Sounds to me like your version of anarchism is no different than the privatize everything crowd, and they are as right wing as you can get. Just goes to prove my theory that political philosophy is circular. You go too far to the left, and you're on the right and visa versa. JG
Er... hence the term anarcho-capitalism. Care to qualify this... at all? Further, why is this relevant? I believe in self-ownership. I believe in individual liberty. I believe in non-aggression morality. I believe that the state is the greatest coercive threat to all of these things. I believe that free markets lead to the most effective, efficient and liberty-oriented prosperity. I believe the state is unnecessary to accomplish things we are capable of providing without it. I believe these things as a matter of principle, reason and logic. How is this circular?
People will pay for prisons, and there won't be any taxes? How do you plan on getting people to pay for prisons? You think they will do it willingly? If you plan on doing it any other way it's just a tax with a different name. JG
So there's a difference? Then you make my case for me. Anarchism is a far left philosophy. You've taken it one step further with "anarcho-capitalism", and gotten all the way around the circle where you agree with the far right philosophy of privatize everything.. Tell me what will replace "The State", and everyone will see. JG
Er... way to not answer the questions. It's rather simple to see that, as the private sector can and would provide for judicial arbiters and security forces, the companies who provide the courts may very well also operate necessary prisons or jails. The laws of a libertarian society would be much different than current laws, however. There would be substantially less prisons/jails needed in a libertarian society. Further, these jails/prisons wouldn't be subsidized for increasing/maintaining their inmate population. They may be independent businesses who charge the private courts for their services, who would then, in turn, trickle that cost down to the private sector who employ their courts. Increased competition between courts and prisons/jails would lead to efficiency and lowered cost. Inmates would also potentially be subject to labor in order to help pay for their incarceration, to alleviate some of the burden from their cost to the courts, and to the private citizen.
If you found yourself to be poverty stricken in Libertarian Society you would be screwed.. You would be dependent on Charity.. This would put you at the whim of others.. One mistake and you are on your own. This would be a very stressful place to live me thinks.. Achieve, Achieve, Achieve.. Heaven for Employers.. Utopia for the Elite of Society..
As opposed to being dependent on the state at the whim of the government? Maybe, instead, people would learn to be dependent on themselves. As opposed to plutocratic oligarchy we live in today? Way to disregard the value of freedom to individuals, as well as the increased standard of living and prosperity a free market would bring. The successful would be very successful. True. Apparently this is tragedy to you? God forbid success be rewarded...
Chill Shade.. This would be a fairer world if everyone started out equal.. Then a Libertarian Society would be possible.. How would a kid who was born into poverty in a Libertarian Society succeed ? Charity ?
People have a tough time fathoming a world without the state. The 'elite' would cease to exist without the state system of legalized theft, the poor would suddenly have 30% more income and a currency that doesn't depreciate faster than their wage increases, resources would be allocated fittingly into the areas that required them rather than those that requested them... Individualism is equality of opportunity, which rewards success. Collectivism leads to the promise of equalization, which is inevitably used as a ploy by the wealthy to monopolize their power. It seems the statists haven't noticed the trends in income inequality in this international system of keynesian mixed markets, otherwise they wouldn't be clamoring for an even greater welfare/warfare state.
I'm always chill. But I'm usually blunt too. We'll never start out equal. The only thing we'll all have equally is our rights. Some people will be physically or mentally superior to others. Some people will excel in certain areas over others. My definition of success is subjective to me. I have no idea, that's not a very specific question. What is success to this child? What level of poverty were they born into? Where were they born? Maybe there'd be a school they could attend funded by a charitable foundation. Maybe they could then get a job. Maybe they could then save to put themselves through college. Maybe they could get a better job doing something they enjoy. Maybe none of this is 'success' to that child. Maybe they'll become a famous artists, or musician. Maybe not. Possibilities are seemingly endless. Maybe they'll never be successful. Maybe they'll die. Maybe something equally unfortunate will befall them. Such is life. It's absurd to believe that everyone can be made to be happy and successful all of the time. Who's suggesting utopia now?
Obviously I agree with pretty much everything you said, but this raised an interesting thought. For as much as collectivists balk at the materialist greed of the 'corporate elite', they appear to be just as materialist as these so-called 'robber-barons'. They presume to objectively define success and wealth as completely materialistic, seemingly not able to fathom the possibility that subjective value of wealth and success may have very little to do with money or how many material items one might possess. This is not to suggest that money and material items are not typically valued to one degree or another, but collectivists seem to think that without substantial amounts of these things, people are impoverished, underprivileged, or neglected. They seem to neglect the fact that satisfaction, happiness and 'success' may come from various other avenues and variables exclusive to the individual. In any case, just a passing thought I'd share.
Utopia for those born into wealth. I dont think we will ever agree here.. Its interesting but not my cup of tea.. It would be interesting to see this in action..
I Speaking of starting off as equals, that's when you apply the categorical imperative to question morality from a Kantean perspective. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Do you think when we are all equals we would make laws sanctioning theft of those who have achieved more?
