nvm

[aelf]

So does supporter of Socialism. Because every sensible Eastern Europeans, Russians and Chinese who have lived under that system the longest would agree.

At least Xarthas approaches the topic with an attitude of learner by giving suggestion rather than acting-smart by criticizing.

For the record, I disagree with anarcho-capitalism too. But I think socialism is a greater disaster.

Sorry, you're wrong, because a philosophy that maintains self-interest and seeks an idealised cooperative world is purely delusional. You can't have the cake and eat it too.

People like you criticise a lot as well (that is what you are doing right now), but when criticism is directed at something you like, you whine about it. Grow up.

He doesn't get emotional even after some snob call him names.

You would know - you're the master of ad hom.

By the way, the last time we had a long debate, you simply said that you know better cause you do business, having failed to come up with an actual reply to my points about economics. So it's funny that you should be talking about learning vs. stubborn ego. And now all you do is make snide remarks at the side - I don't see you make any points at all. Pathetic.

 

[Cutlass]

So does supporter of Socialism. Because every sensible Eastern Europeans, Russians and Chinese who have lived under that system the longest would agree.

At least Xarthas approaches the topic with an attitude of learner by giving suggestion rather than acting-smart by criticizing.

For the record, I disagree with anarcho-capitalism too. But I think socialism is a greater disaster.

I don't think that's correct. Socialism is a recipe for stagnation. Anarcho-capitalism is a recipe for destruction.

 

[Fayadi]

Sorry, you're wrong, because a philosophy that maintains self-interest and seeks an idealised cooperative world is purely delusional. You can't have the cake and eat it too.

People like you criticise a lot as well (that is what you are doing right now), but when criticism is directed at something you like, you whine about it. Grow up.

No. I think it is extremely hypocritical of you to ridicule others of believing the wrong thing when you yourself are guilty of believing something stupid. You both believe in a failed ideology. So I guess the forum expect better of you to discuss an ideology.

I only love to tear down the theory of armchair-revolutionary. Because these are the people who love to criticize a lot irregardless of the facts. They must have a taste of what they do when criticism comes back at them. Take a look at my posting history, I don't usually criticize people who does not start criticizing first.
If you are a humble person, me myself would feel guilty of doing such things unprovoked.

What about Xarthas? He comes to the forum with a proposal of a system that he thought could be better than the current system. He does not act-smart by criticizing the present system.
What about you? You come to the forum and act like a smart guy and criticize everything about the reality of the present system and think your "solution" will solve all the problems.
Who is humble and who is not now?

By the way, since when the primary goal of Capitalism is to "seek idealized cooperative world"? What adjective would you use to describe a kind of person who like to twist facts around for political purpose. I would leave it for you to decide.

By the way, the last time we had a long debate, you simply said that you know better cause you do business, having failed to come up with an actual reply to my points about economics. So it's funny that you should be talking about learning vs. stubborn ego. And now all you do is make snide remarks at the side - I don't see you make any points at all. Pathetic.

Why don't you take a look at the comments you made.
I refuse to continue once you said Rockefeller is not economically rational.
Richest American in history not economically rational?
Of course it is laughable. It is like saying Michael Johhnson (gold medalist in sprinting) not fast enough in running or Tiger Woods not good enough in playing Golf.
You are commenting on something you don't know and facts will not change your mind. I guess it is a waste of time if I continue especially with your stubborn attitude.

You would know - you're the master of ad hom.

Stating the facts is not ad-hom.

You gave unproven theories to advance your shaky position. I said that is hardly rational. Is that wrong?

I said you should increase your world knowledge before ranting. That is a fact. The notion that sales tax of 7% is high when especially most other developed countries has a higher sales tax is laughable.


Bottom line: It is wrong of you to ridicule Xarthas. He has a learning attitude thus deserve better treatment. Period.

 

[a_propagandist]

Actually, you called him a snob. So yeah. Ad hominem.

 

[West 36]

How do things GET any worse then an anarchistic state? Unless i misunderstand what anarchy means?

