Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Anarchy

seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 6:31:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I am currently against anarchy, but would like to know more before I fully form my opinion.

Anarchists, could you point to good books on anarchy?

Also, how exactly would an anarchist justice system work?

Why is anarchy better than other systems?

How would the disabled and sick survive in a system of anarchy?

Would the disabled and sick be better off in a system of anarchy?

My thoughts on welfare is that the government should tax for welfare, but then split it up among charities for the disabled and sick.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 6:48:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 6:31:07 PM, seraine wrote:
I am currently against anarchy, but would like to know more before I fully form my opinion.

Anarchists, could you point to good books on anarchy?


Yes, about a million.

Here's "Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. It's a better list than I could reasonably compile.

http://www.lewrockwell.com...

Also, how exactly would an anarchist justice system work?


The exact details of it cannot be predicted because it is specifically an unplanned system. The general idea is this: there would be any number of competing courts. People and organizations would agree to let certain courts resolve disputes between them because that is better than fighting. Courts would agree to third-party courts in the event of a disagreement between them, and many agencies involved in security and insurance would require their clients to subscribe to certain courts. There are various ways that appeals, levels of courts, and other methods of arbitration could work, but that is the general idea.

Why is anarchy better than other systems?


Because the state violates people's rights, has an incentive to enrich and empower itself rather than helping its subjects, and cannot properly allocate resources even if it intended to.

How would the disabled and sick survive in a system of anarchy?


People would give them money and take care of them out of the kindness of their hearts and/or they would contribute what little they could and not make much money.

Would the disabled and sick be better off in a system of anarchy?


That would differ on an individual basis according to how generous people are and whether or not others want to help you. Children with cancer would be the same or better. Smokers with emphysema and morbidly obese people would probably be worse off, as they should be.

My thoughts on welfare is that the government should tax for welfare, but then split it up among charities for the disabled and sick.

Welfare creates dependency, unsubsidizes unproductive lifestyles and choices, moves resources away from more productive people toward less productive people, reduces the incentives to work, and violates the property rights of people who earn money. A productive person who is down on his luck will not normally have trouble finding someone to help him out, and charities exist for the genuinely impoverished. Charity is a more meaningful and more legitimate way to help out disadvantaged people than forced wealth redistribution.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 6:52:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 6:31:07 PM, seraine wrote:
I am currently against anarchy, but would like to know more before I fully form my opinion.

Anarchists, could you point to good books on anarchy?

Haven't read them but
http://www.amazon.com...
and
http://www.amazon.com...

the two above seem to be the most cited.

Also, how exactly would an anarchist justice system work?

Not an expert. It seems to rely on private security, insurance companies, and private law negotiated through contracts.

Why is anarchy better than other systems?

The state is inefficient since it is a monopoly on force. It obtains its funds through force rather than through voluntary action.

How would the disabled and sick survive in a system of anarchy?

Same they would under the state. A market would likely occur for disabled insurance. It can insure that before your child is born, if your child comes out disabled, then the insurance company can pay for the disabled.

Would the disabled and sick be better off in a system of anarchy?

Regulations tend to hurt the poorest, since it increases the cost of goods and services. It also even makes running charities difficult, since they are even regulated by government. It also makes it harder to find a job, since minimum wage causes companies to hire less. And regulations make it difficult for someone to try to start a business.

My thoughts on welfare is that the government should tax for welfare, but then split it up among charities for the disabled and sick.

Social security helps the disabled. Medicare helps the sick. Both are insolvent. Welfare can actually create a poverty trap and crowd out private charities, that are best suited to help individuals.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 7:01:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't know if I would recommend Democracy: The God That Failed to someone new to anarchism. It's pretty heavy stuff and Hoppe is a lot more conservative than the anarchist mainstream, which really comes out in that particular book. Man, Economy, and State with Market and Power is a great book on Austrian economics, but you don't need to subscribe to Austrian economics to be an anarcho-capitalist. It's also really long, and I don't know if anyone on DDO has read all of it. Bryan Caplan is a neoclassical economist and David Friedman presumably favors Chicago economics.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 7:04:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 6:48:40 PM, Grape wrote:
At 6/19/2011 6:31:07 PM, seraine wrote:
My thoughts on welfare is that the government should tax for welfare, but then split it up among charities for the disabled and sick.

