Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Minarchy v.s. Anarchy

Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 4:30:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Minarchy

Minarchism is a libertarian capitalist political philosophy which maintains that the state is necessary and that its only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, courts, and legislatures, with some theories also including prisons. Such states are sometimes called night watchman states. Minarchists argue that the state has no right to use its power of coercion (the monopoly on the use of force) to interfere with free transactions between people, and see the state's sole responsibility as ensuring that transactions between private individuals are free. Most minarchists use deontological arguments to justify the nightwatchman state: they claim that a minimal state is good in and of itself and that the use of force or threat of force for anything but defensive purposes is inherently wrong.

v.s.

Anarchy

Anarchism has been variously defined by sources. Most often, the term describes the political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy, while others have defined it as opposing authority in the conduct of human relations. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organization.

Which do you support more?

Why?
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 4:38:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Mini - free rider problem, for one. Though of course, I have big issues with minarchy, but of the two, I like that one better.

My problem, I see no reason to trust companies to have self control and to keep themselve in check (in regards to people's rights), nor do I trust private enforcement companies to accurately protect people's rights. Companies are run for a profit, so if the profit is not inline with rights, the rights get forgotten. When the profit is taken out of the picture (governments are not run for profit), that cuts out some (but not all) bias and conflicting interests.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 4:39:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I really wouldn't mind being charged with the responsibility of my own protection.

That is about the only difference between the anarchy and minarchy here. In one, you are charged with the responsibility of your own protection, and in the other, you aren't.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 4:40:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yet at the same time, states will inevitably rise from a total anarchy situation.

There is no easy answer when it comes to government. Everyone has different priorities.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 4:54:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 4:38:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Mini - free rider problem, for one. Though of course, I have big issues with minarchy, but of the two, I like that one better.

My problem, I see no reason to trust companies to have self control and to keep themselve in check (in regards to people's rights), nor do I trust private enforcement companies to accurately protect people's rights. Companies are run for a profit, so if the profit is not inline with rights, the rights get forgotten. When the profit is taken out of the picture (governments are not run for profit), that cuts out some (but not all) bias and conflicting interests.

You don't need to worry about the companies keeping themselves in check. The government in a minarchy would be there to protect the people. This would include making sure that companies are not doing anything to threaten the health of the people or the environment (as the environment is a health concern for the people). There are different takes on what a good healthy Minarchy would be. To me, it would be a force which only protects the people and environment of the nation, and does not interfere in any other matters. Being as minimalistic as possible, while still efficiently providing it's service to the highest quality.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 4:59:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Who keeps the government in check? At least with private organizations there is variability. If you don't like mcdonalds you can go to burger king. This is a way they are kept in check. But what do you do when the very start is a complete monopoly? Do you just expect the government to always act out of gold will because profit is not mentioned in their mission statement.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 5:03:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 4:59:12 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Who keeps the government in check?

(sings) O! say can't you see? There is de-mo-cra-cy, what so proudly we hailed at its glory so gleaming.

Democracy is a system of checks and balances. The people check the government. Other sections of the government check other sections of the government.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 5:13:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 4:59:12 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Who keeps the government in check?

Voters are suppose to. Government can trick the voters into not keeping them in check, just like companies can trick their customers into not keeping them in check.

At least with private organizations there is variability. If you don't like mcdonalds you can go to burger king. This is a way they are kept in check. But what do you do when the very start is a complete monopoly? Do you just expect the government to always act out of gold will because profit is not mentioned in their mission statement.

There isn't. Just like you can go to a different company, you can go to a different country with a different government.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 5:15:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 4:54:46 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/14/2011 4:38:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Mini - free rider problem, for one. Though of course, I have big issues with minarchy, but of the two, I like that one better.

My problem, I see no reason to trust companies to have self control and to keep themselve in check (in regards to people's rights), nor do I trust private enforcement companies to accurately protect people's rights. Companies are run for a profit, so if the profit is not inline with rights, the rights get forgotten. When the profit is taken out of the picture (governments are not run for profit), that cuts out some (but not all) bias and conflicting interests.

You don't need to worry about the companies keeping themselves in check. The government in a minarchy would be there to protect the people. This would include making sure that companies are not doing anything to threaten the health of the people or the environment (as the environment is a health concern for the people). There are different takes on what a good healthy Minarchy would be. To me, it would be a force which only protects the people and environment of the nation, and does not interfere in any other matters. Being as minimalistic as possible, while still efficiently providing it's service to the highest quality.