You do, one because anarchy would be the absence of a state, and because there is much literature on the subject that isn't simply the 'chaotic' situation many associate it with. Anarchy is order, they say. Is it possible? That's another argument.

Socialism in its purest form attempts to seize private property (which is a crime) with government instruments.

Property is theft!

 

[Hygro]

To those fearing tyranny and violence by PDA-s, i suggest you read this quotation(from wiki):

Aggression and abuses by private defense agencies


Randall G. Holcombe argues that "Firms might prey on their competitors' customers, as competing mafia groups do, to show those customers that their current protective firm is not doing the job and thus to induce them to switch protection firms. This action seems to be a profit-maximizing strategy; hence, protection firms that do not prey on noncustomers may not survive." Holcombe states that the mafia offers protection for a fee, but it also uses its resources for predation; and thus profit-maximizing firms could be expected to employ them in the dual roles of protection and predation.[15] Peter Leeson and Edward P. Stringham rebut this argument by claiming that unless the firm were overwhelmingly more powerful than its prey, it could incur substantial costs and risks in attempting to extract wealth by force. They argue that the potential for even a small state to inflict losses on an aggressor explains why violent confrontations between states are less common than between individuals in New York City's Central Park.[16]

In The Market for Liberty, Linda and Morris Tannehill note that a private defense agency would be unlikely to engage in aggression, as it would not only become a target of retaliatory force, but would become the subject of severe business ostracism. Honest and productive individuals would dissociate themselves from it, fearing that it might use its aggressive force against them in the event of a dispute; or that they might become accidental casualties when retaliatory force is used by one of its other victims; or that their own reputation would suffer due to their ties to it. Moreover, the private defense agency's reputation would suffer and it would be regarded as a poor credit and insurance risk, the latter due to the high risk of claims resulting from its involvement in aggression. The employees and leaders of such an agency as well could face personal civil liability for their involvement, and the agency would not be shielded by sovereign immunity. High-quality employees would presumably be less willing to be involved with such an organization.[17]

They also argue that a defense company would be less likely to abuse its power and impose tyranny, noting that it "couldn't extract taxes from them, as a government does...A market relationship is a free relationship, and if a customer doesn't like a company's service or mistrusts its goals, he is free to take his business elsewhere, or to start his own competitive company, or to do without the service and just provide from himself...The objection that a tyrant might take over is actually a devastating argument against government."[18]

Rothbard makes a similar point, noting, "Of course, some of the private defense agencies will become criminal, just as some people become criminal now. But the point is that in a stateless society there would be no regular, legalized channel for crime and aggression, no government apparatus the control of which provides a secure monopoly for invasion of person and property...To create such an instrument de novo is very difficult, and, indeed, almost impossible; historically, it took State rulers centuries to create a functioning State apparatus."[19]

It has been argued, "If Defense Agency A instead of invading a business decides to invade a more worthwhile target such as a gold warehouse they are left with a much more complicated problem. The gold warehouse is owned by an entrepreneur who has his own defense agency and the gold in the warehouse also have owners that have hired their own respective defense agencies. In essence, Defense Agency A will have to deal with the wrath of the warehouse owner, the warehouse owner's defense agency and the defense agencies of all the owners of the gold in that warehouse."[20]

Robert P. Murphy opines that given the privatization of other services in an anarcho-capitalist society, "We must consider that in such an environment, the law-abiding majority would have all sorts of mechanisms at their disposal, beyond physical confrontation. Once private judges had ruled against a particular rogue agency, the private banks could freeze its assets (up to the amount of fines levied by the arbitrators). In addition, the private utility companies could shut down electricity and water to the agency’s headquarters, in accordance with standard provisions in their contracts."[21]

Your article is confusing larger-scale microeconomic reasoning with small scale psycho-sociological realities. In theory these protection firms wouldn't attack people because people would fight back. But there's always someone smarter than the market average who would figure out a way to be "stronger" than your average firm. And given that this is force-based power, and that violence is an option, the ability to kill and ultimately create autocracy, with a potential Palace Economy (thanks Bill) ends up rendering the entirely philosophy moot.