Welfare creates dependency, subsidizes unproductive lifestyles and choices, moves resources away from more productive people toward less productive people, reduces the incentives to work, and violates the property rights of people who earn money. A productive person who is down on his luck will not normally have trouble finding someone to help him out, and charities exist for the genuinely impoverished. Charity is a more meaningful and more legitimate way to help out disadvantaged people than forced wealth redistribution.

Fixing a major typo...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 7:21:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 6:52:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:
The state is inefficient since it is a monopoly on force. It obtains its funds through force rather than through voluntary action.
Whoever defines state this way is either playing horrible Devil's Advocacy, or has not read anything other than what suits his personal taste.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 7:25:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 7:01:59 PM, Grape wrote:
I don't know if I would recommend Democracy: The God That Failed to someone new to anarchism. It's pretty heavy stuff and Hoppe is a lot more conservative than the anarchist mainstream, which really comes out in that particular book. Man, Economy, and State with Market and Power is a great book on Austrian economics, but you don't need to subscribe to Austrian economics to be an anarcho-capitalist. It's also really long, and I don't know if anyone on DDO has read all of it. Bryan Caplan is a neoclassical economist and David Friedman presumably favors Chicago economics.

Just 21 more pages and I'm done... ^_^
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 7:26:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Oh, and Grape pretty much said what I would as an Ancap.

And Ancoms wanna chime in?
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 7:28:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
How about Democracy: The God that failed to someone like myself? I think if the book is convincing enough I might convert to anarchism. My trust in democracy has ultimately failed after watching a Bryan Caplan lecture on "The myth of the rational voter: Why democracy choose bad policies" and it really just destroyed my faith in government. Overall, I think anarchy has its flaws, however if the flaws are less then the flaws in government, then I might join the anarcho-capitalism club.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Merda
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 7:28:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 7:21:08 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 6/19/2011 6:52:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:
The state is inefficient since it is a monopoly on force. It obtains its funds through force rather than through voluntary action.
Whoever defines state this way is either playing horrible Devil's Advocacy, or has not read anything other than what suits his personal taste.

Is it not true though? Are private courts allowed to compete with the State? Does the State only obtain taxes through voluntary association? Probably. I'm sure people who don't pay aren't ever punished for it.
My manwich!
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 7:30:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 7:21:08 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 6/19/2011 6:52:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:
The state is inefficient since it is a monopoly on force. It obtains its funds through force rather than through voluntary action.
Whoever defines state this way is either playing horrible Devil's Advocacy, or has not read anything other than what suits his personal taste.

Mirza, how would you define a state?

A state can have a variety of traits, and it is hard to say exactly what ones are necessary to make a state.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 7:31:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 7:28:45 PM, Merda wrote:
Is it not true though? Are private courts allowed to compete with the State?
Yes, in an ideological state.

Does the State only obtain taxes through voluntary association? Probably.
Can do, yes. Income taxes are not necessary for funding the state.

I'm sure people who don't pay aren't ever punished for it.
So you want perfection? Good... luck. You'll need it.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 7:32:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 7:28:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
How about Democracy: The God that failed to someone like myself? I think if the book is convincing enough I might convert to anarchism. My trust in democracy has ultimately failed after watching a Bryan Caplan lecture on "The myth of the rational voter: Why democracy choose bad policies" and it really just destroyed my faith in government. Overall, I think anarchy has its flaws, however if the flaws are less then the flaws in government, then I might join the anarcho-capitalism club.

It is the logical conclusion so I'm not surprised.

There will be flaws in every system, even in the abolition of systems. It's how the system intends to work out the flaws which matters. Within an ancap society, it would be much more efficient and much less coercive.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 7:33:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 7:28:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
How about Democracy: The God that failed to someone like myself? I think if the book is convincing enough I might convert to anarchism. My trust in democracy has ultimately failed after watching a Bryan Caplan lecture on "The myth of the rational voter: Why democracy choose bad policies" and it really just destroyed my faith in government. Overall, I think anarchy has its flaws, however if the flaws are less then the flaws in government, then I might join the anarcho-capitalism club.

I recommend this: http://mises.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 7:34:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 7:30:58 PM, Grape wrote:
Mirza, how would you define a state?
Too much to say. But I support an ideological state, not a national state. For instance, I believe laws governing me should forbid certain things for me, but not for a group of people who are not under the same domain of law as I am. E.g., marital laws should not be the same for a hardcore naturalist and an orthodox Christian. They should have voluntary laws that do not violate general moral principles, such as the right to life, personal privacy, private property, and so on.

