66 replies to this topic

[Accelerated]

i disagree.

....i prob should have put 'ideally' in front of that statement.

[Dan]

yup, i would agree with that.

[Anonymouse]

I've been over this point twice allready  :naturally, it is the people in the respective industries that will be hired by the government to come up with the standards, but some authority (ie. government) will need to ENFORCE these standards so that the private sector is obliged to keep a certain standard of production that does not endanger the lives of the consumers

This assumes that the private sector cannot itself manage its standards without some big brother entity regulating it. Leave it to politically induced depressions and stock market fiascos such as the market crash of '29, thanks to the Federal Reserve, to create panics, which in the public mind is translated as the market cannot handle itself. The economic natural selection is a process that is acknowledged by all free market advocates. Why would businesses want to harm consumers? It would not be in their interest since they rely on them for their profit, thus they would insure them with quality. Only with government regulation will you get a dumbing down of quality. Since the government is a monopoly, from an economic standpoint, a monopoly is bad for consumers, so why would you have one big brother entity somehow ensuring "standards"? That would be counter productive.

could have been worse. Besides, without massive government intervention in Britain for example, BSE could have wiped out their entire cattle industry.

It is precisely because of government that we have the problem we have. Last I checked, the mad cow scare was on a Washington State Farm. The critical thinker will see this scare as nothing more than a scare, which the government is making it seem bigger than it already is, to justify more regulation and more government. The uncritical thinker will accept the story at face value. The critical thinker will ask why. The uncritical thinker will not. This isn't aimed at you, just the majority of hair brain Americans who watch this and never wonder.

my point?!? Im not an expert on toxins, so I expect my govt to make sure that all goods that I consume are REASONABLY safe for me. If what you say is indeed true, then someone will surelly hang for it. And if its only 'a little less toxic than arsenic' I should expect a LOT of people should have died from it by now. Funny, I use toothpaste on a regular basis and am still alive 

Well, perhaps people are dying from it as we speak, since I remember reading a study that was suggesting a connection between fluoride and Alzheimerz.

...Im tired of going over the same thing: roads are built by private businesses, government standards keep them from building 'sub-standard' (read:unsafe) roads. Police, a private business?!  Perhaps, you can explain how that will work.....

Once again, since government is a monopoly, what makes you think that government standards are the best? As there is no other competitive agency or entity we can compare the standards to, it is ipso facto coercive in nature, therefore, anti free market, and hence hampering on quality. As far as police, why can you not conceive of it as privatized? Is the idea that foreign to you? Instead of being extends of the State, police would be competitive, indeed private security, could do exactly what police do, competitively, ensuring quality. When there is a monopoly in a given institution and it is not exposed to the principles of competition, it will dumb down, corruption will increase, and it will lose quality, as is the case.

they are not intentionally killing innocent people....

I never expected a naive statement such as this from you. So the Turkish government wasn't intentional? Nor for that matter America bombing Iraqis wasn't intentional? How many innocent people have died because of governments?

I've had enough of this repetetive discussion, IMO at the end the government is a NECESSARY EVIL. Could have done (and did) without it in the Stone Age, but fortunatelly we no longer live in that era.

Why do you assume that the government is a necessary evil? Such thinking prevents us from actually questioning our own ideas and throwing self-responsibility into the gutter. What the heck, lemme just not think, and let government have its way. Of course by government, I mean a omnipotent central power ruling with coercion, which is what government is. It is important to note that government can mean many things. Family is a form of government. I am not advocating the destruction of family. Leviathan is not family, it is a minority, ruling over a majority.

Think of it this way. In free market economics, businessmen and employees, cannot earn an income unless they produce goods or services which can be sold on the market. The buyers' purchases are voluntary. In contrast to this, politicians, political parties, and civil servants, do not produce any good or service, nor anything that can be sold on the market. No one buys government 'goods' or 'services'. On the one hand, this implies that it is impossible to determine their value and find out whether or not this value justifies their costs. Because no one buys them, no one actually demonstrates that he considers government goods and services worth their costs, and indeed, whether or not anyone attaches any value to them at all.

Does this sound familiar? This was how the Soviet model was. So democracy is not different from Communism. Politicians', civil servants' salaries remain the same, whether their output satisfies consumers or not. Accordingly, as a result of the expansion of 'public' sector employment, there will be increasing laziness, carelessness, incompetence, disservice, maltreatment, waste, and even destruction – and at the same time ever more arrogance, demagogery, and lies ('we work for the public good').

[Accelerated]

Anon, I got a bunch of stuff due on Monday so I wont reply untill that time. I've had a brief read of your post and will make a couple points:

they are not intentionally killing innocent people....

