Ideal Ancap > Ideal State
Unideal Ancap > Unideal State
.
Fair enough, I knew I was in trouble when I wrote that one.
Child labor is not a bad thing. Corporations are not forcing children to work under Ancap or even Capitalism. If children are working it is because their parents view this as better than them not working. Do you want to tell other parents how they should raise their children? What makes the state the expert on what parents should do with their children? Why not have the state raise children and make every decision for children?
Do you really believe this? You understand the implications and the historical issue? If so, this is another issue many will always have with AnCap. When one AnCap group see human rights violations, even if voluntary as above, they may reach a level of moral outrage that NAP or not they take action. This is inevitable. Then you have one group imposing their ideal on another - sound familiar? I mean I can say, hey these girls here, my prostitutes that serve the community, they all want to be here. Sure they are constantly strung out and no, you cannot come in and verify it, but honest man, they are here by their own free will. But you AnCap's keep telling me that we do not need a little statism.
Slavery was already on its way out without the aid of the state.
You have to be honest here. Agricultural slavery was on its way out. There are many types of slaves. Every year or so we here of a few escaping in SoCal. Right in the good 'ol Islamic Republic of Irvine.
Outside of America, which typically and idiotically fought a civil war which lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths, the rest of the world ended slavery peacefully for the most part.
Was that what that war was about? Were armies mobilized over slavery or succession? you sure there were not other grievances too?
And the attempts to end slavery didn't start with the government, legal protection of slavery is what kept it going so long.
So you are saying that Men can change the system, even when the system is broken?
Those attempts to end slavery started in the private economy, between people with attitudes similar to the anarchists in this thread.
Man was fed up, hit a level of moral outrage and then took action. Seems like it can work.
Mises demonstrated as one of his key ideas, that socialism is irrational (means and ends are not and cannot be congruent). No wonder he has not won a Nobel, the world wants so desperately to believe Socialism is right, it's heresy for someone to point out that it will never work.
While you are probably correct about the Nobel committee the fact remains that maybe he is wrong? It does not take too long to find economists that disagree with this idol. It is also interesting that so many around have seemingly formed their entire world view over one discipline - economics. Historians, economists, sociologists, anthropologists, and others seem to disagree a lot. Especially when they bring in the proofs from each of their disciplines. When did the Economists get to the top of the heap?
You can't have slavery in a free market. They simply aren't compatible.
You can't have extortion, or aggression, or theft in a free market either.
Now do you see why we want to work towards free markets?
Then maybe the issue at hand is - Can Mankind and the free market - coexist? Because all of the above are inevitable with any involvement of Man.
What is the opposite of a free market? An unfree market. Someone else tells you what you can and cannot do.
Fine. I am a Statist for an unfree market. I wish it were not so, but Man's nature forces my hand. I think you are used to people being afraid to admit these this things - you lay it out like a line that people do not want to pass.
Many of the statists here will argue this is just and right. For example, Reimktg thinks that people elected Obama, therefore it is Good. And he knows that if the people re-elect Obama, that is also a good thing for him, because he believes in the collective wisdom of all of the voters.
You are using the term "good" because you think it will confuse people. There are plenty of smart WF'rs that understand this trick - you are simply not attributing "good" to the specific "good" you are referring to - you are better than this.
Anyone notice how ironic it is that voters pick the people who will tell them what to do? We're not smart enough to run our own lives, but we're somehow qualified enough to pick the people who should run our lives for us.
People oftentimes vote simply to get the lessor of two evils. There is no shame in that. Non-participation does not send a signal to anyone and it allows the larger of two evils to come to power. It's just stupid not to vote because in the end, their is a difference between candidates. You are also forgetting that in voting also includes direct input on new laws. For example the propositions in CA - the voters can enact laws directly. I would love for AnCap people to put their money where there mouth is and write some Propositions in CA. In this state at least you can submit votes direct to the voters for approval. Even laws that remove other laws.
Therefore it seems that if in CA at least, since we can remove laws by putting it up for popular vote, it is intellectually dishonest to not take citizen action. But few do. Why?
Why not put a proposition on the CA ballot to chip away at the status quo?
Why aren't the AnCap folks trying to make change? Because they disagree with the system? Why not change it? The process is simple and straightforward. Anyone can do it. Any person can start a movement to change the laws. Anyone willing to step up? How about a law that removes a thousand regulations in one vote? How about removing ten thousand regulations each election? It could be done. But no one tries.
I could even put into law that establishes the teaching of Mises in school. We could put into law that a student is taught that they are a system that is under-girded with violence. Anyone can do it. Why don't they?
There are so many things that could be done. Within the system even if that action seeks to destroy that very system. Force the teaching of AnCap, and write the curriculum into law, even include a test that no student can get out of high school without passing and have that test be graded by the Mises Institute. Now your ideas will be spread much faster than you could ever do person by person. You could even force force teachers to teach it and at the same time teach the irony of them being forced to teach it. What fun you could have.
Anyone?
