Anarcho - Capitalism

simplistic2 wrote: »

I tend toward questions like "who is going to invoke mass genocide and war?"...

War has existed as long as civilisation has existed. It's a quaint fantasy that in an anarcho-capitalist utopia, nobody is ever going to be tempted to band together in a group to attack another group, but it's a fantasy nonetheless.

..."who is going to inflate massive credit bubbles?"...

Ah, that would be the other quaint capitalist fantasy that Wall Street would never, ever have fallen into the trap of inventing unsustainable investment vehicles - and making out like bandits in the process - if they hadn't been forced to do it by the nasty, evil federal government. Because, as we all know, Wall Street is all about the caring and the sharing, and they were forced to make obscene and unsustainable profits by the Fed. Right.

..." who is going to throw innocents in prison for victimless crimes?"...

Such as?

..."who is going to snatch a hefty portion of your wage to create dependent underclasses"...

That's right - in the anarcho-caplitalist utopia, there won't be dependent underclasses. Unless you count the people who are dependent on charity, but who cares about them? Or are you going to argue that once government gets out of the way, everyone's going to become prosperous overnight?

...or "who is going to help cover up massive sexual abuse scandals?".

The government shouldn't have been complicit in covering up the abuses by the Catholic church - agreed. That doesn't mean we don't need a government; it means we need a government that won't collude in such a coverup.

Its seems as though you are implying that governments are "saving the rain forest" and " making sure your food is safe" how? if that is your conclusion did you arrive at that?

If you don't understand how governments help ensure food safety, I'd suggest you go find out. Argument from ignorance is pretty hard to debate meaningfully.

simplistic2 wrote: »

How will this group be funded since there is no taxation?

Wait, what? Are you claiming that in a world without governments, there will never, ever be such a thing as a group of individuals with a shared objective and pooled resources?

You're basically arguing not only for the end of statehood, but the end of any kind of organised society? If people want to form such a group and pool their resources to fund it, how do you propose to prevent them from doing so?

Or do you think if say the American tax payer was asked to voluntarily pay for their wars they would tick the yes box and wait for the bills?

A depressing percentage of American taxpayers are only too supportive of their government's interminable wars. That aside, those libertarians who aren't quite as out there as you seem to be are generally content to pay low taxes in order to fund a national defence.

Wrong. The government creates bubbles by forcing competing curriencies out of the market through regulation meaning that the central banks can control interest rates on a whim.

Ah, right. Bubbles are never, ever created through capitalist greed; only by government interference in interest rates.

Are you seriously telling me that the recent economic crisis was caused entirely by government manipulation of interest rates, and not in any way whatsoever related to the creation of artificial investment vehicles designed to decouple risk from mortgage lending?

No, I care about the poor, in an free society poor people won't be trapped under wage laws or be ravaged by bubbles or be used as carcases for the judiciary to prey on and they won't be given mindless handouts that cause them to say "**** it why bother working".

Sorry, but I'm not impressed by magical thinking. You talk about the poor in a "free" society with reference only to the poor in today's society - why not explain the precise mechanisms by which poverty will be eliminated through a free market?

You made the claim that governments protect food and have not backed it up.Instead you have claimed I am arguing from ignorance? Either you dont understand what an argument from ignorance is or you made a poor attempt at an insult.

Governments create food safety laws and prosecute food suppliers who produce food in an environment that isn't conducive to food safety.

Now, here's the thing: that's an objective fact. It's not a matter of opinion, or of speculation. Either you don't know that governments have laws and agencies to ensure food safety - in which case you simply haven't a clue and are arguing from ignorance - or else you know this, and are doing more arm-waving dismissal of the role of government without actually bothering to introduce any intelligent contribution of your own to the argument. Either way, you're making a very, very poor case for anarcho-capitalism; you're no different from the proponents of communism who simply claim that everything would be better if the government ran everything and that capitalism is the source of all evil.

They're wrong. You're wrong. If you can't be bothered introducing any coherent arguments in support of your position, it will be self-evident to any disinterested observer of this discussion that your position is without substantive merit.

Now, you can claim that you don't care whether or not anyone is convinced by your arguments, but that's the standard disclaimer of someone who knows he can't put together a coherent argument for his position.