The state should help giving these rights. It should not have a monopoly on force. I despise monopolies. There can be institutions which make sure that the state does not have a monopoly which can be used for negative purposes, as often happens with states. And so on.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 7:35:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 7:28:45 PM, Merda wrote:
At 6/19/2011 7:21:08 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 6/19/2011 6:52:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:
The state is inefficient since it is a monopoly on force. It obtains its funds through force rather than through voluntary action.
Whoever defines state this way is either playing horrible Devil's Advocacy, or has not read anything other than what suits his personal taste.

Is it not true though? Are private courts allowed to compete with the State? Does the State only obtain taxes through voluntary association? Probably. I'm sure people who don't pay aren't ever punished for it.

I'm half playing Devil's Advocacy. Both government (democracy) and anarchy are imperfect systems. Maybe I'll go monarchist. I actually wish that was listed. However, utopia is impossible. Really it's between picking which system you think is worse.

Really, I can never solidly keep a solid position for a long time anyways.

And spewing the anarchy defense has just honestly become intellectual laziness on my part, to be honest. I hear the defense for anarchy so often, its just easy to regurgitate it.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 7:36:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 7:33:49 PM, Grape wrote:
At 6/19/2011 7:28:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
How about Democracy: The God that failed to someone like myself? I think if the book is convincing enough I might convert to anarchism. My trust in democracy has ultimately failed after watching a Bryan Caplan lecture on "The myth of the rational voter: Why democracy choose bad policies" and it really just destroyed my faith in government. Overall, I think anarchy has its flaws, however if the flaws are less then the flaws in government, then I might join the anarcho-capitalism club.

I recommend this: http://mises.org...

Seconded.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 7:36:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 7:31:09 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 6/19/2011 7:28:45 PM, Merda wrote:
Is it not true though? Are private courts allowed to compete with the State?
Yes, in an ideological state.

Does the State only obtain taxes through voluntary association? Probably.
Can do, yes. Income taxes are not necessary for funding the state.

Then you're basically advocating functional anarchy. If the state doesn't have a monopoly on legal stuff, doesn't coerce anyone into paying for its services, and won't use coercion to exclude competitors, it's basically just another company in the market.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 7:38:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 7:31:09 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 6/19/2011 7:28:45 PM, Merda wrote:
Is it not true though? Are private courts allowed to compete with the State?
Yes, in an ideological state.


If other courts are allowed to compete against the state, what happens when they rule that they state is not allowed to do something. What if Court A decides that it's unfair that the state is allowed to tax and no one else is? They have an incentive to make such a ruling because it's in their self interest not to be taxed (and in the self-interest of of their clients whose money keeps them afloat).

Does the State only obtain taxes through voluntary association? Probably.
Can do, yes. Income taxes are not necessary for funding the state.


If the state does not tax, where does it get money from? Charity and provision of services on the market I assume?

I'm sure people who don't pay aren't ever punished for it.
So you want perfection? Good... luck. You'll need it.

No, he wants people not to be punished for just asking to be left alone. That's not perfection (perfection would have more ice cream, at least) but it's a step in the right direction).

If the state does not tax and does not have a monopoly on any type of decision making, how is it different than any other organization of people?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 7:39:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 7:33:49 PM, Grape wrote:
At 6/19/2011 7:28:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
How about Democracy: The God that failed to someone like myself? I think if the book is convincing enough I might convert to anarchism. My trust in democracy has ultimately failed after watching a Bryan Caplan lecture on "The myth of the rational voter: Why democracy choose bad policies" and it really just destroyed my faith in government. Overall, I think anarchy has its flaws, however if the flaws are less then the flaws in government, then I might join the anarcho-capitalism club.

I recommend this: http://mises.org...

Thanks, but I already read it.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 7:39:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 7:38:16 PM, Grape wrote:
At 6/19/2011 7:31:09 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 6/19/2011 7:28:45 PM, Merda wrote:
Is it not true though? Are private courts allowed to compete with the State?
Yes, in an ideological state.


