Political Theory

Re: Anarchy is not heartless

Stranger — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:37:23 GMT

libertarian:
Brainpolice:
*rolls eyes*

Even asuming that one defense agency tries to take over the others, do you not think that the others will have an incentive to band together to take the "rogue PDA" out? And since when is our "national defense" controlled by everyone, as if we have some kind of direct/participatory military democracy? The current military consists of collusion between government and particular private groups. It is not controlled by "the people" at all, and "the people" are forced to pay for it. That is true coercion.
What if an entrepreneur owns a nuclear weapon? What if the wealthy owns all the weapons? What if upset people began a revolution like a communist revolution? What if some other country incrementally conquers our anarcho-capitalist society?

Why would any of this happen?

Re: Anarchy is not heartless

libertarian — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:12:10 GMT

Brainpolice:
*rolls eyes*

Even asuming that one defense agency tries to take over the others, do you not think that the others will have an incentive to band together to take the "rogue PDA" out? And since when is our "national defense" controlled by everyone, as if we have some kind of direct/participatory military democracy? The current military consists of collusion between government and particular private groups. It is not controlled by "the people" at all, and "the people" are forced to pay for it. That is true coercion.

What if an entrepreneur owns a nuclear weapon? What if the wealthy owns all the weapons? What if upset people began a revolution like a communist revolution? What if some other country incrementally conquers our anarcho-capitalist society?

Re: Anarchy is not heartless

SirJDKnightCroix — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 00:28:15 GMT

Everything to an extent is done with self-interest. Even religion. Why are profoundly religous individuals and groups doing charitable and good deeds and whatnot? It's because they've been promised to be rewarded with heaven in the afterlife. There is something being exchanged for something.

Re: Anarchy is not heartless

Bostwick — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:33:26 GMT

libertarian:
Our national defense is democratically controlled. Therefore there is no abuse of power.

Ha Ha Ha!

Re: Anarchy is not heartless

Trianglechoke7 — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 19:46:37 GMT

Whoa, whoa, no way we live in an anarcho-capitalist society. Obviously, we have a government so there's nothing anarchist about us in any way, shape, or form.

Re: Anarchy is not heartless

leonidia — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 07:47:57 GMT

libertarian:
We are already living in a anarcho-capitalist society.

No. Not even close.

libertarian:
Imagine that all 200 countries are corporations. Anarcho-capitalism would lead to wars between these corporations.

It does not follow that corporations would go to war with each other just because states do. The two are entirely different entities.

libertarian:
Our national defense is democratically controlled. Therefore there is no abuse of power.

Really?

libertarian:
Private defense is coercive.

No it's not. It's defensive. Coercion implies initiating agression. Defense is a response to agression. The rest of your argument doesn't follow.

Re: Anarchy is not heartless

Inquisitor — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 01:36:23 GMT

We are already living in a anarcho-capitalist society.

Not really.

Imagine that all 200 countries are corporations. Anarcho-capitalism would lead to wars between these corporations.

Non sequitur. Countries are not corporations, nor will they ever be. They are monopolies on force. Their funds are acquired coercively. War is not profitable without taxation to externalize its costs.

Our national defense is democratically controlled.

In name.

Therefore there is no abuse of power.

By what standard?

Private defense is coercive. Coercion leads to monopolies. Therefore, private defense will lead to monopolies. Then, the private defense monopoly can use coercion to dictate its peoples. It is equivalent to a military dictatorship.

Again, non sequitur. This stems from seeing firms as countries. They are not. Your above critique applies to states; not to firms.

Re: Anarchy is not heartless

Brainpolice — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:58:51 GMT

*rolls eyes*

Using the false assumption that altruism is good, let's turn your own logic back around at you. If there are non-altruistic people, the government will therefore be constituted at least partially by them. Hence, to propose a government as the solution is self-defeating. Every negative aspect of human nature that you point to (even though I don't think that not being an altruist is a negative aspect of human nature) will apply equally to those within the state. They are human beings too, are they not? Except under a state, those same blue meanies have even more power, over everyone within a given territory to boot.

Using the correct assumption that monopoly is bad, let's turn your own logic back around at you. You are concerned that monopolies will rise, and then you suggest a monopoly on the use of force as the solution. If one does not want monopolies to form, what sense does it make to support currently existing monopolies out of fear that in the abscence of that monopoly, a new one will form? Do you not see the contradiction? You are describing a scenario in which a government forms as an arguement in defense of currently existing governments!

Furthermore, your above arguement is quite nonsensical. First, you claim that we already live under anarcho-capitalism. You then proceed to compare the current existing system to your assumptions of what would happen under anarcho-capitalism, clearly trying to distinguish between the two. Which is it? Do we currently live under anarcho-capitalism, or do we currently live under some kind of statism? Or are you argueing that anarcho-capitalism will inevitably lead to statism? Again, if that's the case, it hardly is an arguement FOR statism and AGAINST anarcho-capitalism; for even if we accept this flawed premise, at least anarcho-capitalism is the stage before statism takes hold.