So, which is it? Are you unaware of the role of government in the assurance of food quality standards, or do you genuinely believe that the role of government in the assurance of food quality standards is at best pointless, and at worst actively harmful? If the latter, would it be a lot to ask that you actually adduce some evidence in support of your position?

simplistic2 wrote: »

Firstly by examining the people that want to live in a society without government; they are people who typically hate violence or aggression of any kind. Even right now in your community, look around, who are the people that are going to group together to enslave us?

I'm pretty sure that there's nobody in my community that wants to enslave anyone (using the objective definition of "slavery", as opposed to your self-serving definition).

Economically, what is the incentive for somebody to try and install a new government? How do you suppose a group of murderers and thieves are going to get the funding to build a new state in a society where people despise statism? It would be easier for a Muslim to try to convert a scientific community.

You'll find it pretty hard to bring anyone around to your way of thinking by describing people who disagree with your worldview as "murderers and thieves".

Taxation is needed for modern war; no individual will voluntarily fund a war. War is the health of state not the individual, there will be no war in a free society.

Leaving aside the fact that this is yet another example of magical thinking (and almost indistinguishable from communist rhetoric about workers' paradises), how exactly is this "free society" going to come about?

Yes. The government not only enables reckless investing by coercing the markets into accepting a single currency...

The markets have a single currency? When did this happen?

...but also actively encourages it by rewarding bankers with bailouts for mal-investments.

I agree that governments were complicit in the creation of the financial crisis through their encouragement of moral hazard. However, I disagree that the solution is to remove government and trust that Wall Street firms are incapable of greed and stupidity in the absence of government.

One of the common factors in the recent credit bubbles is the absence of firm regulation. It seems naive in the extreme to me to claim that the problem would not have arisen in the total absence of regulation.

It is completely and utterly, 100% the fault of the government and would never even conceivably happen in a free society.

That's nothing but more magical thinking. You're claiming that in a "free" society, there would be no incentive for banks to create investment vehicles and sell them with hyped-up credit ratings to gullible customers. On the contrary, in a society without government, there would be nothing whatsoever to prevent such actions.

Since poor is a relative term, it is difficult to define? Are there poor people in Ireland? Compared to what? Essentially the question is “will people wealthier if they keep 100% of their earnings or have half of it used to fund parasitical politicians and endless quangos?” It is simple to deduce the better option.

It's certainly an attractive option, when looked at from a middle- or upper-class perspective.

The free market eliminates poverty by giving people the opportunity to work their way out not grab their way out. When two people make a voluntary exchange; they are both agreeing that they are now better off than they were before the exchange. This multiplied repeatedly is how wealth is generated and thus how poverty is eliminated.

What happens to people who can't work as hard as others, or at all? What happens to orphans, or people with learning disabilities? Where's their opportunity to work their way out of poverty?

In the government model wealth is stolen from one individual, firstly to pay the wage of the person doing the stealing and then it is handed to another individual for doing nothing. This has many negative effects for society. Firstly, by punishing an individual for creating wealth; you dis incentivise him to produce. Secondly, the wealth stolen to fund the politician is not needed in this area and could be spent by the individual, creating jobs. Thirdly, dishing out wealth creates an underclass of dependants as they choose to take free money rather that participating in the production of wealth.

Nobody steals tax from me. I operate in the framework of a society, where I pay tax in return for the services provided by society. I feel that those services could be provided more efficiently, thereby reducing the cost to me in the form of taxes, but the answer is to lobby for greater efficiency in the provision of services, not the destruction of society.

My house isn't as well insulated as it could be, which means I spend more on heating it that I should have to. My answer is to improve the insulation of the house. Yours is to demolish the house, and wear more clothes.

It is a mistake to think that the government helps the poor. They encourage and create poverty. By removing the government “poverty” will be become an ancient term associated with government intervention.

Magical thinking. I believe you're utterly wrong in that assertion. I think your "free" society would have much sharper and deeper divides between haves and have-nots, and until you convince me otherwise (by explaining how a world without government makes poverty impossible, rather than just asserting it) I'll be working very hard to make sure your vision never becomes a reality.

The creation of a law doesn’t create safe food it actually disrupts the market by adding extra costs to producers and stifling innovation in private food safety measures.

Therefore, food is now less safe than it was before governments introduced food safety legislation? Got any evidence for that?

You are also assuming that the government’s standards are valid for everybody. This is not true, for instance in Asia I regularly ate food from street vendors, by Irish government standards they would be shut down and the vendor would lose his lively hood.