If other courts are allowed to compete against the state, what happens when they rule that they state is not allowed to do something. What if Court A decides that it's unfair that the state is allowed to tax and no one else is? They have an incentive to make such a ruling because it's in their self interest not to be taxed (and in the self-interest of of their clients whose money keeps them afloat).

Does the State only obtain taxes through voluntary association? Probably.
Can do, yes. Income taxes are not necessary for funding the state.


If the state does not tax, where does it get money from? Charity and provision of services on the market I assume?

I'm sure people who don't pay aren't ever punished for it.
So you want perfection? Good... luck. You'll need it.

No, he wants people not to be punished for just asking to be left alone. That's not perfection (perfection would have more ice cream, at least) but it's a step in the right direction).

If the state does not tax and does not have a monopoly on any type of decision making, how is it different than any other organization of people?

I basically beat you to all of this, bro. :)
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 7:39:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 7:34:37 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 6/19/2011 7:30:58 PM, Grape wrote:
Mirza, how would you define a state?
Too much to say. But I support an ideological state, not a national state. For instance, I believe laws governing me should forbid certain things for me, but not for a group of people who are not under the same domain of law as I am. E.g., marital laws should not be the same for a hardcore naturalist and an orthodox Christian. They should have voluntary laws that do not violate general moral principles, such as the right to life, personal privacy, private property, and so on.

The state should help giving these rights. It should not have a monopoly on force. I despise monopolies. There can be institutions which make sure that the state does not have a monopoly which can be used for negative purposes, as often happens with states. And so on.

That's anarchy with a few minor modifications.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 7:44:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 7:32:07 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/19/2011 7:28:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
How about Democracy: The God that failed to someone like myself? I think if the book is convincing enough I might convert to anarchism. My trust in democracy has ultimately failed after watching a Bryan Caplan lecture on "The myth of the rational voter: Why democracy choose bad policies" and it really just destroyed my faith in government. Overall, I think anarchy has its flaws, however if the flaws are less then the flaws in government, then I might join the anarcho-capitalism club.

It is the logical conclusion so I'm not surprised.

There will be flaws in every system, even in the abolition of systems. It's how the system intends to work out the flaws which matters. Within an ancap society, it would be much more efficient and much less coercive.

But wouldn't a state form through spontaneous order anyways? It seems quite logical that a group of similarly like-minded people would form their own society and create their own customs and rules. The society would also likely have their own police force, and public goods included in the package for staying in the area.

I mean, how do you explain the existence of a state in the first place. Colonists came to the United States to form their own societes, and we have a powerful state now. Isn't that just 'spontaneous order' in action.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 7:50:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 7:44:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/19/2011 7:32:07 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/19/2011 7:28:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
How about Democracy: The God that failed to someone like myself? I think if the book is convincing enough I might convert to anarchism. My trust in democracy has ultimately failed after watching a Bryan Caplan lecture on "The myth of the rational voter: Why democracy choose bad policies" and it really just destroyed my faith in government. Overall, I think anarchy has its flaws, however if the flaws are less then the flaws in government, then I might join the anarcho-capitalism club.

It is the logical conclusion so I'm not surprised.

There will be flaws in every system, even in the abolition of systems. It's how the system intends to work out the flaws which matters. Within an ancap society, it would be much more efficient and much less coercive.

But wouldn't a state form through spontaneous order anyways? It seems quite logical that a group of similarly like-minded people would form their own society and create their own customs and rules. The society would also likely have their own police force, and public goods included in the package for staying in the area.

I mean, how do you explain the existence of a state in the first place. Colonists came to the United States to form their own societes, and we have a powerful state now. Isn't that just 'spontaneous order' in action.

No, because those people were never in a state of real anarchy. They considered themselves the subjects of the crown of whatever country they were from and accepted a forced system of government as legitimate from the getgo. They were also philosophically behind modern day thinkers and could not have conceived of anarchy as a viable option.

States first evolved thousands of years ago and rarely if ever cropped up out of nowhere within recent history. They changed and expanded mostly through conquest, revolution, and the like.

In modern times, if a society got to the point where the state could be stopped, it would not reemerge for a long time because the ideas people held regarding government and society would have fundamentally changed. You would not have people like the retards on lots of other sites arguing that taxes are really voluntary and you may them because you're a mature, well socialized adult because in an anarchist society this would be correctly regarded as nonsense.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 8:00:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 7:44:06 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/19/2011 7:32:07 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/19/2011 7:28:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
How about Democracy: The God that failed to someone like myself? I think if the book is convincing enough I might convert to anarchism. My trust in democracy has ultimately failed after watching a Bryan Caplan lecture on "The myth of the rational voter: Why democracy choose bad policies" and it really just destroyed my faith in government. Overall, I think anarchy has its flaws, however if the flaws are less then the flaws in government, then I might join the anarcho-capitalism club.

