US Govt. Shutdown. Does anyone care?

charlesmartel said:
Under anarcho-capitalism, you'd still have courts and police. They would be cheaper and more effective and if they weren't you could chose a competing provider. You can't do that today.
Click to expand...

I guess which mafia you'd "choose" would depend on which one was pointing a gun at your head at a given point.

Having courts and police means having government!!! As soon as you have a court and enforcement system, you've effectively decided to have a government.

It's true that mafias and militias also enforce their own courts within their "territories" - but these tend to be more expensive than normal government.

And only the lowest IQ person would think they'd have a "choice" about which mafia's rules they would follow in the absence of a govt. You don't believe all that hippy dippy stuff about rival militias not trying to enforce their will over you because they believe in peace and love and doves and stuff, do you?
 


kingofsp said:
Governments around the world in the 20th century killed about a quarter of a billion of their own citizens. This is not counting war.
Click to expand...

Yup - and it would be worse if there was no govt. About 500,000 died in Somalia when their govt collapsed, from famine caused by the economy collapsing. No govt = no contracts enforced = no economy. Another 1 million ran away and became refugees.

Now imagine every single country followed that example of no govt. Humans would be facing extinction.
 
teatree said:
I guess which mafia you'd "choose" would depend on which one was pointing a gun at your head at a given point.

Having courts and police means having government!!! As soon as you have a court and enforcement system, you've effectively decided to have a government.

It's true that mafias and militias also enforce their own courts within their "territories" - but these tend to be more expensive than normal government.

And only the lowest IQ person would think they'd have a "choice" about which mafia's rules they would follow in the absence of a govt. You don't believe all that hippy dippy stuff about rival militias not trying to enforce their will over you because they believe in peace and love and doves and stuff, do you?
Click to expand...

You seem to be under the impression that anarcho-capitalists believe that positive thinking and good will towards men will somehow make everyone fall in line in the absence of government. This is not the case. If you really believe that then it would appear to me that you have more learning to do about the anarcho-capitalist position, as well as economics in general.

This video might shed some light on how a society without government could resolve conflicts:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khRkBEdSDDo]Law without Government: Principles - YouTube[/ame]

It is the first of a series, if you want to investigate any further.
 
teatree said:
Yup - and it would be worse if there was no govt. About 500,000 died in Somalia when their govt collapsed, from famine caused by the economy collapsing. No govt = no contracts enforced = no economy. Another 1 million ran away and became refugees.

Now imagine every single country followed that example of no govt. Humans would be facing extinction.
Click to expand...

But it was the people in government that destroyed the economy and pillaged that particular geographic area of what little resources (including human resources) it had in the first place.
 
kingofsp said:
You seem to be under the impression that anarcho-capitalists believe that positive thinking and good will towards men will somehow make everyone fall in line in the absence of government. This is not the case. If you really believe that then it would appear to me that you have more learning to do about the anarcho-capitalist position, as well as economics in general.

This video might shed some light on how a society without government could resolve conflicts:

Law without Government: Principles - YouTube

It is the first of a series, if you want to investigate any further.
Click to expand...

Anarchy means "lack of government and lawlessness".

There are only two ways to resolve conflicts - the majority get together and set up laws, courts and enforcement, which includes threat of loss of liberty enforced with violence if laws are broken (i.e. a government) - or competing militias and mafias "resolve conflict" by blowing each others brains out and terrorising people in their territory into paying them protection money. If there isn't a single entity controlling things, competing entities fight battles, in order to impose their particular version of control. There is no middle kumbaya way where everyone is "reasonable".

The idea that you can "resolve conflicts" without a govt and without violence is naive beyond belief.
 
So the majority can peacefully get together to set up government but they can't peacefully get together to set up a system of private courts and police? Sounds completely logical to me!
 
kingofsp said:
But it was the people in government that destroyed the economy and pillaged that particular geographic area of what little resources (including human resources) it had in the first place.
Click to expand...

