small percentage, but probably larger than the freethinkers because the shepherds seek to capitalize off the sheep, rather than change the thinking of the sheep.

So, I think the reason that we understand that Anarchy will not work, is because it exists between the sheep and the shepherds. You can't change the sheep - they need to be led, and the shepherds are there to lead them. The only way to change the direction of the sheep, is to become the shepherd - but at that point you would cease to be anarchists.

tl;dr - The sheep will always be there looking to be led, and the shepherds will always be there to fleece the herd. Government is the shepherds staff - it's not going anywhere.

 

[guerilla]

It does not seem there is any point to this back and forth. We simply disagree.

The difference is, I have put forth an idea, and you have not made any substantive criticism of it, nor have you put forth your own idea for critique.

It's not a discussion that can go anywhere, I am just using your posts to illustrate sloppy thinking in general, regardless of anyone's political ideology.

The discussion is not if it is an ideal that we should want to achieve, but if the system itself would work given our opposite views of the nature and progress of Man.

See, you appeal to these supposed objective facts of man's nature, without proving they exist. In debate, that's a huge no-no. In a more formal setting, you'd be asked not to do it again or outright rejected.

Asserting a fact is not the same as proving a fact. Only proven facts count. Any asshole can assert anything, at any time, and as we've seen, many frequently do.

One thing that fascinates me about the WF community is that there are many, G not being one as far as I know, that believe in full fledge secret societies, worldwide manipulation, and conspiracies and at the same time do not see how these could be present within an AnCap society.

No. I don't think you understand what Ancap is, and so you say things like this. Despite my laying out an explanation of what Ancap includes, and you have not offered a different definition, you continue to persist in talking about an "Ancap society" as though it would be any less pluralistic than the one we have globally today.

Are values and cultural norms the same everywhere on earth? Why do you think they would be less so in the absence of nationalism, and statism?

Also, I don't care about conspiracies. They definitely exist, but I think the bigger conspiracy is the inability of so many people to critically think and argue from first principles. You see, guys like you think Obama is the problem. Obama ain't the problem. YOU'RE the problem because you endorse a system that creates Obamas. See Rome amigo.

They might say these people would have less power without having the reigns of Govt, but if they control the private arbitration, defense, press, and other agencies how would it be any different?

Again, failure to understand market economics. ^^^ At this point it's beyond funny. It's become very sad.

If you're going to reply further, and you are sincere, and I hope a decent person, give us your definition of what Anarcho-capitalism is. It would be helpful if you included sources.

 

[kingofsp]

The overwhelming majority of people are sheep. They want to be led, and many of them actually need to be led. All they want in life is to be shown/told what to do.

I agree with this. I think the anarchist response would be something along the lines of this sheep mentality being a product of the state, which you may or may not agree with. But even if that's not the case, and without state education/mass indoctrination the people still feel the need to be told what to do, why does it have to be under the threat of violence?

For instance, I used to volunteer at a summer camp every now and then. There are campers, counselors in training (15-17 year olds I think), then counselors and then directors. That's the hierarchy. As a volunteer counselor, I would oversee the campers and counselors in training. The directors would oversee me and the other adult volunteers. I didn't really care for it, since I don't like anyone telling me what to do, in any capacity. Of course, I was free to leave or not participate, which eventually is what I chose to do.

But some counselors very much enjoy the dynamic of participating while looking to the directors for instruction/guidance. I don't see why in a free society people who are less inclined to be the decision makers can't voluntarily participate in society under someone else's direction.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't think the fear of punishment has anything to do with the tendency of some people to look to others for guidance. They are just people who are not comfortable in leadership positions. Or in the summer camp scenario, people that are comfortable with some degree of leadership but still would rather look to someone else to make the critical decisions.

 

[REIMktg]

If you're going to reply further, and you are sincere, and I hope a decent person, give us your definition of what Anarcho-capitalism is. It would be helpful if you included sources.

It seems disingenuous to cite sources if you are asking me my personal definition of AnCap. From this you can determine where my definition is wrong. Any monkey can research sources and extrapolate a definition.

Let's start with my understanding so I can see where I am wrong.

AnCap – Without any superseding Public Authority/Govt/Rulers and with absolute private property rights and absolute rights over ones Self (inclusively “Rights”). With the added stipulation that those Rights cannot infringe upon or in any way impose upon another's Rights. Rights do not supersede association/agreement/contracts (“Associations”) that each Self enters/agrees to voluntarily.

 

[lukep]

Unarmed Gunman's post above was, in my admittedly short but frenzied time as an anarchist, the very best argument "against" anarchism that I've ever heard. Of course I still find it flawed, but every other argument presented by statists here isn't in the same ballpark with the reality of anarchism, and you're only as far away as 2nd base. Congratulations. Now we can begin a worthy discussion instead of more of the typical babyshit we hear so often.

The overwhelming majority of people are sheep. They want to be led, and many of them actually need to be led. All they want in life is to be shown/told what to do. Based on my experience as a marketer (and life in general), I'd say almost all women and children are sheep, and probably 3/4 of men are sheep, so I'd put the the overall number at about 90%. It's probably a little higher, but the point remains.