No i dont think this could be justified.. People would learn that if they worked to the best of their abilities they would be rewarded fairly.. I would be all for it then.. But this truly would be Utopia because it would be a fair race.. Some would rise higher than others but there would be a reason for this.. Thats where i differ from you guys.. The only way you can all have some chance of starting on an equal footing is through a state run education system and with adequate welfare and health care for all.. To pay for this you need to raise taxes..
I'm saying that because people are potentially power-hungry, we need a system of checks and balances that doesn't rely on everyone agreeing with the libertarian role. I am in favor of some corporatism because in my view of a utopia there would be a regulating force (ie the government)--but abandoning regulating powers because you believe the private system can regulate itself is a pipedream. The economic world would revert to how it was in mid/late of the 19th century. Government is needed when the businesses get too big for their briches. The only reason the private sector can be as efficient as fair as possible is when there is enough government regulation to make it so. Really, all you need to do is look into history (specifically 1860-1910) to see how ridiculously unfair the private sector can be without government intervention/regulation. Don't be so naive. I'm sorry, but that's really all there is to it. Yeah, through taxes. Private schools and colleges are maintained by the affluent. Look at the cost of the average student in the USA attending a private school, it's over $3000 each year for each kid. How many people do you think can afford this? The only reason a voucher system would work is if there was a government handing it out; unless of course you're suggesting that they all go get loans (let's not forget the outrageousness of bank loans without government regulations) to put their kids through elementary/high school? Yeah. To a small degree, usually funded by the elite who can afford it. Once you go widescale, and try to apply the same principles into, say, I don't, a ghetto city like Detroit, what then? They would never be able to afford the system you suggest. Period. Hm, yes. Private security firms have NEVER been used for personal gain/aggression by the heads of their companies. Yes, I believe such private security firms worked quite well for Stalin. I mean, a personal police, even army, at their command? That kind of power just screams "abuse me! abuse me!" while the courts sit back and do nothing because they are incapable of doing so without the power of brute force. The only thing that would stop it would be another personal army. The cycle would continue again and again, eventually someone would become a dictator. Impossible, I say. Who would pay that kind of business except the not-tax payers themselves? No one would profit. And in a world of corporatism, what doesn't profit doesn't sell. That's why you need government to pick up the slack. A militia would be possible to privatize, but the judicial system? Nay. That sounds like a haven for corruption. Competition between courts and prisons? That's a ludicrous idea. How would it even work? The most viciously inhumane jail that's inexpensive wins? Please, explain how competition between courts wouldn't be damaging to the legal system. Yeah, courts and prisons right now are a very slow, bureaucratic situation, but that's how equal and fair systems like those have to work. The Highs would never cease to exist. It is impossible to create a classless society. There will always be Highs, Middles, and Lows. Anything that suggests otherwise is naivety. Nobody here is clamoring for a government-run utopia akin to The Party from 1984 (George Orwell), please don't mix "No government is ridiculous" with "Everything should be run by the government". ---------------------------------------------------------- Everything you have said of your perfect utopia is nearly an exact replica of how the United States was like from approximately 1860-1910. Rockefeller's proverbial Beauty Rose is exactly what you seem to have in mind for this country. It's impossible to explain to you what it was like without posting a text-book long explanation, so i encourage you to study the economics of this time period. In fact, your explanation of what would happen to that boy from the ghetto is reminiscent of "Acres of Diamonds" by Reverend Conwell. Robber Barons, Captains of Industry, Gospel of Wealth, Monopolies, The Trusts are all what you would find in your libertarian Utopia. True laissez-faire economics is not the cornerstone of happiness, it is the cornerstone of corporate control. The problem with your entire ideal is the (entire justified) notion that without government, it is all competition. You are mistaken. Soon, corporations would merge, monopolies would develop, and Trusts would appear, and rape the common people economically into submission. The only thing big enough to tackle business is government, and in a world without government, business has a monopoly on it's citizens. Not even unions are powerful to stop a corporation. The same time period is proof enough of this. Anyone who joined an active union would be fired, and starved into submission. The workers are placed in perpetual debt, similar to serfdom. Any riots would be quelled by private police forces. The only union that would be powerful enough would be a union of unions. Now let's switch to a view where unions are in control. Okay, easy enough: the teachers union strikes are ruining education, the auto workers union have run american car companies into the ground, willingly and fully aware of what they were doing. It's lose-lose either way. Your entire libertario-anarcho-capitalistic world centers on the premise that the good in people will naturally prevail, and corruption in the form of corporate greed and selfishness will not have a big enough foothold to damage it; all you need to do is study economics from 1860-1910 to know that this is not true. Pure laissez-faire economics, completely free of any government regulation whatsoever, would be perhaps the most damaging blow to individual (not corporate)liberties that could be dealt. ---------------------------- Sorry for the text-block. I'm not sorry.