Oh no, a private judge ruled me and my 14 armed paramilitaries illegal and the private water company shut off my water! Ok bang, hostile takeover of private water company, and now CEO of private electric company realizes its in his "rational self interest" p) to not be revenge-killed for listening to the private judge's order.

 

[aelf]

Sorry, I got briefly annoyed by the "I'm Confucius" tone. It's not worth revisiting old discussions with someone who is just completely out there and always twisting accounts to fit his purposes. Please resume discussion as before.

So what are the basic ideas that are supposedly as simple as 1+1 that we disagree on and how am i wrong. And how will politics destroy an-cap motivation? You have quite a bit of clarification to do.

Because of 1) how people operate as it is and 2) not wishing to change that basic premise in the first place and hoping that things will get better. You know a popular definition of insanity, so it's advisable not to continue going down this road.

People with similar self-interests cooperate. What is wrong with this statement?

Because the cooperation is extremely ephemeral. You only cooperate as long as your self-interest dictates, and there are plenty of examples in history how that turns out (usually between countries).

Mill tried to go down a similar path about self interest, and he ended up with rules of thumb for utilitarianism. He just couldn't reconcile libertarianism with utilitarianism unless there are some universal rules to follow (i.e. respect for rights and the rule of law). And who else could maintain the universality of such rules but a permanent body that becomes the state? Why does it become a state? Well, how else do you ensure a universal participatory body in society? Once you have a body to enforce rules and maximise benefit for everyone in a society, in which every individual has a right of voice, you get a democratic state.

 

[aelf]

If i understand you correctly you mean that people dont change general political views. This isnt supported by facts seeing how they have organised into vastly different froms of society.

Nope. It has to do with the second part of my reply.

The conditions in an an-cap system make it so its in self interest to co operate for long periods of time to avoid retaliation and destruction. Countries in fact are good examples of this, seeing as how even powerful countries rarely attack weak ones in order to prevent capital destruction on both sides.

There are the cases of world wars and holocausts, but they are past the civilised world now, since people realize how big a disaster can happen if conditions for such a conflict are created.

Why do powerful countries need to attack weaker countries today? Imperialism has been shown to not be cost effective, even for Britain later on. Nowadays it's economic imperialism. The lessons learned from history show that imperialism might be beneficial to strong countries as long as they do not attempt colonisation and political subjugation. Heck, they even get political control with economic imperialism.

Anyway, I raised the example of Mill. I think you guys would look up to him and the Libertarians at least as precursors to your beliefs. If the Libertarians were beset with problems that made them temper their zeal at individual liberty, the same problems would surely beset anarchism. If you're willing to give up such concepts as rights and rule of law, then you can have anarcho-capitalism.

And others have told you in no uncertain terms that anarcho-capitalism simply means chaos. There's just no way for you to get people to cooperate for a long time if they are only motivated by self interest and there is nothing to restrain them. Otherwise, it would have happened.

 

[Cutlass]

The counter argument is simple: The people with the most guns kills the others and rules.

 

[aelf]

Things dont just happen. They need a theoretical base, popular support, and political forces that support it to bring it to reality. The first of these was only formulated in the last few decades. Seeing as how nationalistic ideals, the belief that a government is a holy solution to problems, protectionism, restrictions of labour migration etc all still exist even though they damage humanity as a whole, means that there is a lot of work to do until popular support and political forces to support it are created.

You must have missed the neoliberal trends of the past few decades. You are also missing the first taste of the effects of neoliberalism - the recent crisis, which is precipitated in a large part by the lack of effective regulation thanks to neoliberal influence.

And I doubt that anarcho-capitalism is a new concept. Well, it isn't. There have been periods in history where societies do not trust governments and would rather have power in the hands of individuals, who would 'cooperate for everyone's good'. Heck, even the argument that it's more efficient have been used, even for something as early as the Marian reforms.