From the OP on Minarchy

"only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, courts, and legislatures, with some theories also including prisons."

Where does environmental protection regulations come into that? Also, there is a difference between misleading advertising and legal fraud. Believe me, marketing departments spend millions to get as close to the fraud line as they can without going over.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 5:19:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 4:30:35 PM, Tiel wrote:

Minarchy seems to be the better one to me, with a few modifications. There should be some organization like the WHO (or at least what it's supposed to do), to ensure that research in prevention and cures of diseases takes place. Taxes or user-fees need to be levied on the individuals to fund this along with the judiciary, police and military.

We never know when we are gonna get hit by some deadly virus, and this institution is needed to facilitate a fast and speedy response.

Left in the hands of private organizations, there is a doubt as to whether research will be done irrespective of profit.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 7:13:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 4:38:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Mini - free rider problem, for one. Though of course, I have big issues with minarchy, but of the two, I like that one better.

My problem, I see no reason to trust companies to have self control and to keep themselve in check (in regards to people's rights)

As long as they can't take over the world, I fail to see where you are getting. You cheat and fraud people, you lose customers. Are you arguing against anarchy or minarchy?

, nor do I trust private enforcement companies to accurately protect people's rights.

*Insert one of the numerous examples of government run police brutality here*

Companies are run for a profit, so if the profit is not inline with rights, the rights get forgotten.

Profit=selling stuff. Cheating people=losing customers. Losing Customers=less profit.

When the profit is taken out of the picture (governments are not run for profit), that cuts out some (but not all) bias and conflicting interests.

See above.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 7:14:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 5:15:52 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/14/2011 4:54:46 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/14/2011 4:38:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Mini - free rider problem, for one. Though of course, I have big issues with minarchy, but of the two, I like that one better.

My problem, I see no reason to trust companies to have self control and to keep themselve in check (in regards to people's rights), nor do I trust private enforcement companies to accurately protect people's rights. Companies are run for a profit, so if the profit is not inline with rights, the rights get forgotten. When the profit is taken out of the picture (governments are not run for profit), that cuts out some (but not all) bias and conflicting interests.

You don't need to worry about the companies keeping themselves in check. The government in a minarchy would be there to protect the people. This would include making sure that companies are not doing anything to threaten the health of the people or the environment (as the environment is a health concern for the people). There are different takes on what a good healthy Minarchy would be. To me, it would be a force which only protects the people and environment of the nation, and does not interfere in any other matters. Being as minimalistic as possible, while still efficiently providing it's service to the highest quality.

From the OP on Minarchy

"only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, courts, and legislatures, with some theories also including prisons."

Where does environmental protection regulations come into that?

I believe poisoning someone's body without their consent or knowledge could be aggression.

Also, there is a difference between misleading advertising and legal fraud. Believe me, marketing departments spend millions to get as close to the fraud line as they can without going over.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 7:16:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 4:30:35 PM, Tiel wrote:
Minarchy

Minarchism is a libertarian capitalist political philosophy which maintains that the state is necessary and that its only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, courts, and legislatures, with some theories also including prisons. Such states are sometimes called night watchman states. Minarchists argue that the state has no right to use its power of coercion (the monopoly on the use of force) to interfere with free transactions between people, and see the state's sole responsibility as ensuring that transactions between private individuals are free. Most minarchists use deontological arguments to justify the nightwatchman state: they claim that a minimal state is good in and of itself and that the use of force or threat of force for anything but defensive purposes is inherently wrong.

v.s.

Anarchy

Anarchism has been variously defined by sources. Most often, the term describes the political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy, while others have defined it as opposing authority in the conduct of human relations. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organization.


Which do you support more?

Why?


Minarchy. It doesn't suffer from the problems of anarchy (no national defense, infrastructure, etc)

Also, it seems like there would be more order with minarchy, though my thoughts aren't exactly sure on this.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 7:21:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 5:15:52 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/14/2011 4:54:46 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/14/2011 4:38:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Mini - free rider problem, for one. Though of course, I have big issues with minarchy, but of the two, I like that one better.