As for private defense agencies being coercive and waging war against eachother, where do you pull this premise out from? Nowhere? What rational enterprenuer would engage in such a costly and risky endeavor? Isn't half the entire point of them being private that they are payed for voluntarily and the costs are internalized? How does coercion automatically follow from this? Even asuming that one defense agency tries to take over the others, do you not think that the others will have an incentive to band together to take the "rogue PDA" out? And since when is our "national defense" controlled by everyone, as if we have some kind of direct/participatory military democracy? The current military consists of collusion between government and particular private groups. It is not controlled by "the people" at all, and "the people" are forced to pay for it. That is true coercion.

Re: Anarchy is not heartless

libertarian — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:47:18 GMT

Inquisitor:
How on earth does it follow that if there are some non-altruistic persons, that anarcho-capitalism must lead to a miltiary dictatorship?

We are already living in a anarcho-capitalist society. Imagine that all 200 countries are corporations. Anarcho-capitalism would lead to wars between these corporations. Our national defense is democratically controlled. Therefore there is no abuse of power. But when national defense is controlled by one person or a group of persons, it would become violent. When private defense agencies are competing in an anarcho-capitalist society, the strongest private defense will overtake weaker private defense agencies. Private defense is coercive. Coercion leads to monopolies. Therefore, private defense will lead to monopolies. Then, the private defense monopoly can use coercion to dictate its peoples. It is equivalent to a military dictatorship.

Re: Anarchy is not heartless

Inquisitor — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:33:09 GMT

How on earth does it follow that if there are some non-altruistic persons, that anarcho-capitalism must lead to a miltiary dictatorship?

Re: Anarchy is not heartless

ThorsMitersaw — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:08:43 GMT

libertarian:
Since there must be some non-altruistic persons, anarcho-capitalism would lead to a military dictatorship.

This is ridiculous. You are basically saying that since cirme exists, we must put criminals in charge. To hell with problems of regression? You assume as all people poisoned by hobesian arsenic of statism do, that A only the state may or can provide defense which shoudl be easy for anyone see past, that B the state can prevent monopolies of force from forming which is also obvious that they HELP to form monopolies and are a monopoly themselves, C that mans natural state is chaos and violence, that no two men can ever agree without resorting to violence without the oversight of a third.

that criminal behavior exists is no reason to submit to it. Liberty requires vigiliance

Re: Anarchy is not heartless

libertarian — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:04:30 GMT

Yes, some people are altruistic. But some people do not have altruistic behavior. Look how we treat toward animals and unborn children.

IMO, a libertarian society has more than enough for charity to feed the needy. In a libertarian society, many things would cost much less expensive. That includes insurance, healthcare, education and housing. There would be less unemployment.

Many people would only donate only if their donation has a large effect.

Since there must be some non-altruistic persons, anarcho-capitalism would lead to a military dictatorship.

Re: Anarchy is not heartless

ThorsMitersaw — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:06:25 GMT

Matthew Graybosch:

ThorsMitersaw:
Being coerced into an act of kindness is not kindess on my behalf but the creation of slavery and most often times theft by a third agressor party. Forceful application of charitable and 'selfless' acts removes any virtue from the act or deed and places in its stead corruption and violence.

When somebody asks me to donate, or if a bum asks me for change, I have five words for them: "I gave at the office". I already pay taxes, which the government claims to use to help "those in need". Why should I waste more money on the "needy" when the government wastes enough of my money for me?

Anarchism per se might not be heartless, but I certainly am. And I will remain heartless as long as I remain a serf.

well I certainely sympathize and indeed take the same stance myself. I feel no need to give to anyone like that based upon two things: dont encourage failure, teach a man to fish... and that I cannot afford charity. I do not have enough money to spare to help myself at times let alone a complete stranger who most likely is going to spend it on booze. Without taxes I would likely feel much less stringent with my money...

Re: Anarchy is not heartless

Matthew Graybosch — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:47:44 GMT

ThorsMitersaw:
Being coerced into an act of kindness is not kindess on my behalf but the creation of slavery and most often times theft by a third agressor party. Forceful application of charitable and 'selfless' acts removes any virtue from the act or deed and places in its stead corruption and violence.

When somebody asks me to donate, or if a bum asks me for change, I have five words for them: "I gave at the office". I already pay taxes, which the government claims to use to help "those in need". Why should I waste more money on the "needy" when the government wastes enough of my money for me?

Anarchism per se might not be heartless, but I certainly am. And I will remain heartless as long as I remain a serf.

Re: Anarchy is not heartless

Brainpolice — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:56:50 GMT

Right. There is no such thing as ethics or virtue in the abscence of choice. Someone cannot be forced to do good, they have to choose to do good. One cannot be held responsible for doing good (thus, one cannot be said to have virtue) if one is incapable of genuinely choosing to do so. I tend to think of Clockwork Orange when this comes up for some reason (since they took away Alex's ability to choose to do ill, they also took away his ability to genuinely do good; thus, his humanity and capacity for virtue was robbed of him).