nvm

[Gustave5436]

Letting my neighbor steal my cow isn't freedom. At least not the kind i want.

That's not anarchy either.

And we give up freedom everyday, force is hardly needed. Just propaganda and logic (sometimes, giving up freedom is a good thing)

Ah, but then we do not live in a free society, and therefore are not a free people. One cannot discount class consciousness simply on the grounds that it does not currently exist.

When is giving up freedom a good thing?

 

[Cutlass]

The word you are looking for is "regress." For a free society to transform into an unfree form would be a "regression," not a "progression," assuming one values freedom.

Of course, such a regression would not be a "collapse," but a "destruction," as a free people will not simply discard their own freedom; it must be taken from them by external forces.

Or they can be defrauded out of their freedom by people who claim that something like Anarcho-capitalism offers more freedom.

 

[Gustave5436]

Or they can be defrauded out of their freedom by people who claim that something like Anarcho-capitalism offers more freedom.

Anarchist revolution is revolution from below, not above. When freedom is attained in anarchist revolution, it is not won by some elitist "professional revolutionaries," but by the people as a whole. A people which has just fought a revolution to break free of wage-slavery will not be particularly inclined to return to it.

 

[Cutlass]

Anarchist revolution is revolution from below, not above. When freedom is attained in anarchist revolution, it is not won by some elitist "professional revolutionaries," but by the people as a whole. A people which has just fought a revolution to break free of wage-slavery will not be particularly inclined to return to it.

You can't possibly believe that!

Anarcho-capitalism is the same fraud as libertarianism or "small government" fiscal/social conservatism. It's all about conning the little guy into doing the work of the elite for them.

 

[Berzerker]

No it doesn't distribute resources most effectively. It's a market form that actually collapses over time, like most anarcho-constructs, due to internal pressures.

Next.

What system is more effective? Almost by definition the market is the most effective because it relies on the relationships between consumers and producers. Placing that kind of feedback loop in the hands of a few central planners does not enhance efficiency. This "market collapse" was instigated by the govt policy of getting people to buy houses thereby creating a bubble that has burst. Liberals blame the market, I blame the govt. But liberals quickly forget the years of griping about redlining and banks that wouldn't make riskier loans - so now the taxpayers are stuck with the bill and its all the market's fault

 

[Integral]

You can't possibly believe that!

Anarcho-capitalism is the same fraud as libertarianism or "small government" fiscal/social conservatism. It's all about conning the little guy into doing the work of the elite for them.

Judging from Gustave's rhetoric, I'm sure he's very aware of that. He seems to be about as far from a capitalist as they come.

[and I take issue with you calling libertarianism a 'fraud', but that is neither here nor there.]

---

In any case, I find this:

a free people will not simply discard their own freedom; it must be taken from them by external forces.

to be a rather strange assertion.

---

What system is more effective? Almost by definition the market is the most effective because it relies on the relationships between consumers and producers.

To be effective, the market should be as free as possible from distortions - market power, externalities, information asymmetries, etc. No market in practice is as 'free' as the ones in economic models.

Regarding the second half of your post, I think it's safe to say that this current financial 'collapse' is the result of a combination of government and market failure. There's enough blame to go around.

 

[Cutlass]

What system is more effective? Almost by definition the market is the most effective because it relies on the relationships between consumers and producers. Placing that kind of feedback loop in the hands of a few central planners does not enhance efficiency. This "market collapse" was instigated by the govt policy of getting people to buy houses thereby creating a bubble that has burst. Liberals blame the market, I blame the govt. But liberals quickly forget the years of griping about redlining and banks that wouldn't make riskier loans - so now the taxpayers are stuck with the bill and its all the market's fault

Then why is it that the majority of the problem comes from the areas with the least regulation?

 

[Tycoon101]

I believe there is already a term for "Anarcho Capitalism" - Objectivism.

 

[Integral]

Then why is it that the majority of the problem comes from the areas with the least regulation?

That could easily be recast into a government failure to maintain consistent regulatory standards. Again, the current mess is a massive conjunction of both market and government failure...

