Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Anarcho - Capitalism

2

Comments

  • #52
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    Well, in the absence of a centralised government, a road company could make you sign some terms and agreements limiting your use on the road on the condition that you abide by their safety regulations.

    Also, I don't buy that the absence of a state would result in dozens of arbitrary road rules across the country. To suggest that we need the government to help us from veering all over the roads switching rules every ten miles is just the sort of paternalistic attitude that places the state on a pedestal of provision and rational order in the first place. I just don't see how this is the case.

    While i don't entertain anarchism. I agree some of the fears people have of the government not being involved in things are way over the top. And i have heard plenty of interesting ways of increasing road safety that don't need government to carry them out.


  • #53
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    SupaNova wrote: »
    Every time that local business fails due to Wal Mart moving in there is human cost for that business and its supporting businesses, but it is far outweighed by the human gain provided by Wal Mart moving in. How can you say competition between Wal Mart and the small business was not a good thing?
    Leaving aside the longer-term implications of Wal-mart driving smaller retailers out of business (not universally positive), you're missing my point. You're trying to claim that the big businesses that drive entire economies should be no more subject to regulation than small businesses - but the risks of not regulating big businesses are much, much greater than the risks of not regulating small businesses.
    How you compare something like the above to a jungle or letting starving people die is pretty silly. If you want to call the above competition a dog eat dog world that's fine, but realize that its a good thing.
    You keep bringing the competition straw man into it. I don't have a problem with competition. I have a problem with the idea that competition is the only thing that's needed to regulate a market.
    Your only point is that these financial institutions are just too big to allow to fail, as the human cost of letting them fail would be apocalyptic. We would see the human cost straight away. But many would argue the human cost will be far greater after bailing them out, we will see the effects slowly through inflation, austerity, and eventual default(your post apocalyptic scenario). Maybe this way is more humane on us, maybe not so much for our children.
    There are three things being implicitly compared here: the human cost of allowing businesses to collapse and bring entire economies with them; the human cost of allowing businesses to gamble with economies and then bailing them out, shifting the burden of their gambling debts to taxpayers; and the human cost of preventing the engines of the economy from acting like casinos in the first place.

    You're arguing for the first scenario: let the big firms use entire economies as chips on a blackjack table, and deal with the fallout when it happens. I'm arguing for the third, which would have the side effect of slightly reducing the opportunities for large financial firms to make hundreds of billions of dollars in profit. Boo hoo.
    SupaNova wrote: »
    And whether it was Wall Street or government or mix of both that loosened regulation, what will make it different in the future, a better regulator? Whats to stop him being bought off or threatened in the future. And by putting the sole emphasis on the regulator and regulations, you have the perfect scapegoat the next time this happens. With bailouts and regulations you set up the too big to fail all over again. Its not a free market if wall street asks for freer regulations to run wild and then gets a bailout.
    I'm not asking for a free market. You're asking for a free market, but without the bailouts. You're the one arguing that when we've dug ourselves out of the wreckage caused by unfettered competition, we'll all be better and stronger. I'm the one arguing for preventing the wreckage in the first place.

    I'm going to do something I'll probably regret, and invoke an analogy: imagine a world without building regulations, where property developers could build buildings in whatever way suits them. A free market for property development, if you will. Now clearly this would be a more efficient property market than the one we've currently got - no pesky engineers slowing things down by insisting on properly built foundations, for example.

    So we have a number of property developers, all competing to build bigger and fancier apartment blocks. There's demand for apartments, so the developer who gets them to market fastest and at the lowest cost will be the most profitable. Corners get cut, little things like structural integrity get overlooked. Eventually, apartment buildings start to show alarming cracks, and it becomes obvious that some of them are going to collapse.