I never expected a naive statement such as this from you.So the Turkish government wasn't intentional? Nor for that matter America bombing Iraqis wasn't intentional?

Are you meaning to say, that the US Army intentionally attacked and killed innocent civilians for absolutelly no purpose?! Im not the one to believe everything the media or government has to say, but this behaviour would be illogical, simply because it would foster (more) hatred among the Iraqis. I do believe there are some stupid people running the US government, but they arnt THAT stupid.

On the subject of anarchy:

You dont have to look far to see what anarchy can do to a country, just look at Armenia (I was there summer '03). A nominal government does exist there, but thats all it is nominal: a facade for the rest of the world (and an ugly one at that). Anyhow, to the point, do you know what happence in the absence of a government/law? Money BECOMES the law - literally. Armenia has reverted back to the Medieval Age my friend: we have a dozen chieftains (with money) running the country. Each has set-up their own little castle: complete with walls, armed guards and a territory to rule, skirmishes occur on the outskirts. Hell, if you got enough money you can join them, or better yet buy Kocharians seat, though that might require you to visit Moscow on route, just to make sure they dont object...

[Accelerated]

I should also note, Anon, I dont completelly discount where your coming from, but do require some convincing, I just need to be pointed in the right direction: a book perhaps, I am sure it will prove a worthwhile read and will get to it as soon as I finish "The Art of War"

[Anonymouse]

Are you meaning to say, that the US Army intentionally attacked and killed innocent civilians for absolutelly no purpose?! Im not the one to believe everything the media or government has to say, but this behaviour would be illogical, simply because it would foster (more) hatred among the Iraqis. I do believe there are some stupid people running the US government, but they arnt THAT stupid.

I am saying exactly that. In fact, current hatred of the United States in the Islamic world is precisely BECAUSE of continued U.S. involvement in that region, continually bombing them, enforcing U.N. sanctions, etc., in the name of oil and Israel. When Americans say "They hate us because of our freedoms, they are jealous", such questions are funny, for they save ourselves examining our own thinking and policies. It's always easier to scapegoat than ask questions. They hate the United States, because the United States has done something very horrible to their homes. How many kids died because of the U.N. sanctions, because of continued American and British bombings all throughout the 90s up until the latest Iraq war? How many countless others by U.S. cluster bombs? Hell, did you even forget U.S. soldiers with the "Gulf War Syndrome"? The problem with politicians is they aren't looking at the world historically, or from a cultural point of view, they are looking at it politically, what would get them their maximum gains in order to ensure a nice election. In politics, especially one such as an Empire as the U.S., the ends justify the means.

You dont have to look far to see what anarchy can do to a country, just look at Armenia (I was there summer '03). A nominal government does exist there, but thats all it is nominal: a facade for the rest of the world (and an ugly one at that). Anyhow, to the point, do you know what happence in the absence of a government/law? Money BECOMES the law - literally. Armenia has reverted back to the Medieval Age my friend: we have a dozen chieftains (with money) running the country.

But then to that I would ask, how did that become so? Why is it the way it is? It is precisely because of too much government, nearly a century of Bolshevism/Communism, and you wonder why all those problems exist? It is because of too much government, too much regulation, that we get the results that we get now. Free market economics has been virtually unheard of in Armenia, and the continued politics of Genocide and lack of trade with Turkey are another blow to this. Do you see how politics eventually contradicts economics? Those same "cheiftains" were around for the most part during the days of the hammer and sickle. Lo and behold, when that crumbled, they simply took it under their hands using once again, the government, it was working in tandem with government that one was able to achieve this, for even in the U.S. and globally, big business and big government went hand in hand, and monopolies such as Microsoft or Enron were nothing more than government created monopolies.

[Anonymouse]

I should also note, Anon, I dont completelly discount where your coming from, but do require some convincing, I just need to be pointed in the right direction: a book perhaps, I am sure it will prove a worthwhile read and will get to it as soon as I finish "The Art of War"

No worries mate, if you want to understand what I am arguing for, there are great books out there you can dig into ( by the way, The Art of War, is a classic. It should be a must read for all ).

Books that I personally found imperative for my understanding of the view espoused by the Austrian School of Economics, and libertarians is by none other than the brainchild of the Austrian Economics, Ludwig von Mises. His book Human Action, I would say, is a classic of the ages, sadly it doesn't get enough exposure. You can buy it, or read it online, it is available online.

http://www.mises.org/humanaction.asp

Another book that I found to be informative on Democracy, is Democracy: The God That Failed.

I would assume those should be enough for starters, but later on I guess you can check out the books available on the Mises Institute website, which they pretty much show what they are about and its self-explanatory, for beginners in the Austrian Economics. I myself am just getting familiar with this school of thought, and I don't have al the time in the world either, so it's still a never ending path for me.

www.mises.org

[Sasun]

( by the way, The Art of War, is a classic. It should be a must read for all ).