Nope. I've eaten food from street vendors in Denmark. Those street vendors are required to prepare their food to the same standards as Danish restaurants. They were still doing business.

Also, you do realise that people quite frequently get seriously ill by eating food from unregulated street vendors in Asian and other countries?

I also had the choice to walk into a supermarket and buy an internationally known, reliable brand. The reason the vendor doesn’t have an international brand is because the consumer is not willing to accept his low standard. It is the consumer that sets the standard, the government is not needed.

You do realise that one of the reasons the international brand is "reliable" is because it's produced under stringent conditions enforced by governments, right?

I knew I would not be able to sue the vendor if I fell ill, so I paid a lower price. I chose my own standard based on the risk, it is entirely irrational to think that an external third party is able to choose what standard is best for me and not only that but since you’re so worried about poverty it also destroys the poor vendors opportunity to rise out of destitution.

Yeah, like all those poor vendors starving on the side of the road in Denmark because the evil government has put them out of government with its stupid and unnecessary safety standards.

I mean, who cares whether kids' toys have lead in them? If enough kids die, the manufacturer will go out of business, and that way the problem is self-correcting. Right?

Bruce Schneier's latest Cryptogram newsletter contains an interesting article that I thought was pertinent to this discussion:

James Madison famously wrote: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Government is just the beginning of what wouldn't be necessary. Currency, that paper stuff that's deliberately made hard to counterfeit, wouldn't be necessary, as people could just keep track of how much money they had. Angels never cheat, so nothing more would be required. Door locks, and any barrier that isn't designed to protect against accidents, wouldn't be necessary, since angels never go where they're not supposed to go. Police forces wouldn't be necessary. Armies: I suppose that's debatable. Would angels -- not the fallen ones -- ever go to war against one another? I'd like to think they would be able to resolve their differences peacefully. If people were angels, every security measure that isn't designed to be effective against accident, animals, forgetfulness, or legitimate differences between scrupulously honest angels could be dispensed with.

Security isn't just a tax on the honest; it's a very expensive tax on the honest. It's the most expensive tax we pay, regardless of the country we live in. If people were angels, just think of the savings!

It wasn't always like this. Security -- especially societal security -- used to be cheap. It used to be an incidental cost of society.

In a primitive society, informal systems are generally good enough. When you're living in a small community, and objects are both scarce and hard to make, it's pretty easy to deal with the problem of theft. If Alice loses a bowl, and at the same time, Bob shows up with an identical bowl, everyone knows Bob stole it from Alice, and the community can then punish Bob as it sees fit. But as communities get larger, as social ties weaken and anonymity increases, this informal system of theft prevention -- detection and punishment leading to deterrence -- fails. As communities get more technological and as the things people might want to steal get more interchangeable and harder to identify, it also fails. In short, as our ancestors made the move from small family groups to larger groups of unrelated families, and then to a modern form of society, the informal societal security systems started failing and more formal systems had to be invented to take their place. We needed to put license plates on cars and audit people's tax returns.

We had no choice. Anything larger than a very primitive society couldn't exist without societal security.

He's writing a book on the topic of societal security. I expect it will be an interesting read.

simplistic2 wrote: »

There is never impartiality within a state, how can there be?The judges that are making the decisions on justice are employed by a monopoly from where they gain their pay and power ...their interests first lie in protecting their pay, and to protect their pay they have to protect their employer.

Who pays the judges in your perfect world?

For instance, I was cross examining the Gardai with the goal of establishing his competence I asked him several times to define "A crime" for me. He simply stayed silent...

What answer would have satisfied you?

SupaNova wrote: »

I don't know if i would trust a book saying sub prime lending started in 1988. It started off the back of securitization and collaterized mortgage obligation, both brought about by government.

Wow. Did you just try to refute a 300-page book you haven't read, written by two respected journalists, with a single quote from Wikipedia?

Anyway, it was a pretty poor refutation. The problem wasn't CDOs per se; the problem was CDOs backed by junk subprime mortgages (which Fannie and Freddie didn't get involved with until 2005), which were rated AAA by (private) rating agencies.

Again, I'm not trying to claim that government is blameless. I'm arguing with the rather bizarre idea that regulation magically makes corporations do stupid things that they would otherwise carefully avoid.