    The conversation now turns to how to fix the situation. Some argue that the buildings have to be shored up and repaired - the bailout situation. Others argue that it's better to let them collapse - the free market solution. Sure, the collapse will leave a bunch of people homeless, but at least it will leave the site free to build another apartment block. It might even be a better-built apartment block, because collapsed buildings are fresh in people's memories. But how long before market pressures push the focus back towards cheaper, rather than better, buildings?

    I'm not arguing for a free market followed by a bailout. I reluctantly accept the need for bailouts, because I don't want to see the analogical apartment-dwellers homeless as a result of the builders' short-sightedness and greed. But the more important lesson is that building regulations are required, because you can't depend on the market to enforce them consistently.

    Regulatory failure is always a risk, but it's a risk that's relatively manageable. You could argue against building regulations on the grounds that the building inspector could be bribed, but that's actually not much of a vote of confidence in the integrity of the players in the market that you're putting all your faith in.

    And you still haven't explained why we can't trust the free market to protect the environment.


  • #54
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    And you still haven't explained why we can't trust the free market to protect the environment.

    There is no punishment for businesses not protecting the environment in a free market, there is a reward for environmental shortcuts. Thus why i am for environmental regulation, and why everyone should be.

    As for financial regulation, there is punishment in a free market for being financially irresponsible, you go out of business.

    You want preemptive financial regulation for large financial institutions. I think that's fine until regulations and regulators are bent or changed due to Wall Street or government. You only increase the power of Wall Street by doing this. Eventually you will have a very small number of financial institutions with very few points of failure. Imagine if we go the way of one bank and one regulator, imagine the catastrophic consequences of such an institution failing.


  • #55
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    SupaNova wrote: »
    There is no punishment for businesses not protecting the environment in a free market, there is a reward for environmental shortcuts. Thus why i am for environmental regulation, and why everyone should be.
    If everyone wanted a protected environment, then businesses that act in an environmentally-sound way would be rewarded by the markets, and businesses that didn't would be punished. What makes you think you know better than the market where the environment is concerned?
    As for financial regulation, there is punishment in a free market for being financially irresponsible, you go out of business.
    That's a pretty abstract form of punishment, if the people making the decisions have already made enormous sums of money that they get to sit on even after the businesses they are running have failed.
    You want preemptive financial regulation for large financial institutions. I think that's fine until regulations and regulators are bent or changed due to Wall Street or government. You only increase the power of Wall Street by doing this. Eventually you will have a very small number of financial institutions with very few points of failure. Imagine if we go the way of one bank and one regulator, imagine the catastrophic consequences of such an institution failing.
    But regulation helps to prevent too much concentration of power, by preventing monopolies and oligopolies. Sure, regulation hasn't always worked effectively (especially when a political culture allows regulation to be undermined by the market players themselves), but that's an argument for better regulation, not for none.

    In the building example: if there are building regulations, and shoddy apartment blocks manage to get built, does that mean that we need better regulations, or better enforcement of regulations, or no regulations?


  • #56
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #57
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    If everyone wanted a protected environment, then businesses that act in an environmentally-sound way would be rewarded by the markets, and businesses that didn't would be punished. What makes you think you know better than the market where the environment is concerned?

    The market cannot assess how these business create products, they cannot physically go to the locations of the factories and plants. If the market agrees they want certain environmental standards there will be a demand for regulatory bodies.
    That's a pretty abstract form of punishment, if the people making the decisions have already made enormous sums of money that they get to sit on even after the businesses they are running have failed.

    If they have made enormous sums of money running a business why not go on making money?
    But regulation helps to prevent too much concentration of power, by preventing monopolies and oligopolies. Sure, regulation hasn't always worked effectively (especially when a political culture allows regulation to be undermined by the market players themselves), but that's an argument for better regulation, not for none.

    I dont know of any monoplies or concentration of power that came about from a free market.
    In the building example: if there are building regulations, and shoddy apartment blocks manage to get built, does that mean that we need better regulations, or better enforcement of regulations, or no regulations?