Is this the one by Sun Tzu you guys are talking about?

[Anonymouse]

Is this the one by Sun Tzu you guys are talking about?

Indeed, if that is the only Art of War out there. Is there any new one aside from that horrible movie, that I am unaware of?

[axel]

a few quick thoughts.

if we consider early societies as anarchic and if anarchy is a viable system, why is it that the "state" appeared? anarchists merely advocate another system (that which is defined as no system) as though systems held the key to mankind's problems. How naive a belief. Anarchy is based on the rousseauist premise that man is good in nature which is obviously not true of all men, or that every men following their own interests is the way to harmony and ultimate good which is an erroneous belief. one should at least learn that from history. if ethics are not the criteria for judging a society what is? efficiency? progress? these abstract notions that alienate man?

the free market? there is nothing to be loved in all this, nothing transcendent. just the mechanics of offer and demand. mechanics, that is the word. machinery. man is lost into machinery. But man's endeavor on this earth should be a nobler one than that of submitting to the forces of the "market". Otherwise life is just meaningless. It has no purpose. man is a mere puppet enslaved by the "laws" of the material world. But Man is FREE. Some people having discovered these "higher" laws or principles saw in them the hand of God. I am afraid this god, in christian terminology we refer to as satan.

[Anonymouse]

a few quick thoughts.

if we consider early societies as anarchic and if anarchy is a viable system, why is it that the "state" appeared? anarchists merely advocate another system (that which is defined as no system) as though systems held the key to mankind's problems. How naive a belief. Anarchy is based on the rousseauist premise that man is good in nature which is obviously not true of all men, or that every men following their own interests is the way to harmony and ultimate good which is an erroneous belief. one should at least learn that from history. if ethics are not the criteria for judging a society what is? efficiency? progress? these abstract notions that alienate man?

the free market? there is nothing to be loved in all this, nothing transcendent. just the mechanics of offer and demand. mechanics, that is the word. machinery. man is lost into machinery. But man's endeavor on this earth should be a nobler one than that of submitting to the forces of the "market". Otherwise life is just meaningless. It has no purpose. man is a mere puppet enslaved by the "laws" of the material world. But Man is FREE. Some people having discovered these "higher" laws or principles saw in them the hand of God. I am afraid this god, in christian terminology we refer to as satan.

First of all, you have a misconception on what is meant by "anarcho capitalism". This is not based on the belief or premise that man is good, that is false. Rather it is based on the premise that man is self-interested. A completely free market, unregulated and unhampered by the State does not require people be good. In fact abolishing government doesn't mean you won't have crime or murder.

If you want to talk about learning from history, I hope you learn that in the age of the 20th century and of total war, the State was unrelenting and now we stand on the brink of destroying humanity thanks to the State. Individuals don't commit genocides, States do, by convincing people that they must relinquish their minds to the craze of mass mindedness. Government has caused 200 millions deaths in the 20th century alone, how many have individuals caused by themselves working outside of political systems? Yet based on this you support government and say I haven't learned from history? There is no way to "harmony or ultimate good" and that is not what I said, merely something you assumed and put in my mouth. On the contrary what anarchy would mean is to lessen the amount of destruction the gradual rise of the State has done to humanity.

Politics is based on collective thinking and in any political system you believe in, you lose your ability to think for yourself, because political systems in their nature rely and operate on the collective mass mindedness in order to be successful. We all too often acknowledge that politicians lie, they cheat, they do the dirtiest things that we in our everyday lives will not do, yet we unconsciously vote for these morally depraved people to make choices for us. Another contradiction lies in the fact that the government can lie, cheat, steal, and go across to distant lands, bomb and maim and kill people, yet we do nothing about it, and in fact support and vote for these people, yet we condemn and criminalize individuals for essentially doing the same thing.

Take the democracy that we have in this country, or so we believe to have. It is premised on voting. From the beginning of political systems during the Enlightenment and what we know today as the State, in order to maintain social control, the State engages in violence and coercion to maintain social order. We covered a book in class called "Parliament of Whores: A Lone Humorist Attempts to Explain the Entire U.S. Government" by P. J. O'Rourke. O'Rourke writes:

"Authority has always attracted the lowest elements in the human race. All through history mankind has been bullied by scum. Those who lord it over their fellows and toss commands in every direction and would boss the grass in the meadow about which way to bend in the wind are the most depraved kind of prostitutes. They will submit to any indignity, perform any vile act, do anything to achieve power. The worst off-sloughings of the planet are the ingredients of sovereignty. Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us. "

Politics is a game of telling people what to do. That is why we vote, to have an authority figure tell us what to do, to tell our neighbor what to do and make choices for us. While we acknowledge that communist, socialist, or fascist dictatorships are brutal and use illegitimate means of brute force and coercion to gain power, democracy is worse, and a far scarier concept. It gives leaders an excuse to do what they do. If a leader is elected and is a tyrant, all he has to do is show that it was the will of the people. And while there are indeed those of us who would like to vote our lives away into the hands of tyrants in a democracy, it throws everyone else who don't want to vote into the hands of the tyrant as well. So when you vote you are not only voting for yourself, but you are voting for everyone.