My problem, I see no reason to trust companies to have self control and to keep themselve in check (in regards to people's rights), nor do I trust private enforcement companies to accurately protect people's rights. Companies are run for a profit, so if the profit is not inline with rights, the rights get forgotten. When the profit is taken out of the picture (governments are not run for profit), that cuts out some (but not all) bias and conflicting interests.

You don't need to worry about the companies keeping themselves in check. The government in a minarchy would be there to protect the people. This would include making sure that companies are not doing anything to threaten the health of the people or the environment (as the environment is a health concern for the people). There are different takes on what a good healthy Minarchy would be. To me, it would be a force which only protects the people and environment of the nation, and does not interfere in any other matters. Being as minimalistic as possible, while still efficiently providing it's service to the highest quality.

From the OP on Minarchy

"only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, courts, and legislatures, with some theories also including prisons."

Where does environmental protection regulations come into that? Also, there is a difference between misleading advertising and legal fraud. Believe me, marketing departments spend millions to get as close to the fraud line as they can without going over.

I would say that it would need to be added to the list. Would you not call it a Minarchy if you added it to the list? I would. To me, Minarchy is a form of government which is as minimalistic as possible while still providing it's services to the highest quality possible.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 7:22:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 7:13:01 PM, seraine wrote:
At 9/14/2011 4:38:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Mini - free rider problem, for one. Though of course, I have big issues with minarchy, but of the two, I like that one better.

My problem, I see no reason to trust companies to have self control and to keep themselve in check (in regards to people's rights)

As long as they can't take over the world, I fail to see where you are getting. You cheat and fraud people, you lose customers. Are you arguing against anarchy or minarchy?

No, you get caught cheating and frauding customers, you lose them. Big difference. And if all other businesses are also doing it, then big score to you. Recently Verizon raised their break contract fee on smart phones, normally, you'd think that higher cost risk would cause customers to leave verizon, but then all other phone providers followed suit shortly after.


, nor do I trust private enforcement companies to accurately protect people's rights.

*Insert one of the numerous examples of government run police brutality here*

*Insert one of the numerous examples of private citizen brutality, or private military brutality, or violence in anarchy situations.*


Companies are run for a profit, so if the profit is not inline with rights, the rights get forgotten.

Profit=selling stuff. Cheating people=losing customers. Losing Customers=less profit.

Cheating people =/= losing customers. In order to lose customers, two things need to happen.

1) They need to believe that they are being cheated.
2) They need to believe that there is a better alternative.

Also, Losing customer =/= less profits. If you make more from cheating customers, than from what you lost from lost customers, you still come out ahead.


When the profit is taken out of the picture (governments are not run for profit), that cuts out some (but not all) bias and conflicting interests.

See above.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 7:26:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 4:30:35 PM, Tiel wrote:
Minarchy

Minarchism is a libertarian capitalist political philosophy which maintains that the state is necessary and that its only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, courts, and legislatures, with some theories also including prisons. Such states are sometimes called night watchman states. Minarchists argue that the state has no right to use its power of coercion (the monopoly on the use of force) to interfere with free transactions between people, and see the state's sole responsibility as ensuring that transactions between private individuals are free. Most minarchists use deontological arguments to justify the nightwatchman state: they claim that a minimal state is good in and of itself and that the use of force or threat of force for anything but defensive purposes is inherently wrong.

v.s.

Anarchy

Anarchism has been variously defined by sources. Most often, the term describes the political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy, while others have defined it as opposing authority in the conduct of human relations. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organization.


Which do you support more?

Why?


I give 100% support to Minarchy. I cannot think of a better form of government in my opinion. A minimalistic government that protects it's people and the environment.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 7:28:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 7:14:36 PM, seraine wrote:
At 9/14/2011 5:15:52 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/14/2011 4:54:46 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/14/2011 4:38:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Mini - free rider problem, for one. Though of course, I have big issues with minarchy, but of the two, I like that one better.

My problem, I see no reason to trust companies to have self control and to keep themselve in check (in regards to people's rights), nor do I trust private enforcement companies to accurately protect people's rights. Companies are run for a profit, so if the profit is not inline with rights, the rights get forgotten. When the profit is taken out of the picture (governments are not run for profit), that cuts out some (but not all) bias and conflicting interests.