It is the logical conclusion so I'm not surprised.

There will be flaws in every system, even in the abolition of systems. It's how the system intends to work out the flaws which matters. Within an ancap society, it would be much more efficient and much less coercive.

But wouldn't a state form through spontaneous order anyways?

Would it? I cannot assert with 100% certainty either way. The real concern is if the state would succeed in forming within an anarchic society -- which seems quite unlikely.

It seems quite logical that a group of similarly like-minded people would form their own society and create their own customs and rules. The society would also likely have their own police force, and public goods included in the package for staying in the area.

That is how many civilizations have begun. However, in times like these, the chances of them succeeding and actually furthering in development (so they do not remain simply a "village" of some sorts) is quite low. The amount of resources needed to create all that is needed would be enormous and even finding the space to create such a society would be difficult.

I mean, how do you explain the existence of a state in the first place.

Why do I have to? Humans are naturally inclined to exist in collectives -- we're social, not solitary creatures. However, I'm sure they realized it would be much harder to manipulate the collective without force back when the concept of a state was just emerging and anarchy was the norm.

Colonists came to the United States to form their own societes, and we have a powerful state now. Isn't that just 'spontaneous order' in action.

No, it isn't spontaneous. It is logically inconsistent though.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 8:02:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
To supplement grape's analysis...

All modern states I can think of are either residual from pre-technological agricultural societies, or filled the shoes of pre-existing states.

A few families of farmers derping around every 50 miles is very easy for barbarians to take over. This happenstance physical scenario makes it very easy for wandering barbarians to walk around to each little village a couple times a year and collect taxes.

If this scenario ever changes, like if the villages can talk to one another, can move around, can see barbarians coming, can physically group together, and have enough leisure time to ponder Divine Command theory, statism gets a lot weaker.

You can also look at it from the barbarian's perspective. In past times, there weren't a lot of economic options available to people, so criminal activity might be relatively profitable if you do it right. But in the modern era, capital investment has raised the opportunity cost of crime so there's less incentive to resort to it.

Only the very poorest, disorganized and mentally ill members of society now resort to libertarian crimes. Even states mostly do not attack each other, especially civilized states. The PR and trade disaster of attacking a free market group would be devastating... Microstates would not persist if larger states didn't recognize the advantage of non-aggression, at least on the international scale.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 8:03:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 7:01:59 PM, Grape wrote:
Man, Economy, and State with Market and Power is a great book on Austrian economics, but you don't need to subscribe to Austrian economics to be an anarcho-capitalist. It's also really long, and I don't know if anyone on DDO has read all of it.

I have. Multiple times.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 8:05:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 7:50:11 PM, Grape wrote:

No, because those people were never in a state of real anarchy. They considered themselves the subjects of the crown of whatever country they were from and accepted a forced system of government as legitimate from the getgo. They were also philosophically behind modern day thinkers and could not have conceived of anarchy as a viable option.

They also declared independence from Great Britain. They didn't then turn around and say 'alright let's have anarchy now'. True, they might just not have thought of though. However, it appears as if capitalism caught on a lot quicker then communism. Capitalism beat out communism. Why didn't anarchy catch on?

States first evolved thousands of years ago and rarely if ever cropped up out of nowhere within recent history. They changed and expanded mostly through conquest, revolution, and the like.

How CAN a state crop up out of nowhere!? It's impossible since all land is owned by nations. Also, even international waters are regulated.

In modern times, if a society got to the point where the state could be stopped, it would not reemerge for a long time because the ideas people held regarding government and society would have fundamentally changed.

I stated earlier why a state-like society could possibly emerge.

You would not have people like the retards on lots of other sites arguing that taxes are really voluntary and you may them because you're a mature, well socialized adult because in an anarchist society this would be correctly regarded as nonsense.

What if you frame it so that your body and land is contractually owned to the state, in exchange for public goods?

Even if you decide 'I don't want any government services', well you really can't escape them, since many government goods are public goods.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...