The Moral Bancruptcy of Anarcho-Capitalism

[Rashiminos]

Did you stop midway through that sentence to post this "got 'im"? He described what he meant by "interference" in the same line.

What zzo meant by interference matches neither empirical data or thought experiments on the matter. The market would not suddenly turn altruistic in the absence of a government, and it's not too hard to see the pitfalls without a personal mental stake. See Mexico. Add in other protection rackets seeking to compete. Measure the blood precipitation.

 

[History_Buff]

Did you stop midway through that sentence to post this "got 'im"? He described what he meant by "interference" in the same line.

It hardly matters:

If the state is eradicated, no business can profit except through voluntary exchange with others.

This statement is so far removed from reality that there's probably no point trying to argue this. I'd scream double-login for sure, except that it's missing copy-pasted sections of mises.org.

 

[Rashiminos]

This statement is so far removed from reality that there's probably no point trying to argue this. I'd scream double-login for sure, except that it's missing copy-pasted sections of mises.org.

I'm not going to say that is unrealistic as much as it is very unlikely. Involuntary transactions are realistic, and a reduction in government would probably invite an increase in highwaymen.

A society looking to develop a working system of voluntary exchange would have to chop down some mighty big trees first.

The warm-up: Rational self-interest.

The test or trial: Capitalism and Communism.

 

[Dachs]

I realize that the relevant portions of the argument were posted like a year ago but I would really like some of the people who were talking about "feudalism" - most of whom are still definitely around - to define what they mean by "feudalism", because I feel like it's being used in a completely meaningless way that may even miss the actual definition entirely.

 

[Gustave5436]

anarcho-anything is pretty much bound to fail in reality.

There's constructive criticism, and then there's pessimistic defeatism. That belief of yours falls into the latter category.
------
As for propertarianism, I feel it becomes much easier to understand the ideology when you understand the circumstances which shaped Ayn Rand's personality. The Bolsheviks claimed to be communists, but their dictatorship came to resemble a capitalist paradise. She was, first and foremost, consumed by a hatred of the Bolsheviks, and thus became a militant supporter of capitalism. But since the Bolsheviks weren't actually communists but really more like fascists, when she lined up against them, she adopted conventionally socialist ideas like libertarianism. The ideology is equally as contradictory as absurd as the Leninism it used to define itself. For us in the 21st century, it should really only be a historical oddity, not something we try to wrap our heads around and then get horribly confused by its blatant contradictions.

Then of course there's the additional possibility that she was a pathological narcissist, which caused her difficulties with empathy and thus with morality, but diagnosing historical people with illnesses isn't really, well, scientifically valid.

 

[civ_king]

I realize that the relevant portions of the argument were posted like a year ago but I would really like some of the people who were talking about "feudalism" - most of whom are still definitely around - to define what they mean by "feudalism", because I feel like it's being used in a completely meaningless way that may even miss the actual definition entirely.

"I will to my lord be true and faithful, and love all which he loves and shun all which he shuns."

 

[Grisu]

Moderator Action: Necro'd thread closed. If you wish to debate the topic, please start a new thread on the issue

 

[Atticus]

The thread is rather old, the discussion was then tired, and it is now, so

Moderator Action: Thread closed.

EDIT: X-post