Total Posts:114|Showing Posts:31-60|Last Page
Jump to topic:

"If we had no government, who would do X?!?!"

bossyburrito
Posts: 14,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 1:56:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/8/2012 9:30:37 PM, imabench wrote:
If we had no wallstreetathiest, who would make all these useless threads?

^The weekly stupid?
#StandWithBossy

#TheMadmanWasUnbanned
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 1:56:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/8/2012 9:37:27 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/8/2012 9:30:37 PM, imabench wrote:
If we had no wallstreetathiest, who would make all these useless threads?

The free market would fill the need.

Or, alternatively, the people who want to stay free.
#StandWithBossy

#TheMadmanWasUnbanned
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 2:00:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/9/2012 1:42:22 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Care to debate that topic? Yes, the free market generates products and services less efficiently and more costly than the alternative of a monopoly on the use of violence xD I needed the laugh today, my dog killed himself.

You can't argue in the forums or something?

I'd rather devote energy toward a debate focused exclusively on a single topic, in depth, with the reward of its record, a reasoned judgment of its argumentation, and the allure of a well-won debate.

I really don't see how you can't do that in the forums.
#StandWithBossy

#TheMadmanWasUnbanned
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 2:01:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/8/2012 9:04:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
did anybdy seriously believe that nobody would pick the cotton without slavery? rivalrous and private goods such as cotton are pretty easy to provide in a market.

I'm pretty sure that they did.
#StandWithBossy

#TheMadmanWasUnbanned
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 2:06:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
How about a government that lets you leave if you choose? That way you can have the nice central control of defense and such if you wish. I would be against forcing people to be anarchistic AND to be governed over. Ah, but this is probably a pipe dream(Although I don't do drugs).
#StandWithBossy

#TheMadmanWasUnbanned
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 2:06:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/8/2012 8:41:28 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
We anarchists constantly encounter the challenge, "But if we had no government (as we know it), who would do X?" To respond properly to this question, we need to review the full set of actions for which we now look to governments. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's classic enumeration remains the most helpful:

"To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored."

As Proudhon adds, "That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality." I realize that it will not be easy for us to defend the proposition that anarchy can equal government (as we know it) in all these regards, but we must answer the question as honestly and completely as we can, even if we must confess that anarchy will never be able to equal government (as we know it) in many of these regards.

http://www.youtube.com...

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORING
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 2:32:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/9/2012 2:08:19 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/8/2012 9:36:26 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I do think it's appropriate to ask "if we had no government who would provide national security."

Without government, what's a nation?

I don't think that it's possible to have no government, just a very decentralized government.
#StandWithBossy

#TheMadmanWasUnbanned
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 6,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 2:38:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/9/2012 2:06:18 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORING

lol, compared to what exactly? I wasn't trying to give Proudhon some pizzazz, just merely using him in a response to that typical argument.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 6,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 2:40:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/9/2012 2:08:19 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/8/2012 9:36:26 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I do think it's appropriate to ask "if we had no government who would provide national security."

Without government, what's a nation?

A collectivist illusion
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Chaos88
Posts: 4,097
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 3:02:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Perhaps I'm am ignorant, but my question is: If we had no government, what would justice be?

Without government, who enforces the laws and ensures fairness? What is to stop someone from simply being a bully and stealing from everyone else?

Even if a posse was formed, or a business filled this void, why should the thief acknowledge their authority, and what right does this group have to exert force upon this individual?
sadolite
Posts: 10,006
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 4:43:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It would be hard to say who would do "X" if we had no govt, but it would be painfully obvious to those who would, wouldn't.
Beware of the people who are in your circle but are not in your corner.

And with the stroke of a pen people 18 to 21 who own a gun became criminals and public enemy #1 having committed no crime and having said nothing. Just like the Jews in Germany during WW2. Must be a weird feeling.

When I hear people crying and whining about their first world problems I think about the universe with everything in it and people in wheelchairs and all of their problems go away.
socialpinko
Posts: 11,682
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 4:52:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/8/2012 9:04:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
did anybdy seriously believe that nobody would pick the cotton without slavery? rivalrous and private goods such as cotton are pretty easy to provide in a market.

All about that paradigm. The dominant paradigm was chained up brown people picking cotton, therefore unimaginative idiots couldn't think of it being any different. Or a similar version but dealing with efficiency.
socialpinko
Posts: 11,682
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 4:53:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/8/2012 9:30:37 PM, imabench wrote:
If we had no wallstreetathiest, who would make all these useless threads?

*inserts quip about how bugging useless the weekly stupid is*
socialpinko
Posts: 11,682
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 4:54:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/8/2012 10:03:21 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 10/8/2012 8:43:59 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Thats not the issue I have with anarchy.....ever.

That effectively essentially concedes 95% of the arguments against anarchy. "If we didn't have government, who would build the roads?" "If we didn't have government, who would protect us?" "If we didn't have government, who would provide medical care?"

I'm glad that's not the issue you have with anarchy. It's a really, really stupid argument to make.