    Its a case of buyer beware, who wants to buy a ****ty apartment? People can hire the services of someone to assess any property before buying if they have no knowledge themselves. You are responsible for what you buy.


  • #58
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    SupaNova wrote: »
    The market cannot assess how these business create products, they cannot physically go to the locations of the factories and plants. If the market agrees they want certain environmental standards there will be a demand for regulatory bodies.
    You think we have environmental standards, and regulatory bodies to enforce them, because the market wants them? Seriously?
    If they have made enormous sums of money running a business why not go on making money?
    Oh, don't worry, they will. In a free market where businesses can collapse, the shareholders will pay the price, not the executives. Which is a form of moral hazard the market seems incapable, so far, of extinguishing.
    I dont know of any monoplies or concentration of power that came about from a free market.
    You think Microsoft's decades-long hegemony on computer desktops came about as a result of government regulation? What government body was responsible for De Beers' century-long monopoly in the diamond business?
    Its a case of buyer beware, who wants to buy a ****ty apartment?
    I've never met anyone who wanted to buy a ****ty apartment. I've met plenty of people who have bought ****ty apartments.
    People can hire the services of someone to assess any property before buying if they have no knowledge themselves. You are responsible for what you buy.
    Nice - shove all the responsibility for (and cost of) quality control onto the buyer. The free market at its most caring. I guess we should make parents bear the cost of chemically testing baby food too - after all, why should there be minimum standards there either?


  • #59
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    You think we have environmental standards, and regulatory bodies to enforce them, because the market wants them? Seriously?

    How did regulations come about? Because people wanted them, the market(the consumers are the market). Likewise with product safety. There should always be a sense of buyer beware. We have product reviews for every product on amazon, why can't people do this for developments from contractors, why can't we have reviews of banks and businesses and their practices? why do we need to put our faith in a group of very small individuals. We can waste our time on facebook and forums but not do a little research on products we buy.

    I'd rather promote a buyer beware culture than a culture of hoping that we get better government to look out for us.
    You think Microsoft's decades-long hegemony on computer desktops came about as a result of government regulation? What government body was responsible for De Beers' century-long monopoly in the diamond business?

    I have heard of the De Beers monopoly, they were criminals from the documentary i've seen. That monopoly has plenty of blood on its hands, nothing to do with people interacting freely.

    As for Microsoft, they were dominant for a long time because they offered the best products and services. There is nothing wrong with a monopoly in a free market, i.e. a market open to competition.


  • #60
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Do you think that a nation-wide system of road rules could be achieved in the absence of a state?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #62
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,418 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    SupaNova wrote: »
    Before government intervention financial institutions would not lend sub prime. Governments pushed for a way to make it happen, that's how securitizations and collaterized mortgage obligation came about to my knowledge. These were first introduced by government backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    I have not read anything to say that the private banks came up with this on their own for their own use and pushed the the scheme on governments, if you can point me to something that suggests this?
    Rubbish!
    Securitzation, CDO's came about with deregulation of financial services act. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The exact opposite of over-regulation!


  • #63
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,418 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    Can't wait for the de-regulation of the nuclear engery sector huh?
    Poor companies burdened with all that unecessary regulation.


  • #64
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    Securitzation, CDO's came about with deregulation of financial services act. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The exact opposite of over-regulation!

    That was passed in 1999? securitization and CDO's were around a lot longer.


  • #65
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    Can't wait for the de-regulation of the nuclear engery sector huh?
    Poor companies burdened with all that unecessary regulation.

    I have already made it clear that i am talking about financial regulation, and we are talking about the financial crisis. I have made my point clear on environmental regulation. Read the the thread before making silly statements like libertarians want no nuclear regulation.


  • #66
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    SupaNova wrote: »
    How did regulations come about? Because people wanted them, the market(the consumers are the market). Likewise with product safety. There should always be a sense of buyer beware.
    Yes, there should - but that shouldn't absolve the seller of the responsibility to produce a quality product. Sure, the market will punish a supplier who kills his customers, but wouldn't it be better if the seller was required to meet standards in advance?

