OverclockedJesus Posted:

I’m an anarchocapitalist, so my answer isn’t going to be what you might expect. My answer is that 1. Just because rights can be violated doesn’t mean they don’t exist qua concepts and 2. We shouldn’t have a government to be doing such in the first place.

Hilariously enough, while I agree with you that anarchy is the preferred methodology, now I get to use the argument I keep hearing for Capitalism/against Communism. “That’s all fine and dandy in theory, but having a government is so far the best thing we’ve come up with as far as having a workable society.”

With the type of human nature and motivations required for a Capitalist economy to work, I would never trust there to be no government, even if I have little faith in the system itself, I have less faith in Capitalism.

Edit: Tee hee, I like for totes had an alt fail Log in to see images! xXx_Lushious_Lower_Lips_xXx edited this message on 11/22/2009 11:22PM

CrinkzPipe Posted:

Just hoppin’ in to lol at people who think their version of “Ideal society” is the same as every one else’s.

OverclockedJesus Posted:

If you don’t trust capitalism without a government, how can you trust a government? Governments are coercive expropriating territorial monopolies. How can that be anything but bad?

How can that be any worse than coercive financial monopolies? At very least with a government there they can be slowed down in their bid to screw over the populace for their own gain. The industrial revolution was the closest we’ve ever really gotten to pure laissez faire capitalism, and the lower clbum were slaves. Nowadays if you look at rebels in 3rd world countries who gain enough power to control and fight over diamond mines they are anarchocapitalists if anything.

The governments are in such turmoil that they can do nothing about these self contained military groups which finance themselves through such fun things as blood diamonds. They don’t seek territory beyond resources, they don’t tax, they don’t work on social aspects within a region. They are businessmen. They live without law to simply make money. I’ve gotta say I’ll take health care and emergency services provided by an inefficient government that screws us out of a chunk of our earnings above being forced to work myself to death in a diamond mine for a cartel.

Dunatis Posted:

How can that be any worse than coercive financial monopolies?

Because it’s impossible to have a coercive monopoly without government fiat behind it.

Dunatis Posted:

At very least with a government there they can be slowed down in their bid to screw over the populace for their own gain.

How’s that working out so far?

Dunatis Posted:

The industrial revolution was the closest we’ve ever really gotten to pure laissez faire capitalism, and the lower clbum were slaves.

No, they weren’t. male reproductive organens is fiction for a reason.

Dunatis Posted:

Nowadays if you look at rebels in 3rd world countries who gain enough power to control and fight over diamond mines they are anarchocapitalists if anything.

No, they aren’t. They’re tribal socialists.

Dunatis Posted:

The governments are in such turmoil that they can do nothing about these self contained military groups which finance themselves through such fun things as blood diamonds.

Were it not for the government-backed DeBeers cartel, I think we’d see the end of such things.

I’ll take liberty over slavery any day.

I have faith in nothing.

Dunatis Posted:

And how pray tell would all of this work out in your mind? If profit hungry diamond cartels are socialist rather than capitalist, it would appear to me that you would connect any sort of power structure to a form of oppressive government yet capitalism would create a power structure

An economic one, perhaps. But the difference between economic power and political power is the difference between trade and a gun. And those with more ambition and less morals are the ones we normally find in government (this is actually Hoppe’s Law).

As for an organizational structure: we don’t need a government to distribute our food, do we? No. We seem to get fed quite well without a government doling out food to everyone. Consider that.

Dunatis Posted:

It would seem to me that as these financial powers battled amongst themselves in this power vacuum (since we have no government in this supposition to say “Hey Wal-mart, don’t send a tank to destroy the neighboring Superstore in order to steal their customers”Log in to see images!Only if you can’t think past the Hollywood nonsense. Once you do, you realize that wars are expensive and trade works better.

Dunatis Posted:

Admittedly slavery is not the right word to use for the lower clbum in the industrial revolution as they were not owned and treated as property (unless they were a minority). Instead they were treated as a commodity, a tool to be used while it worked then thrown out and replaced when it broke.

No, not unless that was enforced by a government. And unions had almost nothing to do with better working conditions. The myth of unions as the savior of the worker is straight out of fiction.

But people can unionize if they want; it’s not a socialist idea.

Dunatis Posted:

You say you will take liberty over slavery any day yet I live in Canada and am perfectly free to do as I choose.

O RLY? You can spew whatever hate speech you want and the PC police won’t charge you? Oh wait—they will! You can pay for a private doctor to perform a procedure covered by your government health insurance and it’s fine? Oh wait—it’s illegal! Your rights are infringed, just as mine are.

Dunatis Posted:

You’re quick to call me wrong and while I admit right here and now that I am not infallible, I have yet to hear any real alternative beyond “government no, capitalism yes”.

Letting people make their own choices. If you’re looking for specifics, you need to tell me precisely what you will have for breakfast on May 10, 2014. Once you realize that you don’t know because future conditions based on free will and desires are like that, you’ll understand that I can’t give you specifics. Further, specifics would show that we can plan such things—and we can’t.

I also suggest that you look into DeBeers (THE diamond cartel) or OPEC (the C should stand for Cartel). Want to have a diamond mine in certain places? You have to be registered with DeBeers and get a license from the government. That’s just a fact. And it’s corporatist, which is a peculiar form of socialism.

Dunatis Posted:

And here is a question then for you. Is it a Right to be able to walk down the streets with your children secure in the knowledge that people dressed up in pretty white robes won’t shout at you about how you should go back to your country before throwing stones at you and trying to get others to join in?

Only the not having stones thrown at you bit. The rest—-there is no such thing as the right to not be offended or have people make fun of you or call you names, etc. Once the stones fly, though, that is initiating force on the part of the stone-throwers and, as such, violates the rights of the first party.

Dunatis Posted:

A better example would probably the the Right to own property which is a rather fundamental part of Capitalism. But one which can limit where I am able to be.

Yes.

Dunatis Posted:

I’m not at all allowed to walk into my neighbor’s house, make a sandwich and sit down to watch some television. My liberties are being taken away!!!

No, you never had that liberty in the first place. You had the freedom, but not liberty. Liberty is free actions wrt rights.

Dunatis Posted:

At which point who is deciding these liberties in the first place?

There is no who. Liberty are actions you can rightfully take, and rights stem from self-ownership, which is basically a grundnorm justified by the fact that in discussion or even with acts of initiatory force, people are trying to convince the other or making implicit claims about what one does. If an action’s logical implications cannot be universalized (such as having a master/slave clbum), we must remove it from consideration, as there’s no reason other than might makes right behind it—and that’s no reason at all, just a bash to the skull. Anything which involves non-universalibility or performative contradictions necessarily can’t work. The short of it is that we are left with self-ownership as the remaining option.

Dunatis Posted:

And how would they be defended?

Either personally or by an agency with whom you contract, in much the same was as you would hire a carpet cleaner or pest control. This of course puts to lie the Hollywood notion of “private police as mercenaries”, since clearly a pest control company isn’t a mercenary outfit.

And without a government, you can’t get coercive monopolies.

thats all libertarians are gay people who call themselves anarcho anything arent real anarchists ur

ps you cant ban me for any of that because real talk that took more in depth thought than any of the gay free market fabulous personz’ john galt speech wannabee walls of text