Well we'd still have people like Ike whining about perpetual contracts a la the Constitution (lol).
socialpinko
Posts: 11,682
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 4:55:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/8/2012 10:10:56 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
People should note that when people bring up roads regarding anarchy, they are not saying "roads will never be built" they are only saying that it will be less efficient and more expensive.

In that case a simple who cares response might suffice.
socialpinko
Posts: 11,682
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 4:56:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/8/2012 10:13:40 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 10/8/2012 10:10:56 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
People should note that when people bring up roads regarding anarchy, they are not saying "roads will never be built" they are only saying that it will be less efficient and more expensive.

And the Army. And the Police.

The thing about being in line with the current ideological paradigm i.e., statism is that you don't seem to think you have to provide an argument. It's just up to us nutty extremists to debunk your whiny conjecture.
socialpinko
Posts: 11,682
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 4:57:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/8/2012 10:56:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
There no problem coordinating economic activity; the market will take care of itself, whether through barter or through institutionalizing a commodity(ies) as currency.

The problem is with the pursuit of power, which is anarchy's inherent flaw. People want power over other people. Now I know the typical anarchist answer to that is "Private firms will discourage monopolies on violence," but who's to say that either the firms won't A) Fight with each other to secure ultimate power or B) The first established firm will ultimately have a monopoly on violence and act as a State figure.

Funny, "people are bad" is a good refutation of a system of social organization without institutionalized power, yet not a system of social organization where people consciously erect such a harmful institution.
socialpinko
Posts: 11,682
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 4:58:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/9/2012 12:22:23 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/8/2012 10:56:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
There no problem coordinating economic activity; the market will take care of itself, whether through barter or through institutionalizing a commodity(ies) as currency.

The problem is with the pursuit of power, which is anarchy's inherent flaw. People want power over other people. Now I know the typical anarchist answer to that is "Private firms will discourage monopolies on violence," but who's to say that either the firms won't A) Fight with each other to secure ultimate power or B) The first established firm will ultimately have a monopoly on violence and act as a State figure.

Through evolution, humans came about before government did. Therefore, people lived in a government-free time. People voluntarily created government and choose it over a government-free system. Of course, if we reset, it would likely happen again.

Wrong. Some people voluntarily created governments. If everyone had a choice in the matter they wouldn't be governments would they.
socialpinko
Posts: 11,682
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 4:59:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/9/2012 12:57:31 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 10/8/2012 9:30:37 PM, imabench wrote:
If we had no wallstreetathiest, who would make all these useless threads?

This addresses one of the most common objections to anarchy. If you think it is useless, demonstrate why, don't just say it.

He's incapable of providing merited commentary. Just brushing off criticism without thinking it over is actually a pretty powerful way to avoid having to change your opinion.
/
socialpinko
Posts: 11,682
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:01:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/9/2012 2:06:03 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
How about a government that lets you leave if you choose? That way you can have the nice central control of defense and such if you wish. I would be against forcing people to be anarchistic AND to be governed over. Ah, but this is probably a pipe dream(Although I don't do drugs).

Contradiction in terms brah. If you can leave freely, "government" just turns into a free contractual institution like every other institution i.e., churches, charities, private companies, etc. You can't have both.
socialpinko
Posts: 11,682
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:02:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/9/2012 3:02:50 AM, Chaos88 wrote:
Perhaps I'm am ignorant, but my question is: If we had no government, what would justice be?

Without government, who enforces the laws and ensures fairness? What is to stop someone from simply being a bully and stealing from everyone else?

Even if a posse was formed, or a business filled this void, why should the thief acknowledge their authority, and what right does this group have to exert force upon this individual?

I grow tired of explaining it over and over and over and over.
http://www.ozarkia.net...
socialpinko
Posts: 11,682
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:03:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/9/2012 3:02:50 AM, Chaos88 wrote:
Perhaps I'm am ignorant, but my question is: If we had no government, what would justice be?

Without government, who enforces the laws and ensures fairness? What is to stop someone from simply being a bully and stealing from everyone else?

What's to stop the government from doing the same?

Even if a posse was formed, or a business filled this void, why should the thief acknowledge their authority, and what right does this group have to exert force upon this individual?

Why should governments acknowledge the rights of its citizens?
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:08:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I have a few questions for the anarchists:

1) Who would provide these roads (http://tinyurl.com...)

2) How the market itself would protect property rights (article or something please).

3) What if people didn't save enough for their retirement (didn't use enough of their money to invest in stocks in their working life), what is you rebuttal that gov't should not automatically enroll people in such programs in which they set aside 10% of their wages for their retirement, but can opt out if they choose?

4) Who would tax negative externalities that the market creates (mostly in the environment)?

That's all I can think of.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
socialpinko
Posts: 11,682
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:20:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:08:04 PM, Contra wrote:
I have a few questions for the anarchists:

1) Who would provide these roads (http://tinyurl.com...)