    Now, you can claim that the market will force suppliers to meet minimum standards, which may be true - it's not unlikely that a company that kills several of its customers will be forced out of business. How that's a better solution than requiring the company to meet non-customer-killing standards in the first place is beyond me.
    We have product reviews for every product on amazon, why can't people do this for developments from contractors, why can't we have reviews of banks and businesses and their practices?
    Yeah, that would be great. It would be so much better to have someone find out that they shouldn't buy an apartment because someone else's building collapsed than to have a minimum required building standard.
    why do we need to put our faith in a group of very small individuals. We can waste our time on facebook and forums but not do a little research on products we buy.
    Why do you feel it's better to force consumers to do the research to find out whether or not the product they buy is safe than to force the manufacturer to make a safe product in the first place?
    I have heard of the De Beers monopoly, they were criminals from the documentary i've seen. That monopoly has plenty of blood on its hands, nothing to do with people interacting freely.
    Whoah, back up. You claimed that monopolies don't happen in a free market. De Beers didn't gain their monopoly as a result of government regulation; they gained it through market manipulation. Now, you're the true believer: you explain to me how the market allowed a monopoly to exist for so long.

    It seems to me that you're pinning your hopes on a free market composed of idealists who wouldn't dream of doing anything underhand in order to gain unfair advantage. If that's your vision of a free market, I have a free market in second-hand bridges that might interest you.
    As for Microsoft, they were dominant for a long time because they offered the best products and services.
    Heh. You clearly don't know the first thing about the software business.


  • #68
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #69
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    Yeah, that would be great. It would be so much better to have someone find out that they shouldn't buy an apartment because someone else's building collapsed than to have a minimum required building standard

    Please stop with these wild exaggerations. I have never argued for no safety regulation or no environmental regulation.
    Why do you feel it's better to force consumers to do the research to find out whether or not the product they buy is safe than to force the manufacturer to make a safe product in the first place?

    I have never said their should be no safety regulations. The consumers decide the minimum safety regulations. When you buy a car, if safety is your concern, you do research to find the safest car you can afford. Lets say that car is 25% safer and 25% more expensive. Should all other manufacturers be required to raise their safety standards?
    Whoah, back up. You claimed that monopolies don't happen in a free market. De Beers didn't gain their monopoly as a result of government regulation; they gained it through market manipulation.

    They gained through brutal force and colonialism. They done everything in their power to keep their monopoly, they operated like a criminal gang. There is nothing free market about the De Beers monopoly.


  • #70
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    Heh. You clearly don't know the first thing about the software business.

    There are other reasons why they were dominant. According to your knowledge of the software industry why were Microsoft dominant for so long?


  • #71
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,666 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It seems to me that you're pinning your hopes on a free market composed of idealists who wouldn't dream of doing anything underhand in order to gain unfair advantage.

    who would believe that? I fully expect to come across a % of spivs in anything I do or buy in life. However we are coming from a base that if something is regulated by the state we can "go asleep at the wheel" , this way of running things is niave. A more robust system would allow competition in everything including regulatation or more accruately rating.
    The state is the fast breeder of monoplolies and cartels, a free market does the opposite. Next time you have to wait several hours in an A&E ponder how things might be different if we had the sme choice of heathcare as we do restaruants or hotels.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
  • #72
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    Originally Posted by oscarBravo viewpost.gif
    It seems to me that you're pinning your hopes on a free market composed of idealists who wouldn't dream of doing anything underhand in order to gain unfair advantage.

    Like the above poster said people wont always behave responsibility or morally. The idea that we can elect a government and regulations to enforce responsibility is completely naive. Who oversees the government and regulators?

    Can you not see how regulations provide barriers to entry and therefore less competition?

    Ever increasing regulation will lead in the direction of a monopoly of one state bank and state regulatory body. Imagine the catastrophe of that bank failing.