Anyway, have you read the Social Contract? How do you propose to enforce the social contract that enshrines the cooperation of each individual for his own good?

 

[Phlegmak]

Property is theft!

Give everything you own away.

 

[Integral]

i dunno and i lack the motivation to investigate it due to this post not putting me in a defensive position.

xarthas,

Those were my softball questions. I'd like to know exactly what you stand for, otherwise the discussion will go nowhere. But if you can't tell me your position in a reasonably concise manner (or at least point me to a link that can) and don't have a quick answer to the question, "Why should I like your system more than the one I'm currently in?", you probably need to think a little harder about why you believe the way you do.

 

[Bill3000]

i dunno and i lack the motivation to investigate it due to this post not putting me in a defensive position.

...
So you don't know how or why your preferred form of society is superior to the current one?

 

[LightFang]

This thread should have been over hundreds of posts ago, when JH laid his smarts down on it all the way back in post 2.

 

[mrt144]

This thread should have been over hundreds of posts ago, when JH laid his smarts down on it all the way back in post 2.

But this is Civfanatics!

 

[Hygro]

I addressed the possibility of tyrannies in page 6, what are your counter arguments. Youll need to clarify what mechanisms allow a firm to be powerful enough to suppress an entire population that respects the rights of property and freedom.

Ok, I'm this thread is on page 4 given my settings so that doesn't help me. Instead of using a theoretical argument of why that's false, let me give an example from history.

In post civil-war southern USA, blacks were finally achieving certain levels of political and economic equality. Union troops enforcing martial law created a safe haven that allowed blacks, who represented sizable portions of southern society, to enjoy power in both state and federal offices, as well as start businesses and begin taking control of their own destinies.

Political forces killed Reconstruction in the 1870s, over a decade later.

Blacks were still in a position of proportionally appropriate power, both economic and political.

So what happened? "Firms" of out-law but unpoliced conspiring white men orchestrated terrorism. Lynch one man. Burn down the business man's house. Drive another out of town. Rape another's daughter. You know what happened? The community couldn't effectively enforce anti-guerilla tactics. They needed the army back. But the army was gone. Most blacks were not attacked, but enough were that the fear of being a target for being too successful was enough to drive THE ENTIRE POPULATION into a subservient, social underclass that lead to loss of suffrage, property, and reasonable legal standings for almost 100 years, when a NATIONAL movement, with laws passed by a "foreign" (federal, not state) entity, enforced with federal government troops brought back a semblance of equality.

About being able to take over important infrastructural companies. These surely have a security force within them not to mention all the other PDA-s whose clients you will anger by messing with their welfare.

You are assuming market equilibrium, which is a hypothetical scenario and does not exist. You are also assuming that every firm-leader and employee has the same level of motivation, an assumption that only. Collusion, sex, disinformation, bribery, intimidation, terrorism, murder, takes the competitive will out of people. The fact that there is a winner and a loser in the equal game of chess or checkers should be enough to know that the equality of individuals and firms don't exist.

You could just aswell say that in a democracy no force can stop rich corporations from corrupting the power with no one being able to stop it. And in a sence youre right, the mechanisms of democracy are slow. The mechanisms of an-cap are fast. PEOPLE and the PDA-s that represent them through financing are the power.

No, because democracies allow the population to create monopolies. Armies and police forces and legal departments are monopolies. While small scale corruption exists and will continue to, no corporation has taken control of the US government, ever. The government continually makes anti-corruption efforts that prune past infestations.

 

[Hygro]

The conditions in an an-cap system make it so its in self interest to co operate for long periods of time to avoid retaliation and destruction. Countries in fact are good examples of this, seeing as how even powerful countries rarely attack weak ones in order to prevent capital destruction on both sides.

There are the cases of world wars and holocausts, but they are past the civilised world now, since people realize how big a disaster can happen if conditions for such a conflict are created.