I'll give you that. Clearly anarchists have a long road in front of us.

Then there are the shepherds. They understand the need for the sheep to be led and they use it to their advantage for their own gain. This includes almost all politicians, most marketers, and plenty of other people as well. This is also a small percentage, but probably larger than the freethinkers because the shepherds seek to capitalize off the sheep, rather than change the thinking of the sheep.

Yes, this describes EVIL people pretty well in today's society. No matter if they are serial killers or presidents, they see the bulk of humanity as their resource to enslave, squander, and do with what they want.

My parents tried to push me into the life of a politician. At the time I was a member of the young republicunts and I could quote 90% of Rush Limbaugh's talking points to you. I would look dissaprovingly at democrats like they had an infectious disease. I was a brainwashed statist moron, but EVEN THEN I realized I didn't want to be a politicians because it felt evil.

Humans know the difference between good and evil, and the evil ones choose to embrace it, which is what I would argue makes them evil in the first place.

The mass of sheeple out there aren't evil. Perhaps they haven't had the opportunity to be so yet, but I see them as salvageable, potential good people if they just got free of the statist propoganda that is everywhere in the world today.

You can't change the sheep - they need to be led, and the shepherds are there to lead them.

This is the point we disagree on. I have seen sheep wake up. A few years ago I was one myself. Really all it took for me is to be shown how the state cannot exist in any state other than evil, which is an absolutely proven fact.

The mass onslaught of statist propaganda is what keeps the world in the shape it is now. If that could be stopped, and you gotta admit the Internet has given us a formidable weapon to do so, then vast amounts of sheeple, perhaps the majority, will see the state for what it is and investigate Voluntaryism/anarchy too.

The only way to change the direction of the sheep, is to become the shepherd - but at that point you would cease to be anarchists.

Enter Ron Paul. As we found out the hard way, even with the sheeple waking up in record numbers like never before and the delegates finally obtaining real majority numbers in most states, such a person simply can't even get on the stage to be elected. The evil is too strong, the system too rigged.

Barry Goldwater and to a lesser extent JFK tried this too. Clearly the system was a bit rigged back then too.

If the founding fathers' vision had been defended over the last 100 or so years then perhaps I'd agree with you. But it was not and we don't have the country we'd need to even allow for this option.

Which is why I'm still for Seasteading. Good people can escape evil people and live in peace for the first time in recorded history on a seastead... But it will take careful screening and lots of money. Some pretty big guns too, I'd think.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

I agree with this. I think the anarchist response would be something along the lines of this sheep mentality being a product of the state, which you may or may not agree with. But even if that's not the case, and without state education/mass indoctrination the people still feel the need to be told what to do, why does it have to be under the threat of violence?

People have been sheep long before the rise of the State (see religion). To your point about the threat of violence though, remember that the sheep are going to follow the shepherds. Anarchists (and other freethinkers) have no desire to lead and manipulate their fellow man, so they can never fill the role of the shepherd. Therefore, the shepherd with the staff will always have the attention of the sheep. It doesn't have to be with the threat of violence, but they will be led. Who else are the going to follow?

This is the point we disagree on. I have seen sheep wake up. A few years ago I was one myself. Really all it took for me is to be shown how the state cannot exist in any state other than evil, which is an absolutely proven fact.

That's true to an extent, I should have made myself clearer. I don't mean that none of the sheep can wake up - most of us at some point in our lives didn't realize what was really going on and could have been considered a sheep to some extent. What I mean is the percentage of the population that happily go through life as a sheep (90%+) probably can not be changed much. For every person that wakes up, there is another sheep to take your place.

And, you're never going to be able to get rid of the shepherds because it is human nature for some to become leaders and fleece the herd, to take advantage of their fellow man - sometimes with the threat of violence, sometimes with graft, sometimes with superior intellect. It's been that way since the beginning of time, which makes it part of the human condition. Therefore, achieving a "voluntaryist society" is probably unachievable.

 

[guerilla]

It seems disingenuous to cite sources if you are asking me my personal definition of AnCap. From this you can determine where my definition is wrong. Any monkey can research sources and extrapolate a definition.

I just wanted to put a limitation on you because there is a tendency around here to bullshit what people don't know, and by asking you to refer to sources (Ancap is a relatively well know idea/concept) it keeps you from wandering off the reservation and opining about something completely wonko, which I am sure you will agree, is a big waste of both of our time.

AnCap – Without any superseding Public Authority/Govt/Rulers and with absolute private property rights and absolute rights over ones Self (inclusively “Rights”). With the added stipulation that those Rights cannot infringe upon or in any way impose upon another's Rights. Rights do not supersede association/agreement/contracts (“Associations”) that each Self enters/agrees to voluntarily.

Rights have nothing to do with Ancap. Rights are arbitrary ideas cooked up by men.

From the Mises Wiki

Anarcho-capitalism is a libertarian and individualist anarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market.

From Wikipedia

Anarcho-capitalism is a right-libertarian political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market.

No exceptions or stipulations. It's not conditional on anything.

If you believe individuals should be sovereign, and you understand free markets, there is absolutely no reason not to be an anarcho-capitalist. In that situation, you would be aligning your beliefs and understanding with your ethics and your actions.