  • #73
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    I agree although I find the no-state/small-state distinction quite an interesting thought experiment. Speaking practically, the issue of reducing the government from an extra large to a large is slightly more pressing.

    I guess you could probably tell I'm over halfway through On Liberty by Rothbard at the moment.


  • #74
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Unless I've misunderstood your arguments, you're describing anyone who believes in the legitimacy of a state as a supporter of murderers and thieves. Which is a bit like trying to bring people around to a worldview by yelling at them that they are brainless idiots for disagreeing with it - it's unlikely to achieve the desired outcome. I do live a life grounded in reason and virtue. Now, you might disagree with that assertion, because you have your own personal definitions of those words, and you refuse to budge even slightly from your own perspective. The problem with that is that you can't possibly accept a world in which anyone disagrees with you. Until everyone complies with your personal definitions of reason and virtue, you can't possibly achieve the society you dream of. Which pretty much means it's not gonna happen. If you refuse to be friends with anyone who doesn't completely and unquestioningly agree with everything you do and say, you must be a very, very lonely person. That's an exercise in shocking arrogance. You're basically claiming that people only disagree with your phenomenally blinkered worldview because they were abused as children?

    I've heard some breathtaking hubris in my time, but that is so far out there I'm having trouble believing anyone could possibly think that way. I really must try running my business that way some time. Rather than, y'know, anticipating problems and planning for them, I'll just wave my hand and hope that somehow things will just magically sort themselves out. That'll make for a nice, short business plan. I really have a great deal of difficulty comprehending this point of view. I guess that's just a sign that I was beaten to a pulp by my parents. That is, after all, the only reason why people disagree with you, isn't it?

    Of course it's the only reason. To be honest, I think you should take a shower.


  • #75
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #76
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Hmm...how is this legal system paid for? ...taxes?

    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    I know you don't , I was referring to the standard outcome of giving anyone the power to regulate just one area...it never stops with just one area.

    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Of course I want an anarchic free for all ...funnliy enough the British government agree with me on that one too.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBcz-Y8lqOg&feature=player_embedded

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi0meiActlU&feature=related


  • #77
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    On that note!

    http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20110319/NEWS01/110319006/1001/news/Liberty-Dollar-fake-currency-creator-convicted-federal-court?odyssey=nav|head
    The leader of a group that marketed a fake currency called Liberty Dollars in the Asheville area and elsewhere has been found guilty by a federal jury of conspiracy against the government in a case of “domestic terrorism.”

    Note the "fake" placed nice and snug before currency.


  • #78
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    simplistic2 wrote: »
    Hmm...how is this legal system paid for? ...taxes?




    I know you don't , I was referring to the standard outcome of giving anyone the power to regulate just one area...it never stops with just one area.




    Of course I want an anarchic free for all ...funnliy enough the British government agree with me on that one too.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBcz-Y8lqOg&feature=player_embedded

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi0meiActlU&feature=related

    I'm in Thailand now and have been for the past few months and they do ignore rules quite a lot. But there is some very sensible ones that don't cause accidents
    a) pedestrian crossings: If the light is still red and the people crossing have passed your car/bike you just drive on. Whats the point staying there with nothing in your way.
    b)at crossroads when your light is red, but there is no traffic, people edge out and drive on.

    I have never seen an accident from breaking the above rules. You can do this in front of the police.

    People are paying attention when doing the above two things. Now thailand is a lot more dangerous per capita than european countries. But the biggest reason for this is the massive number of people driving bikes without helmets.

    Should people be forced to wear helmets?
    I don't think so, your responsible for your safety decisions.

    I think a lot of the road rules enforced to the book are just about raising money for the gardai. Like doing people for driving 70 in a needless 50 zone. In Ireland they play road safety lip service. If they really cared they would be on our smaller country roads where speed is much more of a danger.