You don't need to worry about the companies keeping themselves in check. The government in a minarchy would be there to protect the people. This would include making sure that companies are not doing anything to threaten the health of the people or the environment (as the environment is a health concern for the people). There are different takes on what a good healthy Minarchy would be. To me, it would be a force which only protects the people and environment of the nation, and does not interfere in any other matters. Being as minimalistic as possible, while still efficiently providing it's service to the highest quality.

From the OP on Minarchy

"only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, courts, and legislatures, with some theories also including prisons."

Where does environmental protection regulations come into that?

I believe poisoning someone's body without their consent or knowledge could be aggression.

That is a very minor aspect of "environmental protection." Is it safe to assume that the "environmental protection" of which you speak does not cover regulations against deforestation, carbon dixoide emissions, loose limits on rivier pollution, destruction of natural habits, preserving endangered speicies, etc?

It can also be difficult to prove that your sickness came from my pollution (pending the degree I'm polluting). If I dump waste into a river downstream from a town, then that waste is going to be so far diluted by the time it gets to the next town, I have a strong scientific case that my pollution would not be enough to make a baby sick.


Also, there is a difference between misleading advertising and legal fraud. Believe me, marketing departments spend millions to get as close to the fraud line as they can without going over.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 7:29:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 7:21:49 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/14/2011 5:15:52 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/14/2011 4:54:46 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/14/2011 4:38:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Mini - free rider problem, for one. Though of course, I have big issues with minarchy, but of the two, I like that one better.

My problem, I see no reason to trust companies to have self control and to keep themselve in check (in regards to people's rights), nor do I trust private enforcement companies to accurately protect people's rights. Companies are run for a profit, so if the profit is not inline with rights, the rights get forgotten. When the profit is taken out of the picture (governments are not run for profit), that cuts out some (but not all) bias and conflicting interests.

You don't need to worry about the companies keeping themselves in check. The government in a minarchy would be there to protect the people. This would include making sure that companies are not doing anything to threaten the health of the people or the environment (as the environment is a health concern for the people). There are different takes on what a good healthy Minarchy would be. To me, it would be a force which only protects the people and environment of the nation, and does not interfere in any other matters. Being as minimalistic as possible, while still efficiently providing it's service to the highest quality.

From the OP on Minarchy

"only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, courts, and legislatures, with some theories also including prisons."

Where does environmental protection regulations come into that? Also, there is a difference between misleading advertising and legal fraud. Believe me, marketing departments spend millions to get as close to the fraud line as they can without going over.

I would say that it would need to be added to the list. Would you not call it a Minarchy if you added it to the list? I would. To me, Minarchy is a form of government which is as minimalistic as possible while still providing it's services to the highest quality possible.

That's the problem. Simply saying "add that to the list" is what got us where we are now. If your idea of "minimal government" is "all the stuff I want and nothing that I don't want" than I'm a minarchist too (how many people on this site buy that?).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
dogmatic
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 7:31:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Minarchy

Anarchy is a large crock of BS. Free rider as previously mentioned as well as police force problem. Monopolies, cartels (price fixing), benefits of monetary policy, admin costs of certain user-fee situations vs taxation.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 7:42:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 7:29:28 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/14/2011 7:21:49 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/14/2011 5:15:52 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/14/2011 4:54:46 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/14/2011 4:38:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Mini - free rider problem, for one. Though of course, I have big issues with minarchy, but of the two, I like that one better.

My problem, I see no reason to trust companies to have self control and to keep themselve in check (in regards to people's rights), nor do I trust private enforcement companies to accurately protect people's rights. Companies are run for a profit, so if the profit is not inline with rights, the rights get forgotten. When the profit is taken out of the picture (governments are not run for profit), that cuts out some (but not all) bias and conflicting interests.

You don't need to worry about the companies keeping themselves in check. The government in a minarchy would be there to protect the people. This would include making sure that companies are not doing anything to threaten the health of the people or the environment (as the environment is a health concern for the people). There are different takes on what a good healthy Minarchy would be. To me, it would be a force which only protects the people and environment of the nation, and does not interfere in any other matters. Being as minimalistic as possible, while still efficiently providing it's service to the highest quality.

From the OP on Minarchy

"only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, courts, and legislatures, with some theories also including prisons."

Where does environmental protection regulations come into that? Also, there is a difference between misleading advertising and legal fraud. Believe me, marketing departments spend millions to get as close to the fraud line as they can without going over.

I would say that it would need to be added to the list. Would you not call it a Minarchy if you added it to the list? I would. To me, Minarchy is a form of government which is as minimalistic as possible while still providing it's services to the highest quality possible.

That's the problem. Simply saying "add that to the list" is what got us where we are now. If your idea of "minimal government" is "all the stuff I want and nothing that I don't want" than I'm a minarchist too (how many people on this site buy that?).

It's not about what you want or I want. I meant that MY version of Minarchy would include it on the list. I wouldn't just keep adding things. Environmental protection is a big issue, not something to be scoffed at as "just another thing added to the list".

In my version, I would also add an equal flat tax. This tax would pay for public domains, government agencies, and infrastructures. Like I said, the goal is to keep everything as minimalistic as possible in my version while still providing it's necessary services to the highest sustainable quality.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 7:45:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 7:22:09 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/14/2011 7:13:01 PM, seraine wrote:
At 9/14/2011 4:38:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Mini - free rider problem, for one. Though of course, I have big issues with minarchy, but of the two, I like that one better.

My problem, I see no reason to trust companies to have self control and to keep themselve in check (in regards to people's rights)

As long as they can't take over the world, I fail to see where you are getting. You cheat and fraud people, you lose customers. Are you arguing against anarchy or minarchy?

No, you get caught cheating and frauding customers, you lose them. Big difference. And if all other businesses are also doing it, then big score to you. Recently Verizon raised their break contract fee on smart phones, normally, you'd think that higher cost risk would cause customers to leave verizon, but then all other phone providers followed suit shortly after.

That's not exactly cheating and fraud... It's just bad customer service. At worst, it is a minor failing when companies fail to do the thing that's best for them.


, nor do I trust private enforcement companies to accurately protect people's rights.

*Insert one of the numerous examples of government run police brutality here*

*Insert one of the numerous examples of private citizen brutality, or private military brutality, or violence in anarchy situations.*

Why do you trust one over the other? I would not say I am all for private security, but I think I would prefer private security due to the fact that it can be held way more accountable than public security. I think I would probably choose some sort of hybrid.


Companies are run for a profit, so if the profit is not inline with rights, the rights get forgotten.

Profit=selling stuff. Cheating people=losing customers. Losing Customers=less profit.

Cheating people =/= losing customers. In order to lose customers, two things need to happen.

1) They need to believe that they are being cheated.
2) They need to believe that there is a better alternative.

Also, Losing customer =/= less profits. If you make more from cheating customers, than from what you lost from lost customers, you still come out ahead.

Also, I do believe in fraud laws and that businesses should be held accountable for giving people harmful products without knowledge. (i.e. I'm fine with tobacco companies, but not with people selling medicine with no mention of side effects and such)


When the profit is taken out of the picture (governments are not run for profit), that cuts out some (but not all) bias and conflicting interests.

See above.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 8:11:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 5:13:25 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/14/2011 4:59:12 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Who keeps the government in check?

Voters are suppose to. Government can trick the voters into not keeping them in check, just like companies can trick their customers into not keeping them in check.

So if both systems are prone to human error, why is a monopoly system preferable to a system where corporations must put out a valuable service to attract customers.

At least with private organizations there is variability. If you don't like mcdonalds you can go to burger king. This is a way they are kept in check. But what do you do when the very start is a complete monopoly? Do you just expect the government to always act out of gold will because profit is not mentioned in their mission statement.

There isn't. Just like you can go to a different company, you can go to a different country with a different government.

Companies generally justifiable own their property. Government's only own anything through aggressive expropriation. So your statement operates on the false assumption that a government is justified in operating over a given geographical area in the first place.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 8:14:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 5:03:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/14/2011 4:59:12 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Who keeps the government in check?

(sings) O! say can't you see? There is de-mo-cra-cy, what so proudly we hailed at its glory so gleaming.

Democracy is a system of checks and balances. The people check the government. Other sections of the government check other sections of the government.

So people voting to control other people's lives is preferable to people generally planning for themselves or voluntarily forming groups to protect themselves? K.

And if you asked me what kept Nike from exploiting Asian children in sweat shops and you responded that Nike has a department that keeps them in check, would you or any moderately sane person buy it? It seems like your engaging in special pleading for government then.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 8:19:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 8:11:51 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/14/2011 5:13:25 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/14/2011 4:59:12 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Who keeps the government in check?

Voters are suppose to. Government can trick the voters into not keeping them in check, just like companies can trick their customers into not keeping them in check.

So if both systems are prone to human error, why is a monopoly system preferable to a system where corporations must put out a valuable service to attract customers.

At least with private organizations there is variability. If you don't like mcdonalds you can go to burger king. This is a way they are kept in check. But what do you do when the very start is a complete monopoly? Do you just expect the government to always act out of gold will because profit is not mentioned in their mission statement.

There isn't. Just like you can go to a different company, you can go to a different country with a different government.

Companies generally justifiable own their property. Government's only own anything through aggressive expropriation. So your statement operates on the false assumption that a government is justified in operating over a given geographical area in the first place.

It is justified. Did you take over the land and form America? No, you didn't. The people who did create America formed the government and they are the justifiable owners of the land (if you exclude the Native Americans). You aren't spouted from the womb entitled to anything. The government owns everything, you work in coordination with the government to agree on a little piece of the pie for yourself (and still have to pay property taxes). The government owns everything around you and justifiably so. They earned it. If you want to truly own something then go start your own revolution and win your own little piece of the world. See how well that works for you. The government is justified in owning a geographical area. It's justified because it won the land centuries ago and has the power to defend what it won.

I don't like it, but it's the truth. The government needs to be redesigned, but it's not all bad. It's needed.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 8:37:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 8:19:57 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/14/2011 8:11:51 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/14/2011 5:13:25 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/14/2011 4:59:12 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Who keeps the government in check?

Voters are suppose to. Government can trick the voters into not keeping them in check, just like companies can trick their customers into not keeping them in check.

So if both systems are prone to human error, why is a monopoly system preferable to a system where corporations must put out a valuable service to attract customers.

At least with private organizations there is variability. If you don't like mcdonalds you can go to burger king. This is a way they are kept in check. But what do you do when the very start is a complete monopoly? Do you just expect the government to always act out of gold will because profit is not mentioned in their mission statement.

There isn't. Just like you can go to a different company, you can go to a different country with a different government.

Companies generally justifiable own their property. Government's only own anything through aggressive expropriation. So your statement operates on the false assumption that a government is justified in operating over a given geographical area in the first place.

It is justified. Did you take over the land and form America? No, you didn't. The people who did create America formed the government and they are the justifiable owners of the land (if you exclude the Native Americans). You aren't spouted from the womb entitled to anything. The government owns everything, you work in coordination with the government to agree on a little piece of the pie for yourself (and still have to pay property taxes). The government owns everything around you and justifiably so. They earned it. If you want to truly own something then go start your own revolution and win your own little piece of the world. See how well that works for you. The government is justified in owning a geographical area. It's justified because it won the land centuries ago and has the power to defend what it won.

I don't like it, but it's the truth. The government needs to be redesigned, but it's not all bad. It's needed.

Isn't the government supposed to serve the people?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 8:39:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 8:19:57 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/14/2011 8:11:51 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/14/2011 5:13:25 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/14/2011 4:59:12 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Who keeps the government in check?

Voters are suppose to. Government can trick the voters into not keeping them in check, just like companies can trick their customers into not keeping them in check.

So if both systems are prone to human error, why is a monopoly system preferable to a system where corporations must put out a valuable service to attract customers.

At least with private organizations there is variability. If you don't like mcdonalds you can go to burger king. This is a way they are kept in check. But what do you do when the very start is a complete monopoly? Do you just expect the government to always act out of gold will because profit is not mentioned in their mission statement.

There isn't. Just like you can go to a different company, you can go to a different country with a different government.

Companies generally justifiable own their property. Government's only own anything through aggressive expropriation. So your statement operates on the false assumption that a government is justified in operating over a given geographical area in the first place.

It is justified. Did you take over the land and form America? No, you didn't. The people who did create America formed the government and they are the justifiable owners of the land (if you exclude the Native Americans). You aren't spouted from the womb entitled to anything. The government owns everything, you work in coordination with the government to agree on a little piece of the pie for yourself (and still have to pay property taxes). The government owns everything around you and justifiably so. They earned it. If you want to truly own something then go start your own revolution and win your own little piece of the world. See how well that works for you. The government is justified in owning a geographical area. It's justified because it won the land centuries ago and has the power to defend what it won.