 

[Gustave5436]

You can't possibly believe that!

Anarcho-capitalism is the same fraud as libertarianism or "small government" fiscal/social conservatism. It's all about conning the little guy into doing the work of the elite for them.

We must have had a serious mis-communication because that's exactly what I said; anarchist (and just in case this is ambiguous, I am referring to communist anarchism) society would not spontaneously regress into an "anarchist" capitalist system because it would be much too wary of capitalist wage-slavery for such regression to occur.

In any case, I find this:

to be a rather strange assertion.

An assertion based on history. In both the Russian and Spanish revolutions, anarchism did not collapse from within, but was destroyed from without. Ironically enough, both times the counterrevolutionaries were their Bolshevik "comrades."

 

[Cutlass]

That could easily be recast into a government failure to maintain consistent regulatory standards. Again, the current mess is a massive conjunction of both market and government failure...

I know that. But the effective difference is the actions of government v. the government's failure to act. While both are a failure of government, they have very different connotations. And different people believe in each.

That said, some actions of government contributed, but more inactions of government allowed the private sector to run wild. But it was, in the end, the private sector running wild, by their own choice, which brought it all crashing down.

 

[Kerozine]

Why would I want cow poo in my hamburger meat, or rats & cockroaches in my peanut butter?

 

[Berzerker]

To be effective, the market should be as free as possible from distortions - market power, externalities, information asymmetries, etc. No market in practice is as 'free' as the ones in economic models.

Regarding the second half of your post, I think it's safe to say that this current financial 'collapse' is the result of a combination of government and market failure. There's enough blame to go around.

The market didn't create an implicitly govt backed mortgage industry or the bubble at the heart of the problem. So I dont know where the market failed...

 

[Cutlass]

The market didn't create an implicitly govt backed mortgage industry or the bubble at the heart of the problem. So I dont know where the market failed...

The market made every single loan that went bad. And no, they did not have a gun to their heads requiring them to.

 

[Nylan]

There is no incentive to build up an enterprise when there is no guarentee that it won't be taken away. Self-protection of that nature is no longer anarchy at all, but feudalism.

...Only in CFC does this topic get to multiple pages.

Also, Integral, love the avvie

 

[Berzerker]

The market made every single loan that went bad.

It aint a market when politicians give me your money to make dubious loans because you and other private interests wont. Fannie and Freddie and the ideology behind them is at the heart of this. They were "privately" run but govt created and backed, thats a distortion of the market. They were created by govt to make riskier loans because the left didn't like banks' conservative lending policies. Ask Barney Frank, he was a big supporter of both and he shares the mentality that led us into the problem - govt cheap money to induce home ownership. Sounds great, compassionate blah blah blah... Now its time to own up to it or we'll keep repeating these "market collapses" because of the loose nuts behind the wheel.

And no, they did not have a gun to their heads requiring them to.

At F & F their jobs depended on it


check out tonite's Frontline on PBS

 

[mrt144]

I know that. But the effective difference is the actions of government v. the government's failure to act. While both are a failure of government, they have very different connotations. And different people believe in each.

That said, some actions of government contributed, but more inactions of government allowed the private sector to run wild. But it was, in the end, the private sector running wild, by their own choice, which brought it all crashing down.

I don't know...the SEC's inaction for years on certain fraudsters seems like a large piece of the government inaction causing problems.

 

[silver 2039]

Somalia is a fine example of anarcho-capitalisim. It seems to be doing quite well. Quite well indeed. I like this system.

 

[Atticus]

Private laws? What's the point of them? Especially in anarchy? If I can choose what laws I obey, what makes them laws?

 

[holy king]

boy, the absence of rule doesnt mean the absence of law. (since the absence of rule is ideally achieved by dividing power equaly among all citizens)

that being said, what a load of anarcho-capitalist rubbish by the OP...

ireland was anarchist? not enough wealth to spread in the 19th century?

do you just make this stuff up or are there people who sell books containing it?