Fact: before world war 1 we had globalization at a level comparable to today. We had trade interests that for decades in the late 1800s and early 1900s convinced all the leaders of the world that war was a thing of the past. There was too much cross national capital interest for war to be rational. BUT irrational forces caused a war so great and destructive we didn't even begin to get globalization back for another 60 years.

 

[Kerozine]

Anyone ever heard of EVE Online?

It's a credit crunch nightmare.

The chief executive of the world's biggest corporation gets a phone call in the middle of the night. Thanks to industrial espionage, the company has been bankrupted, assets stripped, bank accounts emptied. When trading starts the next day, even the company name will be gone.

If this were real life, the executive might consider jumping out the window. But in the online game of EVE Online, it's all part of the fun.

"It is another challenge," said Par Molen, the leader of the "corporation" Band of Brothers (BoB), who got the late-night call.

"That's what we live for."

Mr Molen and his online colleagues had spent four years building BoB into the dominant force in a game where 200,000 players battle it out in an online galaxy of spaceships and planets.

Unlike other multiplayer online games like the hugely popular World of Warcraft, which is split into smaller groups, the thousands of EVE players are in it together.

In one virtual galaxy, players build, fight, and trade, joining together to form "corporations" to gain control over sections of the huge starscape.

This creates a complex society where anything can happen, and often does. Rules are few, and all of the lying, cheating and stealing that occurs in real life can also happen in the game.

A player called "The Mittani" is the shadowy spymaster who runs dozens of agents for his corporation - GoonSwarm. He got the call of his career when a disgruntled BoB director contacted him to say that he was thinking of switching sides.

With the director's access to BoB's internal workings, the pair were able to disband the corporation and steal all the assets they could lay their hands on.

To add insult to injury, GoonSwarm then re-registered the Band of Brothers name for itself, leaving the former alliance nameless and broken.

It's a finale that has been compared to "Apple dissolving Microsoft", and led to some players calling for the game's developer, CCP, to "roll-back" the game to the previous day and cancel the change.

"Any one director should not have the power to destroy the work of so many people for so many months and years with two mouse clicks," wrote a player called David on an EVE-related blog.

But CCP is well-known for keeping its hands off action within the game. Since no rules were broken, the changes stood, and thousands of BoB members woke up to a very different world.

Scams in space

This is not the first time that rogue bankers and credit fraud have made EVE Online seem more like the financial pages than a space cowboy video game.

In January, a player absconded with over 80bn ISK, the game's virtual currency, from an in-game bank. Although the 80bn is only worth a few thousand pounds if exchanged for real money, it represents hours of in-game toil.

In an online echo of the real-world banking crisis, the bank's chairman issued a statement to calm a run on deposits, writing: "Dynasty Banking will get over these times and we will continue to strive to earn the public's faith as one of the leading banks of Eve Online".

Another scam on an epic scale beyond the fantasies of real conmen was perpetrated in 2006, when a player ran off with 700bn ISK from another EVE bank.

"Think of me as a space Robin Hood—steals from the rich and gives to himself," wrote the perpetrator in an EVE-related internet forum.

Such swindles left some players in awe of EVE's potential for realism, whilst others called for a stronger code of ethics in the game.

But spymaster Mittani scoffed at calls for in-game morals, noting that without dirty tricks, GoonSwarm would have had no chance of toppling a more established corporation like BoB.

He wrote: "We don't have any advantages, so we can't obey your stupid 'space bushido'. We're going to spy, we're going to use defectors, we're going to lie, cheat, steal and be bastards."

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7905924.stm

This might be the anarcho-capitalism you're looking for, OP.

 

[Dachs]

Have people still not stopped talking about the GoonSwarm's effective destruction of the Band of Brothers? Cause I don't even play and I'm already sick of it. SomethingAwful: they kick ass. We get it.

 

[Kerozine]

Have people still not stopped talking about the GoonSwarm's effective destruction of the Band of Brothers? Cause I don't even play and I'm already sick of it. SomethingAwful: they kick ass. We get it.

Hmm?

This is the first I've heard of it. And it applies to the topic at hand.