Actually no. Their famine happened after the govt fell - there was no one to enforce contracts for selling food etc, you ended up with thefts, shortages, and the dawning realisation that it just wasn't worth breaking your back to farm anything because absence of govt meant everything got stolen by a few bad actors.

Capitalism depends on govt existing because it depends on contracts being enforced (and only govts can do it).

Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms. Anarchy = no law = no contract law = no commerce.
 
charlesmartel said:
So the majority can peacefully get together to set up government but they can't peacefully get together to set up a system of private courts and police? Sounds completely logical to me!
Click to expand...

Government depends on the majority enforcing law with violence - see my previous posts.

Your choice is either violence controlled by the govt within carefully prescribed laws - or having no laws and no rules and violence between competing militias trying to seize and impose their own rules in territories they win, in a pure all-out Darwinistic struggle.

Like I said before - there is no hippy dippy kumbaya way with no violence. Choose your form - a govt controlled by majority and enforced with controlled violence - or all-out civil war with competing violence between competing mafias.
 
The shutdown is not so scary, the debt ceiling being hit in 2 weeks carries a lot of uncertainty and is much scarier.
 
teatree said:
Government depends on the majority enforcing law with violence - see my previous posts.

Your choice is either violence controlled by the govt within carefully prescribed laws - or having no laws and no rules and violence between competing militias trying to seize and impose their own rules in territories they win, in a pure all-out Darwinistic struggle.

Like I said before - there is no hippy dippy kumbaya way with no violence. Choose your form - a govt controlled by majority and enforced with controlled violence - or all-out civil war with competing violence between competing mafias.
Click to expand...

Why don't you watch that Hoppe video above? There are too many errors in your argument for me to correct.
 
Government is officially closed for biz. The FTC can't stop your campaigns. Start running Acai again while you can.
 
charlesmartel said:
Why don't you watch that Hoppe video above? There are too many errors in your argument for me to correct.
Click to expand...

But what happens when Ben doesn't agree to 3rd party arbitration, and instead puts a bullet in the arbitrator's head, calls over 50 friends, and tells Adam if he values his life any things are going to begin running a certain way?
 
charlesmartel said:
I believe anything below 70 is considered mental retardation.
Click to expand...

They don't usually apply this label based just on an IQ score anymore, because in part it would mean that they would constantly be having to redefine large numbers of past test takers as retarded. IQ scores have consistently gone up, but they always readjust the scoring system to keep the average at 100.

A person who scored 100 in 1932 was the equivalent of an 80 in 1997.

Nearly 25% of 1932 Americans would score below 70 if graded by 1997 standards.

People weren't necessarily anymore "mentally retarded" then versus now, but it was more common to leave school after 8th grade to go work on the farm or whatever.


Rising Scores on Intelligence Tests » American Scientist

Intellectual disability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flynn effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
teatree said:
Anarchy means "lack of government and lawlessness".
Click to expand...

teatree said:
The idea that you can "resolve conflicts" without a govt and without violence is naive beyond belief.
Click to expand...

teatree said:
Capitalism depends on govt existing because it depends on contracts being enforced (and only govts can do it).
Click to expand...

teatree said:
Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms. Anarchy = no law = no contract law = no commerce.
Click to expand...

teatree said:
Your choice is either violence controlled by the govt within carefully prescribed laws - [LOL WUT?!]
Click to expand...

teatree said:
Choose your form - a govt controlled by majority and enforced with controlled violence - or all-out civil war with competing violence between competing mafias.
Click to expand...

teatree said:
I guess which mafia you'd "choose" would depend on which one was pointing a gun at your head at a given point.

Having courts and police means having government!!! As soon as you have a court and enforcement system, you've effectively decided to have a government.
Click to expand...

wXZXiFn.gif


63CtFFk.gif


nbQlXy0.gif


nqtL5EB.gif
 
I haven't noticed a post from the guerilla man recently. Maybe this is teatree's attempt to make him appear. :1orglaugh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom