Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Anarcho-Capitalism Valid? Why (not)?

DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 8:39:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Now, I obviously know that many, if not most or all, of the anarchists on here are anarcho-capitalists (I used to be one too. It didn't take).

However, I notice that a big part of the "anarchist community," if such a thing could be called so, seems to equate anarchism with a rejection of capitalism as well. From Reddit's Anarchism section:

"Anarchism is a social movement that seeks to abolish oppressive systems. Anarchists advocate a self-managed, classless, stateless society where everyone takes collective responsibility for the health and prosperity of their community."

Hardly the individualism and generally capitalistic ideals of Voluntarism, eh? I know this thread could easily get shut down at a "yes," but I'd like a longer justification as to WHY capitalism can or should be combined with anarchism.

I personally feel that capitalism is, in a sense, a natural extension of an unplanned economy--as we would likely see in an anarchistic society. At the same time, I see why many people place anarchism and socialistic ideals together.

tl;dr: This thread was put up for anarcho-capitalists to justify why capitalism is compatible with anarchism. To offer it up as a focus question:

Does anarchism necessitate the rejection of capitalism? Why (not)?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 9:50:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 8:39:16 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Now, I obviously know that many, if not most or all, of the anarchists on here are anarcho-capitalists (I used to be one too. It didn't take).

However, I notice that a big part of the "anarchist community," if such a thing could be called so, seems to equate anarchism with a rejection of capitalism as well. From Reddit's Anarchism section:

"Anarchism is a social movement that seeks to abolish oppressive systems. Anarchists advocate a self-managed, classless, stateless society where everyone takes collective responsibility for the health and prosperity of their community."

Hardly the individualism and generally capitalistic ideals of Voluntarism, eh? I know this thread could easily get shut down at a "yes," but I'd like a longer justification as to WHY capitalism can or should be combined with anarchism.

I personally feel that capitalism is, in a sense, a natural extension of an unplanned economy--as we would likely see in an anarchistic society. At the same time, I see why many people place anarchism and socialistic ideals together.

tl;dr: This thread was put up for anarcho-capitalists to justify why capitalism is compatible with anarchism. To offer it up as a focus question:

Does anarchism necessitate the rejection of capitalism? Why (not)?

I think this debate is going to boil down to whether a capitalist society is coercive or not. If some transactions can be considered coercive, then it violates anarchist principles. Others will likely say that with the absence of government, true capitalism can be achieved in which all transactions are voluntary and non-coercive.

In my opinion it does, capitalism must be rejected. An anarcho-capitalist society would not be a free society at all, but an authoritarian one with little to no liberty at all. Capitalism, like any institution, is necessarily based on rules and power. I think the Constitution does a good job at balancing out those rules and power.
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 10:29:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It doesn't matter what the idea is called, so debating that is pointless. The fact that we can imagine it, describe it in a way others understand, and then discuss its points is what matters.
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 10:31:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And the fact that some companies neglectfully pollute the environment should be evidence that we need restrictions on them.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 10:37:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 10:31:15 PM, APB wrote:
And the fact that some companies neglectfully pollute the environment should be evidence that we need restrictions on them.

Why is it evidence? Would a company not look for environmental solutions as a means of increasing consumer popularity and increasing long-term efficiency? Why does a monocentric monopoly on violence need to force it to do things?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:29:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 10:37:11 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:31:15 PM, APB wrote:
And the fact that some companies neglectfully pollute the environment should be evidence that we need restrictions on them.

Why is it evidence? Would a company not look for environmental solutions as a means of increasing consumer popularity and increasing long-term efficiency? Why does a monocentric monopoly on violence need to force it to do things?

Why not pollute the environment for short-term gain and leave somebody else to deal with the problem? Libertarianism only works if everybody is an intelligent, considerate, long-term thinker. All it needs is one idiot to screw everything up. Last time I checked, the world was full of idiots.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:46:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 11:29:00 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:37:11 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:31:15 PM, APB wrote:
And the fact that some companies neglectfully pollute the environment should be evidence that we need restrictions on them.

Why is it evidence? Would a company not look for environmental solutions as a means of increasing consumer popularity and increasing long-term efficiency? Why does a monocentric monopoly on violence need to force it to do things?

Why not pollute the environment for short-term gain and leave somebody else to deal with the problem? Libertarianism only works if everybody is an intelligent, considerate, long-term thinker. All it needs is one idiot to screw everything up. Last time I checked, the world was full of idiots.

Libertarianism only works if there are distinct and strictly enforced property rights. Property rights are not enforced now, and that is why pollution in huge amounts is allowed. If there is a private company that owns the area into which you are polluting, there would be a huge incentive for the polluter to innovate his production process.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
FolkCat1234
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 11:21:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, the problem with anarchism in the first place is that inevitably humanity will reorganize itself once again into governments. If we were to sustain a period of no government, it would by definition be pure and unadulterated capitalism, which even I, the crazy libertarian freak (according to my liberal friend) acknowledge as chaos. So, yes, anarcho-capitalism IS valid, but it doesn't last, so therefore it is also INvalid. One of the more interesting sections of Nineteen Eighty-Four talks about the endless struggle between the High, Middle, and Low. The Low and the Middle inevitably rise up against the High, with the Middle becoming the new High, the Low getting shunted back to their old spot, and the new Middle being formed from the old High. Humans are somewhat animalistic and will, if pressured, resort to violence to gain a better spot on the social and economic hierarchy. That is exactly why anarchy would work for a few years, and when the dust settles, a new, proto-government rises up and reverts society back to how it was before the anarchy.
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 4:01:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 11:46:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:29:00 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:37:11 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:31:15 PM, APB wrote:
And the fact that some companies neglectfully pollute the environment should be evidence that we need restrictions on them.

Why is it evidence? Would a company not look for environmental solutions as a means of increasing consumer popularity and increasing long-term efficiency? Why does a monocentric monopoly on violence need to force it to do things?

Why not pollute the environment for short-term gain and leave somebody else to deal with the problem? Libertarianism only works if everybody is an intelligent, considerate, long-term thinker. All it needs is one idiot to screw everything up. Last time I checked, the world was full of idiots.

Libertarianism only works if there are distinct and strictly enforced property rights. Property rights are not enforced now, and that is why pollution in huge amounts is allowed. If there is a private company that owns the area into which you are polluting, there would be a huge incentive for the polluter to innovate his production process.

Again, you assume that everybody is intelligent enough to make that decision. And who's going to enforce property rights when nobody's paying for a police force?
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 4:44:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/5/2013 4:01:40 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:46:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:29:00 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:37:11 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:31:15 PM, APB wrote:
And the fact that some companies neglectfully pollute the environment should be evidence that we need restrictions on them.

Why is it evidence? Would a company not look for environmental solutions as a means of increasing consumer popularity and increasing long-term efficiency? Why does a monocentric monopoly on violence need to force it to do things?

Why not pollute the environment for short-term gain and leave somebody else to deal with the problem? Libertarianism only works if everybody is an intelligent, considerate, long-term thinker. All it needs is one idiot to screw everything up. Last time I checked, the world was full of idiots.

Libertarianism only works if there are distinct and strictly enforced property rights. Property rights are not enforced now, and that is why pollution in huge amounts is allowed. If there is a private company that owns the area into which you are polluting, there would be a huge incentive for the polluter to innovate his production process.

Again, you assume that everybody is intelligent enough to make that decision. And who's going to enforce property rights when nobody's paying for a police force?

Multicentric means of arbitration and security.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 5:36:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/5/2013 4:44:00 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 4/5/2013 4:01:40 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:46:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:29:00 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:37:11 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:31:15 PM, APB wrote:
And the fact that some companies neglectfully pollute the environment should be evidence that we need restrictions on them.

Why is it evidence? Would a company not look for environmental solutions as a means of increasing consumer popularity and increasing long-term efficiency? Why does a monocentric monopoly on violence need to force it to do things?

Why not pollute the environment for short-term gain and leave somebody else to deal with the problem? Libertarianism only works if everybody is an intelligent, considerate, long-term thinker. All it needs is one idiot to screw everything up. Last time I checked, the world was full of idiots.

Libertarianism only works if there are distinct and strictly enforced property rights. Property rights are not enforced now, and that is why pollution in huge amounts is allowed. If there is a private company that owns the area into which you are polluting, there would be a huge incentive for the polluter to innovate his production process.

Again, you assume that everybody is intelligent enough to make that decision. And who's going to enforce property rights when nobody's paying for a police force?

Multicentric means of arbitration and security.

That sounds a lot more badass than what I was going to say. lol
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 5:57:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/5/2013 4:44:00 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 4/5/2013 4:01:40 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:46:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:29:00 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:37:11 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:31:15 PM, APB wrote:
And the fact that some companies neglectfully pollute the environment should be evidence that we need restrictions on them.

Why is it evidence? Would a company not look for environmental solutions as a means of increasing consumer popularity and increasing long-term efficiency? Why does a monocentric monopoly on violence need to force it to do things?

Why not pollute the environment for short-term gain and leave somebody else to deal with the problem? Libertarianism only works if everybody is an intelligent, considerate, long-term thinker. All it needs is one idiot to screw everything up. Last time I checked, the world was full of idiots.

Libertarianism only works if there are distinct and strictly enforced property rights. Property rights are not enforced now, and that is why pollution in huge amounts is allowed. If there is a private company that owns the area into which you are polluting, there would be a huge incentive for the polluter to innovate his production process.

Again, you assume that everybody is intelligent enough to make that decision. And who's going to enforce property rights when nobody's paying for a police force?

Multicentric means of arbitration and security.

In other words, you have warlords hiring mercenaries to enforce their land claims. That didn't work in the Dark Ages, why would it work now?
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 6:35:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 11:46:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Libertarianism only works if there are distinct and strictly enforced property rights. Property rights are not enforced now, and that is why pollution in huge amounts is allowed. If there is a private company that owns the area into which you are polluting, there would be a huge incentive for the polluter to innovate his production process.

Who owns the air, Lordknukle? What about the oceans? If MegaCorp owns the air, do I have to pay a fee? If no one owns the air, what's stopping them from polluting however much they wish? Moreover, how do you tie specific property damage to a specific company?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 1:15:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 10:37:11 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:31:15 PM, APB wrote:
And the fact that some companies neglectfully pollute the environment should be evidence that we need restrictions on them.

Why is it evidence? Would a company not look for environmental solutions as a means of increasing consumer popularity and increasing long-term efficiency? Why does a monocentric monopoly on violence need to force it to do things?

Dust bowl.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 1:19:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/5/2013 6:35:14 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:46:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Libertarianism only works if there are distinct and strictly enforced property rights. Property rights are not enforced now, and that is why pollution in huge amounts is allowed. If there is a private company that owns the area into which you are polluting, there would be a huge incentive for the polluter to innovate his production process.

Who owns the air, Lordknukle? What about the oceans? If MegaCorp owns the air, do I have to pay a fee? If no one owns the air, what's stopping them from polluting however much they wish? Moreover, how do you tie specific property damage to a specific company?

Well as I'm not an anarchist I cannot answer all of these questions, but its my understanding that Air cannot be owned as its not limited and scarce, and polluting the air (and hence, someone else'sbody/property) would be considered if its severe enough. How that threshold is determined I have no idea.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 1:27:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 1:19:29 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/5/2013 6:35:14 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:46:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Libertarianism only works if there are distinct and strictly enforced property rights. Property rights are not enforced now, and that is why pollution in huge amounts is allowed. If there is a private company that owns the area into which you are polluting, there would be a huge incentive for the polluter to innovate his production process.

Who owns the air, Lordknukle? What about the oceans? If MegaCorp owns the air, do I have to pay a fee? If no one owns the air, what's stopping them from polluting however much they wish? Moreover, how do you tie specific property damage to a specific company?

Well as I'm not an anarchist I cannot answer all of these questions, but its my understanding that Air cannot be owned as its not limited and scarce, and polluting the air (and hence, someone else'sbody/property) would be considered if its severe enough. How that threshold is determined I have no idea.

Some concepts would be that you own the air space over your property (but not the actual particles of air). So any pollution that enters your air space and negatively effects you or your property would be a transgression.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 1:31:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/5/2013 4:44:00 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 4/5/2013 4:01:40 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:46:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/4/2013 11:29:00 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:37:11 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:31:15 PM, APB wrote:
And the fact that some companies neglectfully pollute the environment should be evidence that we need restrictions on them.

Why is it evidence? Would a company not look for environmental solutions as a means of increasing consumer popularity and increasing long-term efficiency? Why does a monocentric monopoly on violence need to force it to do things?

Why not pollute the environment for short-term gain and leave somebody else to deal with the problem? Libertarianism only works if everybody is an intelligent, considerate, long-term thinker. All it needs is one idiot to screw everything up. Last time I checked, the world was full of idiots.

Libertarianism only works if there are distinct and strictly enforced property rights. Property rights are not enforced now, and that is why pollution in huge amounts is allowed. If there is a private company that owns the area into which you are polluting, there would be a huge incentive for the polluter to innovate his production process.

Again, you assume that everybody is intelligent enough to make that decision. And who's going to enforce property rights when nobody's paying for a police force?

Multicentric means of arbitration and security.

All arbitration must be pre-agreed to before any dispute (after the dispute, no one will agree to anything, that is why there is an arbitration clause in every contract you sign into). Company's hand pick arbitration companies that will favor them. And arbitration companies have a motivation to do so, as it is the company that is bringing in the business, not the individual customer. Every for profit company knows that you cannot bite the hand that feeds you.

As such, basic market forces will ensure that there isn't justice and that there is no fair arbitration.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 1:42:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 1:15:35 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:37:11 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:31:15 PM, APB wrote:
And the fact that some companies neglectfully pollute the environment should be evidence that we need restrictions on them.

Why is it evidence? Would a company not look for environmental solutions as a means of increasing consumer popularity and increasing long-term efficiency? Why does a monocentric monopoly on violence need to force it to do things?

Dust bowl.

Let me expand upon this. The Dust bowl in 1935 was caused by poor farming techniques which over farmed the land without giving it time to recoup. This was driven by the market. Since the solution is rotating your croplands, that means you need to have more land than you are farming, and have some of it not growing crops (and so not making money). Any farmer that did this sustainable practice was shorting themselves, since other farmers could produce more from the same acreage, they could charge less and the sustainable farmer would be put out of business (thus leaving only the unsustainable practices continuing).

That is the most prominent example of how an open market is blind towards the future and only focuses on what fits with the current supply and demand. There is no market driven reason for a businessman to take business practices that are more sustainable than his own life. If something is unsustainable for more than 500 years, there is no reason for a businessman to worry about it. No reason for him to sacrifice his money or profit to deal with it, since he won't be facing the consequences (all market forces focus on risk/cost vs reward, so if the cost is accrued after you die, that is as good as no cost).

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org...
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org...
http://www.pbs.org... (catch this if you can in a few weeks)
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 9:45:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 1:27:13 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/7/2013 1:19:29 AM, thett3 wrote:
Well as I'm not an anarchist I cannot answer all of these questions, but its my understanding that Air cannot be owned as its not limited and scarce, and polluting the air (and hence, someone else'sbody/property) would be considered if its severe enough. How that threshold is determined I have no idea.

Some concepts would be that you own the air space over your property (but not the actual particles of air). So any pollution that enters your air space and negatively effects you or your property would be a transgression.

I'd still like to know, then, how you determine whose pollution it is.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 11:20:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 1:42:41 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/7/2013 1:15:35 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:37:11 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:31:15 PM, APB wrote:
And the fact that some companies neglectfully pollute the environment should be evidence that we need restrictions on them.

Why is it evidence? Would a company not look for environmental solutions as a means of increasing consumer popularity and increasing long-term efficiency? Why does a monocentric monopoly on violence need to force it to do things?

Dust bowl.

Let me expand upon this. The Dust bowl in 1935 was caused by poor farming techniques which over farmed the land without giving it time to recoup. This was driven by the market. Since the solution is rotating your croplands, that means you need to have more land than you are farming, and have some of it not growing crops (and so not making money). Any farmer that did this sustainable practice was shorting themselves, since other farmers could produce more from the same acreage, they could charge less and the sustainable farmer would be put out of business (thus leaving only the unsustainable practices continuing).

That is the most prominent example of how an open market is blind towards the future and only focuses on what fits with the current supply and demand. There is no market driven reason for a businessman to take business practices that are more sustainable than his own life. If something is unsustainable for more than 500 years, there is no reason for a businessman to worry about it. No reason for him to sacrifice his money or profit to deal with it, since he won't be facing the consequences (all market forces focus on risk/cost vs reward, so if the cost is accrued after you die, that is as good as no cost).

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org...
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org...
http://www.pbs.org... (catch this if you can in a few weeks)

I would say that it was more due to ignorance among the farming community. The thing is that growing without crop rotation is much less profitable in the long run because as the nitrogen in the soil is depleted plants become stunted and yields drop dramatically. This isn't over several generations, you can easily watch it happen in a single lifetime. And it's not like crop rotations are a zero-production enterprise. When one plants soybeans the crop fixes nitrogen (since it is a legume) while also providing a harvest. Alfalfa provides a hay crop, various early-season crops can be planted and plowed under without intruding upon the harvesting of a later crop. The solution wasn't mandates, it was education (which was provided as well). Basically you had a bunch of people applying farming practices to an environment which they were not relevant to, and sabotaging their own profitability in the process.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 11:22:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 9:45:45 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 4/7/2013 1:27:13 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/7/2013 1:19:29 AM, thett3 wrote:
Well as I'm not an anarchist I cannot answer all of these questions, but its my understanding that Air cannot be owned as its not limited and scarce, and polluting the air (and hence, someone else'sbody/property) would be considered if its severe enough. How that threshold is determined I have no idea.

Some concepts would be that you own the air space over your property (but not the actual particles of air). So any pollution that enters your air space and negatively effects you or your property would be a transgression.

I'd still like to know, then, how you determine whose pollution it is.

It really wouldn't be that hard. Test the air, take into account wind speeds and directions, sample smokestacks to match up the chemical composition, map out the distribution of air pollution over time, and it would be pretty clear where it's coming from.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 11:54:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Humans are inherently tribal. That's the one thing that anthropologists agree upon. Put a bunch of people together and soon they will form a government that imposes and enforces rules. The few examples of "anarchy" working are when a government is overthrown but the people continue on with the rules inculcated in society.

Anarchists on this site seem to favor socialism on every issue presented to them. It's old-fashioned Communism reworked for a new generation.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 12:40:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 11:54:45 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Humans are inherently tribal. That's the one thing that anthropologists agree upon. Put a bunch of people together and soon they will form a government that imposes and enforces rules. The few examples of "anarchy" working are when a government is overthrown but the people continue on with the rules inculcated in society.

Anarchists on this site seem to favor socialism on every issue presented to them. It's old-fashioned Communism reworked for a new generation.

Yes, anarchism, which by definition entails rejecting all structures of hierarchical organization or authority, cannot be capitalist under any definition of the word. I don't understand how such a society even makes sense. What keeps the voluntary exchanges fair and equal and stops coercion? "Anarcho-capitalism" is just a term that Rothbard played with and ultimately rejected as inappropriate. Recently, however, a lot of Paulites looking for an edgier label have used the term as a way of declaring their super-capitalist credentials, but it's never been a coherent political movement or even an intellectual concept. It's just a special hat that libertarians sometimes like to wear.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 12:52:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 11:20:27 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/7/2013 1:42:41 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/7/2013 1:15:35 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:37:11 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:31:15 PM, APB wrote:
And the fact that some companies neglectfully pollute the environment should be evidence that we need restrictions on them.

Why is it evidence? Would a company not look for environmental solutions as a means of increasing consumer popularity and increasing long-term efficiency? Why does a monocentric monopoly on violence need to force it to do things?

Dust bowl.

Let me expand upon this. The Dust bowl in 1935 was caused by poor farming techniques which over farmed the land without giving it time to recoup. This was driven by the market. Since the solution is rotating your croplands, that means you need to have more land than you are farming, and have some of it not growing crops (and so not making money). Any farmer that did this sustainable practice was shorting themselves, since other farmers could produce more from the same acreage, they could charge less and the sustainable farmer would be put out of business (thus leaving only the unsustainable practices continuing).

That is the most prominent example of how an open market is blind towards the future and only focuses on what fits with the current supply and demand. There is no market driven reason for a businessman to take business practices that are more sustainable than his own life. If something is unsustainable for more than 500 years, there is no reason for a businessman to worry about it. No reason for him to sacrifice his money or profit to deal with it, since he won't be facing the consequences (all market forces focus on risk/cost vs reward, so if the cost is accrued after you die, that is as good as no cost).

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org...
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org...
http://www.pbs.org... (catch this if you can in a few weeks)

I would say that it was more due to ignorance among the farming community. The thing is that growing without crop rotation is much less profitable in the long run because as the nitrogen in the soil is depleted plants become stunted and yields drop dramatically. This isn't over several generations, you can easily watch it happen in a single lifetime. And it's not like crop rotations are a zero-production enterprise. When one plants soybeans the crop fixes nitrogen (since it is a legume) while also providing a harvest. Alfalfa provides a hay crop, various early-season crops can be planted and plowed under without intruding upon the harvesting of a later crop. The solution wasn't mandates, it was education (which was provided as well). Basically you had a bunch of people applying farming practices to an environment which they were not relevant to, and sabotaging their own profitability in the process.

The dust bowl took over 90 years to build up, from the wave of settlers that went in the early 1860's (from being given free land by the government from the homestead act of 1862). Of course, the secondary wave from the 1909 act (which gave even more land to settlers) speed up the process.

However, it is hard to claim ignorance, since crop rotation has been a basic agricultural practice since the Roman empire.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 1:01:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 12:40:35 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/7/2013 11:54:45 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Humans are inherently tribal. That's the one thing that anthropologists agree upon. Put a bunch of people together and soon they will form a government that imposes and enforces rules. The few examples of "anarchy" working are when a government is overthrown but the people continue on with the rules inculcated in society.

Anarchists on this site seem to favor socialism on every issue presented to them. It's old-fashioned Communism reworked for a new generation.

Yes, anarchism, which by definition entails rejecting all structures of hierarchical organization or authority, cannot be capitalist under any definition of the word. I don't understand how such a society even makes sense. What keeps the voluntary exchanges fair and equal and stops coercion? "Anarcho-capitalism" is just a term that Rothbard played with and ultimately rejected as inappropriate. Recently, however, a lot of Paulites looking for an edgier label have used the term as a way of declaring their super-capitalist credentials, but it's never been a coherent political movement or even an intellectual concept. It's just a special hat that libertarians sometimes like to wear.

That's not entirely accurate. Anarchism is not defined by the rejection of all structures of hierarchy. The break down of the word literally means "no government" or "no rule." Under Ancap views government as a monopoly on force, and by such, if the monopoly can be removed and you have the choice of governing bodies (though they envision them as companies in a free market), then the monopoly is broken and as such there is no government (thus qualifying as anarchy).

They believe that no security company (a company contracted by persons to protect and defend their rights) should be able to enforce its will on others. So if 60% of the population likes SCA (security company A), then those 60% get to be covered by SCA, and if 30% like SCB, they get SCB, and if 10% like SCC, they get SCC. Rather than our current way of if 60% want SCA, everybody is stuck with SCA). They believe that this will force competition which will drive better services for lower costs. And thus ultimately be better for everyone, regardless of which company they choose.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 1:13:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 1:01:22 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:40:35 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/7/2013 11:54:45 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Humans are inherently tribal. That's the one thing that anthropologists agree upon. Put a bunch of people together and soon they will form a government that imposes and enforces rules. The few examples of "anarchy" working are when a government is overthrown but the people continue on with the rules inculcated in society.

Anarchists on this site seem to favor socialism on every issue presented to them. It's old-fashioned Communism reworked for a new generation.

Yes, anarchism, which by definition entails rejecting all structures of hierarchical organization or authority, cannot be capitalist under any definition of the word. I don't understand how such a society even makes sense. What keeps the voluntary exchanges fair and equal and stops coercion? "Anarcho-capitalism" is just a term that Rothbard played with and ultimately rejected as inappropriate. Recently, however, a lot of Paulites looking for an edgier label have used the term as a way of declaring their super-capitalist credentials, but it's never been a coherent political movement or even an intellectual concept. It's just a special hat that libertarians sometimes like to wear.

That's not entirely accurate. Anarchism is not defined by the rejection of all structures of hierarchy. The break down of the word literally means "no government" or "no rule." Under Ancap views government as a monopoly on force, and by such, if the monopoly can be removed and you have the choice of governing bodies (though they envision them as companies in a free market), then the monopoly is broken and as such there is no government (thus qualifying as anarchy).

They believe that no security company (a company contracted by persons to protect and defend their rights) should be able to enforce its will on others. So if 60% of the population likes SCA (security company A), then those 60% get to be covered by SCA, and if 30% like SCB, they get SCB, and if 10% like SCC, they get SCC. Rather than our current way of if 60% want SCA, everybody is stuck with SCA). They believe that this will force competition which will drive better services for lower costs. And thus ultimately be better for everyone, regardless of which company they choose.

You missed the point. I was saying that there wouldn't be a way for such a society to exist in real life, given that literally nothing is stopping coercion except the godhand of the free market, and it isn't ever made clear why this would work at all. What keeps the choices voluntary? At the end, there will only be mob rule (democracy) which would evolve into a despotic government once again.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 1:26:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 12:52:26 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/7/2013 11:20:27 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/7/2013 1:42:41 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/7/2013 1:15:35 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:37:11 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:31:15 PM, APB wrote:
And the fact that some companies neglectfully pollute the environment should be evidence that we need restrictions on them.

Why is it evidence? Would a company not look for environmental solutions as a means of increasing consumer popularity and increasing long-term efficiency? Why does a monocentric monopoly on violence need to force it to do things?

Dust bowl.

Let me expand upon this. The Dust bowl in 1935 was caused by poor farming techniques which over farmed the land without giving it time to recoup. This was driven by the market. Since the solution is rotating your croplands, that means you need to have more land than you are farming, and have some of it not growing crops (and so not making money). Any farmer that did this sustainable practice was shorting themselves, since other farmers could produce more from the same acreage, they could charge less and the sustainable farmer would be put out of business (thus leaving only the unsustainable practices continuing).

That is the most prominent example of how an open market is blind towards the future and only focuses on what fits with the current supply and demand. There is no market driven reason for a businessman to take business practices that are more sustainable than his own life. If something is unsustainable for more than 500 years, there is no reason for a businessman to worry about it. No reason for him to sacrifice his money or profit to deal with it, since he won't be facing the consequences (all market forces focus on risk/cost vs reward, so if the cost is accrued after you die, that is as good as no cost).

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org...
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org...
http://www.pbs.org... (catch this if you can in a few weeks)

I would say that it was more due to ignorance among the farming community. The thing is that growing without crop rotation is much less profitable in the long run because as the nitrogen in the soil is depleted plants become stunted and yields drop dramatically. This isn't over several generations, you can easily watch it happen in a single lifetime. And it's not like crop rotations are a zero-production enterprise. When one plants soybeans the crop fixes nitrogen (since it is a legume) while also providing a harvest. Alfalfa provides a hay crop, various early-season crops can be planted and plowed under without intruding upon the harvesting of a later crop. The solution wasn't mandates, it was education (which was provided as well). Basically you had a bunch of people applying farming practices to an environment which they were not relevant to, and sabotaging their own profitability in the process.

The dust bowl took over 90 years to build up, from the wave of settlers that went in the early 1860's (from being given free land by the government from the homestead act of 1862). Of course, the secondary wave from the 1909 act (which gave even more land to settlers) speed up the process.

A lot of said settling was also during a wet time period, and the Midwest climate follows a wet-dry cycle, so families were squeezed badly after overbuilding when dry spells hit. Topsoil in that area is very deep,and the prairie grasses have long roots, so the farmers would dig it up to tap the nutrients that they held. This exacerbated the damage when the big 30s drought hit.

However, it is hard to claim ignorance, since crop rotation has been a basic agricultural practice since the Roman empire.

Yes, but crop rotations are usually figured out through trial and error after people have lived in an area for many generations. The prairies were an unfamiliar environment, and what we saw was the standard interaction between migratory life and a new environment: over-consumption followed by hardship and equilibrium through adaption. It's the same pattern carried out by invasive species or new pathogens. Luckily, humans can learn and change behaviors without having to be subjected to natural selection and brutal genetic winnowing, so after one famine we looked at the issue and found out what we were doing wrong.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 1:28:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 1:13:52 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/8/2013 1:01:22 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:40:35 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/7/2013 11:54:45 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Humans are inherently tribal. That's the one thing that anthropologists agree upon. Put a bunch of people together and soon they will form a government that imposes and enforces rules. The few examples of "anarchy" working are when a government is overthrown but the people continue on with the rules inculcated in society.

Anarchists on this site seem to favor socialism on every issue presented to them. It's old-fashioned Communism reworked for a new generation.

Yes, anarchism, which by definition entails rejecting all structures of hierarchical organization or authority, cannot be capitalist under any definition of the word. I don't understand how such a society even makes sense. What keeps the voluntary exchanges fair and equal and stops coercion? "Anarcho-capitalism" is just a term that Rothbard played with and ultimately rejected as inappropriate. Recently, however, a lot of Paulites looking for an edgier label have used the term as a way of declaring their super-capitalist credentials, but it's never been a coherent political movement or even an intellectual concept. It's just a special hat that libertarians sometimes like to wear.

That's not entirely accurate. Anarchism is not defined by the rejection of all structures of hierarchy. The break down of the word literally means "no government" or "no rule." Under Ancap views government as a monopoly on force, and by such, if the monopoly can be removed and you have the choice of governing bodies (though they envision them as companies in a free market), then the monopoly is broken and as such there is no government (thus qualifying as anarchy).

They believe that no security company (a company contracted by persons to protect and defend their rights) should be able to enforce its will on others. So if 60% of the population likes SCA (security company A), then those 60% get to be covered by SCA, and if 30% like SCB, they get SCB, and if 10% like SCC, they get SCC. Rather than our current way of if 60% want SCA, everybody is stuck with SCA). They believe that this will force competition which will drive better services for lower costs. And thus ultimately be better for everyone, regardless of which company they choose.

You missed the point. I was saying that there wouldn't be a way for such a society to exist in real life, given that literally nothing is stopping coercion except the godhand of the free market, and it isn't ever made clear why this would work at all. What keeps the choices voluntary? At the end, there will only be mob rule (democracy) which would evolve into a despotic government once again.

Saying that "there wouldn't be a way for such a society to exist in real life..." is a different point than "anarchism...cannot be capitalist under any definition of the word."

Still talking about the theory of Ancap, it is believed that it can be stable so long as each person has the choice of saying "I would like SBC rather than SBA." The belief is that this requires all SB to compete for customers. And basically, so long as no SB is powerful enough to forcefully defeat (meaning using aggression) all other combined SB, then no single SB can take a forceful control (since such an act of aggression would basically cause a "war" between that SB and all others).

In comparison to current companies, it would be a lot like your cable/dish service. Since I have the choice of Dish, DirectTV, Cable, Netflix (and many others through the internet), they all need to pander to me. And even if 95% of people in my town pick Cable, I am still free to take whatever I want. Their choice is not imposed upon me.

Imagine it more like this (we will use a false dichotomy simply for ease of the example, though the ideal implementation would have a significant number of choices). You can vote for the Republican Company (RC) or the Democrat Company (DC). You pay a user fee with is basically what each party believes taxes should be (so if you sign up for the RC, you have a lower user fee, while the DC has a higher progressive user fee). You also get the services that each one offers, so the DC will have more social safety nets, while the RC will impose fines and arrests for a wider range of crimes, etc you get the idea.

But rather than having a vote between the two and subject everyone to the winner, each person gets to live under the side that they vote for.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 9:35:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 1:28:40 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/8/2013 1:13:52 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/8/2013 1:01:22 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:40:35 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/7/2013 11:54:45 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Humans are inherently tribal. That's the one thing that anthropologists agree upon. Put a bunch of people together and soon they will form a government that imposes and enforces rules. The few examples of "anarchy" working are when a government is overthrown but the people continue on with the rules inculcated in society.

Anarchists on this site seem to favor socialism on every issue presented to them. It's old-fashioned Communism reworked for a new generation.

Yes, anarchism, which by definition entails rejecting all structures of hierarchical organization or authority, cannot be capitalist under any definition of the word. I don't understand how such a society even makes sense. What keeps the voluntary exchanges fair and equal and stops coercion? "Anarcho-capitalism" is just a term that Rothbard played with and ultimately rejected as inappropriate. Recently, however, a lot of Paulites looking for an edgier label have used the term as a way of declaring their super-capitalist credentials, but it's never been a coherent political movement or even an intellectual concept. It's just a special hat that libertarians sometimes like to wear.

That's not entirely accurate. Anarchism is not defined by the rejection of all structures of hierarchy. The break down of the word literally means "no government" or "no rule." Under Ancap views government as a monopoly on force, and by such, if the monopoly can be removed and you have the choice of governing bodies (though they envision them as companies in a free market), then the monopoly is broken and as such there is no government (thus qualifying as anarchy).

They believe that no security company (a company contracted by persons to protect and defend their rights) should be able to enforce its will on others. So if 60% of the population likes SCA (security company A), then those 60% get to be covered by SCA, and if 30% like SCB, they get SCB, and if 10% like SCC, they get SCC. Rather than our current way of if 60% want SCA, everybody is stuck with SCA). They believe that this will force competition which will drive better services for lower costs. And thus ultimately be better for everyone, regardless of which company they choose.

You missed the point. I was saying that there wouldn't be a way for such a society to exist in real life, given that literally nothing is stopping coercion except the godhand of the free market, and it isn't ever made clear why this would work at all. What keeps the choices voluntary? At the end, there will only be mob rule (democracy) which would evolve into a despotic government once again.

Saying that "there wouldn't be a way for such a society to exist in real life..." is a different point than "anarchism...cannot be capitalist under any definition of the word."

No, it's not my point. Hierarchical structures of authority cannot exist and still keep people "free." Period. Stop spouting your indoctrination: http://books.google.com.ec...

Still talking about the theory of Ancap, it is believed that it can be stable so long as each person has the choice of saying "I would like SBC rather than SBA." The belief is that this requires all SB to compete for customers. And basically, so long as no SB is powerful enough to forcefully defeat (meaning using aggression) all other combined SB, then no single SB can take a forceful control (since such an act of aggression would basically cause a "war" between that SB and all others).

In comparison to current companies, it would be a lot like your cable/dish service. Since I have the choice of Dish, DirectTV, Cable, Netflix (and many others through the internet), they all need to pander to me. And even if 95% of people in my town pick Cable, I am still free to take whatever I want. Their choice is not imposed upon me.

Imagine it more like this (we will use a false dichotomy simply for ease of the example, though the ideal implementation would have a significant number of choices). You can vote for the Republican Company (RC) or the Democrat Company (DC). You pay a user fee with is basically what each party believes taxes should be (so if you sign up for the RC, you have a lower user fee, while the DC has a higher progressive user fee). You also get the services that each one offers, so the DC will have more social safety nets, while the RC will impose fines and arrests for a wider range of crimes, etc you get the idea.

But rather than having a vote between the two and subject everyone to the winner, each person gets to live under the side that they vote for.

*sigh*

I already understand what the system is about, and explained why it wouldn't work. You can't just talk about the so-called "natural rights" that the government violates but expect corporations to play by the rules and remain fair and balanced for everyone. It's so ridiculous it can't beheld up under any sort of rational scrutiny whatsoever.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 7:32:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 9:35:47 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/8/2013 1:28:40 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/8/2013 1:13:52 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/8/2013 1:01:22 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/7/2013 12:40:35 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/7/2013 11:54:45 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Humans are inherently tribal. That's the one thing that anthropologists agree upon. Put a bunch of people together and soon they will form a government that imposes and enforces rules. The few examples of "anarchy" working are when a government is overthrown but the people continue on with the rules inculcated in society.

Anarchists on this site seem to favor socialism on every issue presented to them. It's old-fashioned Communism reworked for a new generation.

Yes, anarchism, which by definition entails rejecting all structures of hierarchical organization or authority, cannot be capitalist under any definition of the word. I don't understand how such a society even makes sense. What keeps the voluntary exchanges fair and equal and stops coercion? "Anarcho-capitalism" is just a term that Rothbard played with and ultimately rejected as inappropriate. Recently, however, a lot of Paulites looking for an edgier label have used the term as a way of declaring their super-capitalist credentials, but it's never been a coherent political movement or even an intellectual concept. It's just a special hat that libertarians sometimes like to wear.

That's not entirely accurate. Anarchism is not defined by the rejection of all structures of hierarchy. The break down of the word literally means "no government" or "no rule." Under Ancap views government as a monopoly on force, and by such, if the monopoly can be removed and you have the choice of governing bodies (though they envision them as companies in a free market), then the monopoly is broken and as such there is no government (thus qualifying as anarchy).

They believe that no security company (a company contracted by persons to protect and defend their rights) should be able to enforce its will on others. So if 60% of the population likes SCA (security company A), then those 60% get to be covered by SCA, and if 30% like SCB, they get SCB, and if 10% like SCC, they get SCC. Rather than our current way of if 60% want SCA, everybody is stuck with SCA). They believe that this will force competition which will drive better services for lower costs. And thus ultimately be better for everyone, regardless of which company they choose.

You missed the point. I was saying that there wouldn't be a way for such a society to exist in real life, given that literally nothing is stopping coercion except the godhand of the free market, and it isn't ever made clear why this would work at all. What keeps the choices voluntary? At the end, there will only be mob rule (democracy) which would evolve into a despotic government once again.

Saying that "there wouldn't be a way for such a society to exist in real life..." is a different point than "anarchism...cannot be capitalist under any definition of the word."

No, it's not my point. Hierarchical structures of authority cannot exist and still keep people "free." Period.

Actually they can, pending your definition of "free," which different people have. So long as you have the freedom to enter into a non-coerced contract (or to not) than any restrictions within that contract are legitimate.

Stop spouting your indoctrination: http://books.google.com.ec...

you're clearly not familiar with my "indoctrination" so I'd recommend not trying to avoid the subject by attacking the person.


Still talking about the theory of Ancap, it is believed that it can be stable so long as each person has the choice of saying "I would like SBC rather than SBA." The belief is that this requires all SB to compete for customers. And basically, so long as no SB is powerful enough to forcefully defeat (meaning using aggression) all other combined SB, then no single SB can take a forceful control (since such an act of aggression would basically cause a "war" between that SB and all others).

In comparison to current companies, it would be a lot like your cable/dish service. Since I have the choice of Dish, DirectTV, Cable, Netflix (and many others through the internet), they all need to pander to me. And even if 95% of people in my town pick Cable, I am still free to take whatever I want. Their choice is not imposed upon me.

Imagine it more like this (we will use a false dichotomy simply for ease of the example, though the ideal implementation would have a significant number of choices). You can vote for the Republican Company (RC) or the Democrat Company (DC). You pay a user fee with is basically what each party believes taxes should be (so if you sign up for the RC, you have a lower user fee, while the DC has a higher progressive user fee). You also get the services that each one offers, so the DC will have more social safety nets, while the RC will impose fines and arrests for a wider range of crimes, etc you get the idea.

But rather than having a vote between the two and subject everyone to the winner, each person gets to live under the side that they vote for.

*sigh*

I already understand what the system is about, and explained why it wouldn't work. You can't just talk about the so-called "natural rights" that the government violates but expect corporations to play by the rules and remain fair and balanced for everyone. It's so ridiculous it can't beheld up under any sort of rational scrutiny whatsoever.

Why not? If there are a number of different corporations to choose from, and people will naturally choose those that protect their rights most accurately, then the market demand should drive corporations that fail to do this out of business, so long as they protect those rights are an acceptable cost.

However, if you believe that all corporations will always be corrupted, then you must also believe that all people will always be corrupted, since a corporation is nothing more than a group of people. It has no will, no conscious, no thought nor desire other than what the PEOPLE that run it have.

If you believe this to be incorrect, please explain why. I am more than receptive to your beliefs.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"