And once annually, almost like a holiday, we all go to the boothes to vote, to give ourselves the illusion that for one day we get to make important political decisions, that we run the state. This is why the Western governments have been so obssessed with spreading "democracy" around to the other world, not to decentralize political authority, but to make people believe they are state which they have been forced into believing. Only here to we believe that we have a "choice" between a Republican and a Democrat. The absurdity of this is proved by the fact that after 911 virtually all politicians supported Bush's policies and voting for the odious Patriot Act. No matter what, the government always gets elected. To quote Biafra of the Dead Kennedies "If Voting could change anything, it would be illegal".

As far as the free market, it was precisely the capitalist revolution which has brought all this prosperity and increased living standards that you enjoy. It was the capitalist revolution which ushered the division of labor giving individuals a chance to develop themselves and specialize. I don't see this as "evil". What is "evil" is supporting the State, making yourself just as guilty for those children in Iraq who die from U.S. cluster bombs or depleted uranium.

[angel4hope]

you know what i hate most about democracy...what do these people that are in politics have that is so essential that tey are able to govern others..people like you and i...i believe it all comes from the inference that money=better education=power=political career....

i often ponder about these topics, because no one man or group of men should be responsible for governing a whole population espacially in the issue of war...why do these government officials have the power to make decisions to make or break lives??? i understand that it would be difficult without any form of government...and that nothing is perfect...but i think that even american politics and so called "democracy" is tainted and fallacious....people should have the freedom to live and war does not imply freedom to live---i think for that issue...war...just like any other law passing process~they should have elections to whether the people want to go to war or not...im sorry if im driving the thread off topic...just my freelance writing gets a bit loose you know...

[Anonymouse]

you know what i hate most about democracy...what do these people that are in politics have that is so essential that tey are able to govern others..people like you and i...i believe it all comes from the inference that money=better education=power=political career....

i often ponder about these topics, because no one man or group of men should be responsible for governing a whole population espacially in the issue of war...why do these government officials have the power to make decisions to make or break lives??? i understand that it would be difficult without any form of government...and that nothing is perfect...but i think that even american politics and so called "democracy" is tainted and fallacious....people should have the freedom to live and war does not imply freedom to live---i think for that issue...war...just like any other law passing process~they should have elections to whether the people want to go to war or not...im sorry if im driving the thread off topic...just my freelance writing gets a bit loose you know...

why do these government officials have the power to make decisions to make or reak lives???

Because people continually vote for them, for the system. All systems are based on control. How do you control people? By controlling their thought and education. Schools, and television and media are essential to mold the minds of the masses.

i understand that it would be difficult without any form of government...

No it wouldn't. That is a misconception. Why would it be difficult? Government = coercion. Do people like to be coerced?

but i think that even american politics and so called "democracy" is tainted and fallacious....

America is resembling the late stages of the Roman Empire. Both started off as "Republics" and both are unrelenting Empires. Eventually America will suffer the same fate of history as others before it, for all systems move towards disorder per chaos theory.

people should have the freedom to live and war does not imply freedom to live-

To quote Murray N. Rothbard, "If men were like ants, there would be no interest in human freedom".

[angel4hope]

No it wouldn't. That is a misconception. Why would it be difficult? Government = coercion. Do people like to be coerced?

yes that makes it clear...but how and what would the world look like.......?i guess that democracy and politics have done a great job in brainwashing us--me at least..to the point where i cant imagine what it would be like without a form ogf government...

[axel]

First of all, you have a misconception on what is meant by "anarcho capitalism". This is not based on the belief or premise that man is good, that is false. Rather it is based on the premise that man is self-interested.

You must have read my post too quickly as I wrote:

Anarchy is based on the rousseauist premise that man is good in nature which is obviously not true of all men, or that every men following their own interests is the way to harmony and ultimate good which is an erroneous belief

I will try to look at your post in detail later on to see if there is something new in your reasoning but at first sight, there doesn't seem to be.

[Anonymouse]

You must have read my post too quickly as I wrote:



I will try to look at your post in detail later on to see if there is something new in your reasoning but at first sight, there doesn't seem to be.