Killing and stealing to obtain something =/= justifiable owning it.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 8:40:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The government is supposed to serve the people, but some people (to which I always want to insult) believe that government should go all together, forgetting the necessity of government, forgetting that removing something is not always the best way to fix it, and forgetting the obvious evils that could arise in their ridiculous and convoluted alternatives.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 8:41:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 8:37:09 PM, seraine wrote:
At 9/14/2011 8:19:57 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/14/2011 8:11:51 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/14/2011 5:13:25 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/14/2011 4:59:12 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Who keeps the government in check?

Voters are suppose to. Government can trick the voters into not keeping them in check, just like companies can trick their customers into not keeping them in check.

So if both systems are prone to human error, why is a monopoly system preferable to a system where corporations must put out a valuable service to attract customers.

At least with private organizations there is variability. If you don't like mcdonalds you can go to burger king. This is a way they are kept in check. But what do you do when the very start is a complete monopoly? Do you just expect the government to always act out of gold will because profit is not mentioned in their mission statement.

There isn't. Just like you can go to a different company, you can go to a different country with a different government.

Companies generally justifiable own their property. Government's only own anything through aggressive expropriation. So your statement operates on the false assumption that a government is justified in operating over a given geographical area in the first place.

It is justified. Did you take over the land and form America? No, you didn't. The people who did create America formed the government and they are the justifiable owners of the land (if you exclude the Native Americans). You aren't spouted from the womb entitled to anything. The government owns everything, you work in coordination with the government to agree on a little piece of the pie for yourself (and still have to pay property taxes). The government owns everything around you and justifiably so. They earned it. If you want to truly own something then go start your own revolution and win your own little piece of the world. See how well that works for you. The government is justified in owning a geographical area. It's justified because it won the land centuries ago and has the power to defend what it won.

I don't like it, but it's the truth. The government needs to be redesigned, but it's not all bad. It's needed.

Isn't the government supposed to serve the people?

It does, for without the people it could not exist.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 8:49:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 8:40:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
The government is supposed to serve the people, but some people (to which I always want to insult) believe that government should go all together,

It's not that we dislike the government, just that we think theft and murder are wrong. I know right, silly fvcking anarchists.

forgetting the necessity of government,

For what exactly?

forgetting that removing something is not always the best way to fix it,

In this case yes it is. No one argues that the way to fix the problem of theft is just to steal less or give the loot to those deserving. They say theft should fvcking end.

and forgetting the obvious evils that could arise in their ridiculous and convoluted alternatives.

Such as? Enlighten me.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 8:50:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 8:41:35 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/14/2011 8:37:09 PM, seraine wrote:
At 9/14/2011 8:19:57 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/14/2011 8:11:51 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/14/2011 5:13:25 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/14/2011 4:59:12 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Who keeps the government in check?

Voters are suppose to. Government can trick the voters into not keeping them in check, just like companies can trick their customers into not keeping them in check.

So if both systems are prone to human error, why is a monopoly system preferable to a system where corporations must put out a valuable service to attract customers.

At least with private organizations there is variability. If you don't like mcdonalds you can go to burger king. This is a way they are kept in check. But what do you do when the very start is a complete monopoly? Do you just expect the government to always act out of gold will because profit is not mentioned in their mission statement.

There isn't. Just like you can go to a different company, you can go to a different country with a different government.

Companies generally justifiable own their property. Government's only own anything through aggressive expropriation. So your statement operates on the false assumption that a government is justified in operating over a given geographical area in the first place.

It is justified. Did you take over the land and form America? No, you didn't. The people who did create America formed the government and they are the justifiable owners of the land (if you exclude the Native Americans). You aren't spouted from the womb entitled to anything. The government owns everything, you work in coordination with the government to agree on a little piece of the pie for yourself (and still have to pay property taxes). The government owns everything around you and justifiably so. They earned it. If you want to truly own something then go start your own revolution and win your own little piece of the world. See how well that works for you. The government is justified in owning a geographical area. It's justified because it won the land centuries ago and has the power to defend what it won.

I don't like it, but it's the truth. The government needs to be redesigned, but it's not all bad. It's needed.

Isn't the government supposed to serve the people?

It does, for without the people it could not exist.

A leech could not exist without it's host but it is in no way serving that which it bleeds dry.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.