This still wouldn't equate to absolute equality. Some will be born into wealthier families than others. Some will be born with more aptitudes than others. Equality is a myth. Trying to facilitate a myth is folly, to mention nothing of the immorality of the coercion required to facilitate such a myth. America has tons of welfare, health care and taxes, and yet inequality continues to grow. Welfare is antithetical to encouragement of individuals striving to be their best, and thus be rewarded as such. The truest form of equality, as you seem to define it, is by everyone starting out in a state of nature. The state is absent in the state of nature, so why do you not advocate that which is similar to a state of nature?
Because i have seen the injustice of the world we live in and my underwear is a bright red.. But i do respect your opinions and views and find Libertarian ideas appealing.. Only problem is Chomsky would be my man..
Why would we need a system of checks and balances to check and balance a state which did not exist? How is the fact that the market is more than capable of regulating itself a pipedream? What does a business getting "too big for their briches" even mean? Government regulation doesn't create efficiency or fairness in the private sector, it does the exact opposite. Specifically name the examples you're talking about. If you're referring to the so-called 'robber-barons', I may be inclined to laugh at you. Don't be so ignorant. I'm sorry, but that's really all there is to it. Right, so why is it a stretch for you to believe that the government isn't required. If we essentially pay for all of these things now, why could we not pay for them absent of government? You have an impossible task of reconciling your argument with reality. Fact: Our money pays for the services which you presume the government, and only the government, is capable of providing. The only reason the government is capable of providing these services is by way of our money. It stands to reason that our money is what is directly responsible for the existence of these services; not the government. Further, if we have the freedom to spend our own money as we see fit (crazy concept, I know) these services would be delivered exponentially more efficiently than government could ever dream of achieving. Would you give the government your money and trust it to buy your groceries for you? You seem to operate under the impression that schooling should be mandatory, or compulsory. Why does everyone need to go through 12 grades of formal schooling and then go through another 2-8 years of higher schooling? Education takes place in all areas of life, constantly... it's not exclusive to formal schools--this is especially true in this day and age with the accessibility of countless volumes of information at the touch of a button. Elementary subjects: reading, writing, arithmetic do not require formal schooling to be properly learned. Formal schooling, is really only necessary for specialized fields of study. The idea of universal, compulsory schooling is laughable. As Rothbard points out in For a New Liberty. As for costs, there are many economic reasons private schools cost so much, not the least of which is because they are in competition with state-schools where the state has a monopoly on law. In any case, in a free market libertarian society, costs of private formal schooling would decline rather substantially. Tollways--constructed and operated by the private sector. Commercial and residential security--owned and operated by the private sector. Again, this is to mention nothing of the fact that these things are in competition with the state-established coercive monopoly of law which drives up the costs of private endeavors in these markets. They wouldn't be as expensive as they are if the state didn't exist. Period. Except that Stalin was... the state. Nice one. Again, your argument disregards realities which are readily apparent if you bothered to give it any thought. First, out of the history of private security firms, the only blemish you can seem to conjure up involves Stalin. Second, you're ignoring the fact that private security firms' primary interest would be that of increasing profits while reducing losses. This equates to appealing to a broad market, and not just a select group of individuals. This also equates to not engaging in totalitarian, immoral conquests. Further, your argument ignores the bindings of common law in a libertarian society. Finally, your argument ignores the fact that police as we know them are not some unknown commodity that is birthed by the state... Police are humans who work for an income, just as private security would be. The difference is that private security firms are interested in efficiency, profits, and customer satisfaction where as the state police are not. Nearly every commercial building hires a private security firm to provide their building and its tenants with security throughout the day and night, yet somehow they don't manage to fall into this illogical cyclical paradigm that you've pulled out of your ass. Um, why? We pay court fees when we go to court. We pay for prisons and for inmates out of our taxes already. If there's a demand for judicial arbitration, people will pay to receive that service. It's really that simple. There will be demand if there is a recognition and respect for common law of a libertarian society. If John burglarizes Bob's house and is caught in the act by Bob's hired security firm. John's security firm (assuming he doesn't employ the same firm as Bob) would acknowledge the allegation and if Bob wished to pursue grievance, he'd file charges against John at a private arbiter of his choice. The cases would be presented, and if found guilty, John would have to pay restitution and cover court costs. Income for the arbitration company. If the arbitration company is inefficient or unsatisfactory, it goes out of business, and another takes over its market share until more competition emerges. How? Sounds like good, efficient business to me. Instead of having to pay another private company to handle the criminals your company convicts, just manage them yourself. Why? Just like any other striving business? Efficiency, customer satisfaction, increased profits and decreased losses will prevail and competition will keep these things standard. The rest was tldr, but this made me chuckle... Sorry but not sorry, eh? If you desire a better understanding of a libertarian society, you're free to read the book I posted earlier. It has specific chapters which touch on each of these issues to save time and effort.
Your argument against anarchy seems to equate to this: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLyxmD_UAK4&feature=related]YouTube - that's not true. that's IMPOSSIBLE[/ame]
Lol, you think the only way to pay for a prison is to steal? Man, your worldview must be fucked up. I don't see the need to force people to implement a service that most already demand.