You assumed that my goal here is to lay a creed along the lines of "or that every men following their own interests is the way to harmony and ultimate good".

There is no ultimate good or harmony, we can only lesson the conflicts collective thinking and mass mindedness has reaped upon humanity.

[Anonymouse]

This theory essentially rests on 3 empirically meaningful assumptions. First is that a government, the State, is a territorial monopolist of coercion and exploitation, and governemnt subjects as the victims of the initials action. Second is between a privately owned, inheritable monopoly, and a public uninheritable monopoly run by caretakers instead of owners. Third, the assumption of self interest on the part of the exploiting governments agents and its subjects, since government agents prefer more wealth, more income and more power, and their subjects prefer more wealth, income, and more freedom.

From this then it deductively flows that a private owner of government would be more interested in the preservation of capital values, as opposed to a public caretaker of government ( which is essentially what the presented "democracy" is ). This is not a new idea and is equivalent to saying that a private slave owner will take better care of his slave, than a public one.

To present a critique of this, you must prove either an error in the premises or the conclusion.

Edited by Anonymouse, 26 January 2004 - 01:51 AM.

[axel]

First I have to say I personally discard the state vs individual worldview which I find overly restrictive in that it is merely based on a materialistic/individualistic faith derived from ideas of the "enlightenement" (I find it ironic btw that you espouse such a view while accusing "nationalism" of this very wrong). Worldviews are based on value judgements, there are not mere rational constructions. Spengler values Culture, Solzhenitsyn, Ethics, others, Tradition vs Modernity... I just want to point out that I don't see the world through the prism of the State vs the individual so that I be not accused of standing in defence of what you call "The State" (which is a gross oversimplification btw that allows all possible amalgams to be made) or Coercion in the largest possible sense, by the following "critique" (the word critique is a bit presumptuous I guess ) for I reject the hidden assumptions that subtend the angle of analysis.

First is that a government, the State, is a territorial monopolist of coercion and exploitation, and governemnt subjects as the victims of the initials action.

Government subjects are not victims in the absolute (there might be victims in specific instances, under specific regimes). As much as I hate do so, I have to refer to the idea of social contract in which the individual forgoes some of his freedom in return for a certain amount of protection (be it physical, social...). This is also valid in early societies, in what Giambattista Vico characterizes as the heroic age.

Second is between a privately owned, inheritable monopoly, and a public uninheritable monopoly run by caretakers instead of owners.

Are you making a case for monarchy?

who says appointed caretakers make the actual decisions? that there does not exist ruling circles holding an "inheritable monopoly" on public affairs and exerting power through various means of pressure?

in fact things are much more complex but I don't have time to develop a theory on this subject in fact, this is not my area of interest.

Third, the assumption of self interest on the part of the exploiting governments agents and its subjects, since government agents prefer more wealth, more income and more power, and their subjects prefer more wealth, income, and more freedom.

This is a statement of belief, one which considers that this world is entirely driven by material greed and reduces man to a mere socio-economical animal. Nothing in the absolute justifies this assumption although I have to agree it has often been justified in practise (but not always).

From this then it deductively flows that a private owner of government would be more interested in the preservation of capital values, as opposed to a public caretaker of government ( which is essentially what the presented "democracy" is ).

A private owner of government? So you believe some form of government or authority/hierarchy should be maintained??
I don't see where anarchy stands here if authority is to be maintained.

Actually, authority/hierarchy exists in all forms of society. (And in the same way some see in the "invisible hand" an absolute law of God, others such as Maistre see in hierarchy and authority a divine manifestation according to the belief that "all power comes from God"). It is either hidden or apparent. The miracle of so-called democracy is to have made hierarchy almost invisible to the profane.

This is not a new idea and is equivalent to saying that a private slave owner will take better care of his slave, than a public one.

slave? slave owner? interesting comparison...

-Who are you?
-The new Number Two
-Who is Number One?
-You are Number Six
-I am not a number . . .
I'm a free man!


http://www.the-priso...ner_updates.htm

the above doesn't stand as an argument but the words you use denote some hidden assumptions that contradict the idea of freedom you seem to be defending

To present a critique of this, you must prove either an error in the premises or the conclusion.

Thanks for the advice.

As for material progress (you refered to the improvement of living standards in order to make a case for capitalism thereby making a value judgement which I do not agree with. you may find some ethical arguments against the idea of progress here), it surely doesn't eclipse spiritual decay which I find to be the most worrying aspect of the modern world. But as Heidegger (among others) points out, spiritual decay has reached such a stage of advancement that most people no longer have the possibility of realizing it.

Edited by axel, 26 January 2004 - 04:29 AM.