Wut

2) How the market itself would protect property rights (article or something please).

http://mises.org...
http://www.tomwbell.com...
http://www.ozarkia.net... (lists dozens of essays on the subject)

3) What if people didn't save enough for their retirement (didn't use enough of their money to invest in stocks in their working life), what is you rebuttal that gov't should not automatically enroll people in such programs in which they set aside 10% of their wages for their retirement, but can opt out if they choose?

(A) Even if people happen to not save enough for retirement, that doesn't necessarily justify a state i.e., an institution with monocentric control over law, courts, police, etc. If these base functions can't be justified then there's no reason why some institution should be allowed to form just to take people's money to give back to them upon retirement.

(B) Without the numerous barriers to entry, taxes, IP rights granting artificial monopoly rights, regulatory measures creating higher overheads,etc. etc. etc. we can expect people to not be in as dire need of money as they are no. i.e., the government is causing the problem, not fixing it.

4) Who would tax negative externalities that the market creates (mostly in the environment)?

No one. No government = no institutionalized invasion of privacy.

That's all I can think of.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:21:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:01:27 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/9/2012 2:06:03 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
How about a government that lets you leave if you choose? That way you can have the nice central control of defense and such if you wish. I would be against forcing people to be anarchistic AND to be governed over. Ah, but this is probably a pipe dream(Although I don't do drugs).

Contradiction in terms brah. If you can leave freely, "government" just turns into a free contractual institution like every other institution i.e., churches, charities, private companies, etc. You can't have both.

But the Government doesn't have competition.
#StandWithBossy

#TheMadmanWasUnbanned
socialpinko
Posts: 11,682
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:23:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:21:34 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:01:27 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/9/2012 2:06:03 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
How about a government that lets you leave if you choose? That way you can have the nice central control of defense and such if you wish. I would be against forcing people to be anarchistic AND to be governed over. Ah, but this is probably a pipe dream(Although I don't do drugs).

Contradiction in terms brah. If you can leave freely, "government" just turns into a free contractual institution like every other institution i.e., churches, charities, private companies, etc. You can't have both.

But the Government doesn't have competition.

I know. The State is composed of two necessary things: forcefully barring competition, and forceful taxation of its subjects. If you take one or both of these away you don't have a government.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:28:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/9/2012 4:55:09 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/8/2012 10:10:56 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
People should note that when people bring up roads regarding anarchy, they are not saying "roads will never be built" they are only saying that it will be less efficient and more expensive.

In that case a simple who cares response might suffice.

Well, let's see... I'm guess most people?
socialpinko
Posts: 11,682
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:38:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:28:05 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 10/9/2012 4:55:09 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/8/2012 10:10:56 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
People should note that when people bring up roads regarding anarchy, they are not saying "roads will never be built" they are only saying that it will be less efficient and more expensive.

In that case a simple who cares response might suffice.

Well, let's see... I'm guess most people?

The guvment might be more efficient at building roads. Let's accept this for arguments sake (though there's no reason to think so). Why does that in itself legitimate the State's existence? If we're going by utilitarian standards I assume we can bring in the State's shatty track record? i.e., history of feudalism, mass war, slavery, murdering inhabitants, around 100 million civilian deaths in the last century alone, etc. Oh but roads might be easier if only we had ourselves a guvment.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 8:35:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:20:20 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:08:04 PM, Contra wrote:
I have a few questions for the anarchists:

1) Who would provide these roads (http://tinyurl.com...)

Wut

Roads that are like in the middle of dozens of different businesses, i.e. a main street of a town.

2) How the market itself would protect property rights (article or something please).

http://mises.org...
http://www.tomwbell.com...
http://www.ozarkia.net... (lists dozens of essays on the subject)

Thanks.

3) What if people didn't save enough for their retirement (didn't use enough of their money to invest in stocks in their working life), what is you rebuttal that gov't should not automatically enroll people in such programs in which they set aside 10% of their wages for their retirement, but can opt out if they choose?

(A) Even if people happen to not save enough for retirement, that doesn't necessarily justify a state i.e., an institution with monocentric control over law, courts, police, etc. If these base functions can't be justified then there's no reason why some institution should be allowed to form just to take people's money to give back to them upon retirement.

So, it wouldn't necessarily be harmful, but it doesn't justify the existence of a state is what I can sense your opinion is.

(B) Without the numerous barriers to entry, taxes, IP rights granting artificial monopoly rights, regulatory measures creating higher overheads,etc. etc. etc. we can expect people to not be in as dire need of money as they are no. i.e., the government is causing the problem, not fixing it.

Provide proof and logic that patents harm innovation.

4) Who would tax negative externalities that the market creates (mostly in the environment)?

No one. No government = no institutionalized invasion of privacy.

Then what about the environment? What if the factory downtown decides to release mercury into the air (gaseous state), and then some guys in West Virginia end up getting hurt? There could be a computer that tracks wind patterns to determine the source of this, and a tax could be applied on (say this mercury) so that the guys in West Virginia receive retribution. But how is this possible without gov't?

That's all I can think of.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.