[Anonymouse]

First I have to say I personally discard the state vs individual worldview which I find overly restrictive in that it is merely based on a materialistic/individualistic faith derived from ideas of the "enlightenement" (I find it ironic btw that you espouse such a view while accusing "nationalism" of this very wrong). Worldviews are based on value judgements, there are not mere rational constructions. Spengler values Culture, Solzhenitsyn, Ethics, others, Tradition vs Modernity... I just want to point out that I don't see the world through the prism of the State vs the individual so that I be not accused of standing in defence of what you call "The State" (which is a gross oversimplification btw that allows all possible amalgams to be made) or Coercion in the largest possible sense, by the following "critique" (the word critique is a bit presumptuous I guess ) for I reject the hidden assumptions that subtend the angle of analysis.

I don't know what your intention was with this little off topic deviation into the realm of making things fungible with relation to the discussion of the State and Anarchy. Nationalism is another creed that is based on mass mindedness, where you vanquish your indiviality to the State, it is part of the State. It is an ideology that reinforces the States existence. I don't understand you equating Nationalism with my defense of the individual, nor how they relate to each other. In fact it was you that tried to make nationalism elastic, in that there is some sort of 'nationalism' as applied to the Armenian peoples, and to others, and that somehow the Armenian nationalism existed before the creed of nationalism itself. The obvious error in that reasoning is something many can't come to grips with in how we create history where there was none. Whether it was fascism, or communism, or democracy, they all rely on collective thinking and mass mindedness, in which the individual is sacrificed to the alter of "the people" (a holistic entity ). There are no "hidden" assumptions aside from what they are, and that you do not own the State but the State owns you.

Government subjects are not victims in the absolute (there might be victims in specific instances, under specific regimes). As much as I hate do so, I have to refer to the idea of social contract in which the individual forgoes some of his freedom in return for a certain amount of protection (be it physical, social...). This is also valid in early societies, in what Giambattista Vico characterizes as the heroic age.

You did not show any errors in my previous premises or conclusion, thus what is your statement based on? Of course if you are a subservient little citizen mindlessly paying your fielty and your dues to the State, you are untouched. So you accept being submissive? There are no "alternatives" in the way you are conceiving them. What you most likely would conceive to a government alternative, is yet another government. What choices we have is simply to live without government, that simple. Private institutions will do the rest. The idea behind anarcho capitalism is that whatever government does, private businesses can do better, and a gradual privatization from police to firemen to other government services will be the rule, not the exception. For example. We pay taxes to government for its services, whether police or national defense ( this is where the ideology of nationalism saves government ). Government is already defined as a territorial monopoly of force. From an economic point of view, a monopoly is bad. If I as an individual cite as an example the failure of government on the scene of national defense ( Sept. 11 for example ), and its policing services' corruption and overall lack of protection, and I want to take my business elsewhere, perhaps a private institution, or simply myself, I cannot do that, for I must pay the tax and I have no choice. That is coercion. No choice, means no liberty, no freedom. Thus when politicians or us speak of this country representing "liberty" that is not so. This country was not always so. The framers recognized the rights of a state militia for their recognized that a centrally organized state would be dangerous. Thus the right to secede was something agreed upon up until the Civil War.

Contrary to Locke's "Social Contract" myth, the government doesn't serve the people and there has been no working model of John Locke's Social Contract myth. In fact all governments have come into existence through violence, even the United States. There is not one example of any State coming into existence by peaceful means, so that is a misconception that is often cited. As far as protection, government protection has clearly failed and it is no different than a mafia making you an 'offer you can't refuse'. You have no choice. Underlying anarcho capitalism is the idea that protection agencies would be privatized instead of a monopoly of government.

There is this thing called chaos theory, and if you study it you will see that the more complex systems get, they will eventually decay, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. It explains the failures of all government plannings. Since no one can predict the future, complex systems are vulnerable to too many variables to allow anyone to make predictions. All these government "measures" and "legislations" and "funding" and "think tanks" and "experts" all make predictions and it never goes according to their plan. The most obvious, lucid and visible example of the powerlessness of us making predictions is the market place. It revolves around nothing but chaos. The unanticipated consequences hit us from both the private and government sectors regarding chaos. The most lucid example is in Iraq where the government now has no escape strategy and is merley responding to consequences, not in control of them.

When you vote, you are declaring that you supoprt the idea of some people ruling over others via coercive means. You are being ruled coercively. Don't believe me? Try to not pay your taxes and insist that the IRS has no right to audit your income. Insist that the IRS is an illegal and fraudulent institution, just like the Federal Reserve, and the initial being the collection agency of the latter. Insist that they are unconstitutional, if you want to defend the constitution for the sake of argument. See what happens to you. Try refusing to serve in the states war machine if you are drafted ( hypothetically ) and see what happens to you. Try doing the same things the state does, namely, stealing, lying, killing, etc., and see what happens to you. So if I am of the persuasion that politics and political systems as we know it, are destroying our modern world, I would be putting my energies in support of this by voting. Remember in the 20th century close to 200 million people have died because of political systems. How many have individuals killed? If the argument is for safety, security, and control, then surely it is better to have no central ruling political authority.

Government contribution to mankind has been nothing but wars, genocide, confiscation, persecution, taxation, inflation ( this exists because of government meddling in economics, when the government is the distributor of the worthless paper money that you have now ). Every other contribution, has been because of the individual. After you cut through all the double think, rhetoric and altruism of what government is, all it is, is force. It is a monopoly of force. There is no voluntarism about obeying laws.

Are you making a case for monarchy?

who says appointed caretakers make the actual decisions? that there does not exist ruling circles holding an "inheritable monopoly" on public affairs and exerting power through various means of pressure?

Interesting that you should raise this. First, no I am not making a case for monarchy, but under monarchy we didn't have what was called "total war". Monarchy by far was more peaceful than "democracy". Like I said, for you to make a case in defense of democracy you would have to somehow show that the 200 million deaths in the 20th century can be attributed to something else. It was Socrates who praised monarchy over democracy, he was condemned to death. When can get a vivid description of Platos thesis on how democracy naturally evolves into tyranny. Reading his Republic books viii-ix one can see a vivid description of the transition from the Weimar Republic to National Socialism.

I consider monarchy a better form of government than democracy. The French revolution brought the historical revival of "Democracy", a sadistic sex orgy in which the "Divine Marquis" played personally. It wanted to bring equality and liberty under a common denominator, something Goethe considered only charlatans would promise. Equality indeed could merely be established in some form of slavery by force just as a hedge can be only kept even by constantly trimming it by force. So the revival of democracy with its ideal of equality is closely connected to nationalism. The basic drive for all this is "sameness". Under democracy even truth became a matter of majorities and the bigger the majority the truer the right answer. However, what I mean by privatization would mean the privatization of currently held government services.

If you read the initial part of my thread on anarchy, you would see how public caretakers, i.e. government workers, have no incentive to work or provide better service, security, or care, since their incomes are naturally guaranteed via the coercive process known as taxation. Everyone else including us must labor for our income, theirs is guaranteed. That is the premise of why private office holders will do a better job than a public office holder.

A private owner of government? So you believe some form of government or authority/hierarchy should be maintained??
I don't see where anarchy stands here if authority is to be maintained.

Actually, authority/hierarchy exists in all forms of society. (And in the same way some see in the "invisible hand" an absolute law of God, others such as Maistre see in hierarchy and authority a divine manifestation according to the belief that "all power comes from God"). It is either hidden or apparent. The miracle of so-called democracy is to have made hierarchy almost invisible to the profane.

This isn't about hierarchy. Of course there are hierarchies in nature, it is precisely because of the inequalities of minds, characters, and capacities that capitalism created the division of labor, which gave each individual the chance to cultivate themselves this is why the west has surpassed the world in living standards which you attribute to materialism, but as well as the development of the individual spiritually, which is why every yurns to live in the west, for that chance to cultivate themselves. The question here is with the State, a monopoly of force that has gradually become more powerful and more centralized and is evidenced by how our societies in the west are heading in a more socialistic direction. If government services were privatized all transactions would be voluntary exchange, not based on coercion. There would always be authority, but for the purposes of my discussion anarchy is the absence of coercive authority, i.e. the State.

It was Murray Rothbard who said that "If men were like ants, there would be no interest in human freedom". Freedom is something each individual wants, for it gives them the chance to cultivate their individual self. Freedom is something outside of government. Government only curtails it and takes it away. Government believes that freedom is something it gives to individuals. Thus the contention is with a centrally organized ruling authority by coercion. From that it deductively flows that this is in obvious contradiction with the principles of economics. Either politics of Statism are seriously flawed, or the principles on which economics exist are false. And we all know that economic laws claim to be apodictically true empirical propositions, in other words praxeological laws, of human action and conduct. Hence it would be a categorical mistake to think of them as ever being confirmed or falsified by historical experience.

This is a statement of belief, one which considers that this world is entirely driven by material greed and reduces man to a mere socio-economical animal. Nothing in the absolute justifies this assumption although I have to agree it has often been justified in practise (but not always).

You are, once more, making an assumption, based on something you believe I am saying or I ought to say for you to have an argument, not what I am saying. I think there needs to be a distinction between the egoist and the individual. This is the question which Rand has helped me raise, is individual self-interest synonymous with egoism? In other words, can one act with the intention of benefiting others and remain a self-interest motivated person? I leave the words of Butler Shaffer to do the explaining for he has done eloquently, what I cannot have done.

Egoism helps to create and reinforce this kind of divisive thinking. By definition, the ego separates itself from others, it being solely the product of its own thinking. The ego knows no boundaries except the range of its own consciousness. Because he has separated himself from others, the egoist believes that others exist to serve his purposes, and may be exploited in furtherance of such ends. The egoist transforms "utilitarianism" into the doctrine of "the greatest good for the greatest guy."

An individualist, on the other hand, acknowledges the self-serving nature of all life. But instead of taking this fact as evidence of some inherent conflict with others, sees it as the basis upon which he and his neighbors can cooperate to accomplish ends each would be incapable of doing on their own.

Because he sees his commonality with others, he is inclined to support social systems that harmonize, rather than negate, our self-serving pursuits. This is why he is less inclined to think of the "marketplace" as a geographical location than as a process by which people can peacefully negotiate for their self-seeking ends. Because the marketplace operates on principles of voluntariness, the individualist is aware that, in order to promote his self-interest, he must appeal to the self-interests of others. This not only results in unintended benefits to others, but intended ones as well. This is another way of saying that all volitional acts are motivated by the expectation of our being better off after acting than we would have been had we not acted.

The egoist – like the statist - operates from the divisive premise "if you’re not with me, you’re against me" and is prepared to use any means necessary, including force, to overcome the self-interest motivations of those who are unprepared to cooperate with his schemes. To such a person, society with others is a potential threat to be guarded against because, like himself, others are seen as having no purpose that would benefit him. This is why so many egoists have been attracted to the vision of a hermitage, a retreat from the rest of mankind, be it in the form of a "Galt’s Gulch," an isolated island or mountaintop, or a space station.


The individualist, on the other hand, recognizes the social nature of his existence. All that he is, and all that he is capable of becoming, has been shaped by his untold millions of ancestors, as well as by his constantly fluctuating relationships with contemporaries. His language and knowledge, as well as the quality of his material existence, have all been greatly influenced by others.

We discover who we are through relationships with one another. It is no coincidence that men who become serial killers are often described, by others, as "loners." When we have no one else with whom to converse but our own inner voices, we are apt to get the kind of skewed definitions of "reality" than can cause us to see anyone and everyone as "threats" to be overcome.

[axel]

First I have to say I personally discard the state vs individual worldview which I find overly restrictive in that it is merely based on a materialistic/individualistic faith derived from ideas of the "enlightenement" (I find it ironic btw that you espouse such a view while accusing "nationalism" of this very wrong). Worldviews are based on value judgements, there are not mere rational constructions. Spengler values Culture, Solzhenitsyn, Ethics, others, Tradition vs Modernity... I just want to point out that I don't see the world through the prism of the State vs the individual so that I be not accused of standing in defence of what you call "The State" (which is a gross oversimplification btw that allows all possible amalgams to be made) or Coercion in the largest possible sense, by the following "critique" (the word critique is a bit presumptuous I guess  ) for I reject the hidden assumptions that subtend the angle of analysis.

I don't know what your intention was with this little off topic deviation into the realm of making things fungible with relation to the discussion of the State and Anarchy.

Well I made it explicit. Maybe you should have read my post in the firstplace.

I will not engage further into this debate. There is nothing new in your dissertation, you are just rehashing the same propaganda like an automaton. Having no valid counter-arguments you write a 3-page message (which is not a response to mine although it appears to be) in order to drown the reader into an ocean of sophisms.

If anarchy is intrinsic to human activity as has been claimed in an early post, then why spend so much time discussing it? If it is a fact, a tautology, it is not worth debating. Do we engage in endless discussions over the fact we have two legs instead of three?

The fact is you first state the obvious and then narrow the theory down and using the very "fungibility" of words, manage to substitute another reality for the one you first presented. This is precisely the way Mises proceeds. He first attempts to present his theory in the most
general framework so that one may not reject and then pharisaically modifies the semantics behind the words so as to push a specific agenda and
put forward specific beliefs.

Why is it that this one-size-fits-all category you call "the state" exists? why did it appear? what could prevent it from appearing ore reappearing if ever it is destroyed?
One might argue nothing is artificial. All proceeds from man's nature. Chaos as well as Order. The rise of "monopolies of authority and coercion" and their fall. One may say all of this is inexorable or cyclic.

I wonder whether your real intent is to promote "anarcho-capitalism" in the US (this system doesn't seem to have greatly benefited Russia over the last ten years or so, has it?) or rather to confuse people with "fungible" and nonsensical ideas.