    What i like about the thai police when they want money they are blatantly open about it, they will sweep the city at large in one or two days, and just pull the easy to spot targets to save time(anyone on a bike without a helmet), then leave it for a few weeks. Like the gardai in Ireland they mostly don't give a **** about road safety, purely a money raising racket.


  • #79
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #80
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    The American state has done a great job of trampling all over their constitution, proclaiming that it is "living document" (read: arbitrary interpretation to achieve whatever end we deem expedient at the time).

    Is the American experiment not an example of the failure of constitutional limits on governmental power? If we still believe this is a legitimate goal, then what could be changed about a constitution that could ensure state compliance?


  • #81
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    SupaNova wrote: »
    I'm in Thailand now and have been for the past few months and they do ignore rules quite a lot. But there is some very sensible ones that don't cause accidents
    a) pedestrian crossings: If the light is still red and the people crossing have passed your car/bike you just drive on. Whats the point staying there with nothing in your way.
    b)at crossroads when your light is red, but there is no traffic, people edge out and drive on.

    I have never seen an accident from breaking the above rules. You can do this in front of the police.

    People are paying attention when doing the above two things. Now thailand is a lot more dangerous per capita than european countries. But the biggest reason for this is the massive number of people driving bikes without helmets.

    Should people be forced to wear helmets?
    I don't think so, your responsible for your safety decisions.

    I think a lot of the road rules enforced to the book are just about raising money for the gardai. Like doing people for driving 70 in a needless 50 zone. In Ireland they play road safety lip service. If they really cared they would be on our smaller country roads where speed is much more of a danger.

    What i like about the thai police when they want money they are blatantly open about it, they will sweep the city at large in one or two days, and just pull the easy to spot targets to save time(anyone on a bike without a helmet), then leave it for a few weeks. Like the gardai in Ireland they mostly don't give a **** about road safety, purely a money raising racket.

    Theres nothing like tearing down the motorway at 70 in a tuk-tuk! If I remember correctly the taxis don't even have seatbelts, but I don't remember seeing any 10 car pile-ups.

    I agree the Gardai don't give a hoot about your safety ,why would they? Their main concern is collecting revenue for thier employer. I'm awaiting the Gay Byrne crowd to start a campaign to have a Garda in every passenger seat, and force manufactures to fit a break pedal for them too!


  • #83
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Then you have to accept that forced interaction is legitimate for welfare, bailouts, heathcare... Statist laws are just as arbitary those.
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Extremist?...I like this quote.."ANARCHY is the radical notion that other people are not your property."

    The problem for me is your use of the pronoun "WE". We do not need anything...if you want to live under a state I have no problem , I have no problem with communists, socialists etc. I am supportive of anybody who wants to take part in mad cap social experiments...just don't include me in them.
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Private roads do not equal boy racers driving through playgrounds...


  • #84
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    There is plenty to stop people rising to form a state. Statism is a religion it's only held together by peoples blind adherence to the democratic model. As soon as it is exposed as the fantasy that it is - there is no way of going back to it. Do you ever thing the people of Ireland will set up a monarch and start baying at the devine right of kings? What are the statistics for athiests to find god?

    The perpetual war argument is irrational because who is going to fund a war to try and install another state? It would be like an islamic community declaring war on a scientific community to force them into a theocracy...it would be the worse economic decision a General could ever make.

    I think statism will be dead by the end of the 21st century. They are doing some great work over in new Hampsire www.freestateproject.org. Once there is a working model of a free society it will spread like hot butter.


  • #85
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #86
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Yes you do have to accept it, and not only that, but you have to accept that any act of violence is also just dandy. Why?

    Because when you say " the state" all you are saying is "individuals". If you say individuals have the right to enforce their preferences on other individuals , then ironically its actually statists that are arguing for a free-for-all.

    So if you believe that individuals have the right to force wealth from other individuals pockets to fund a legal system. Then you believe that force is justified by arbitary preference...and welfare, healthcare, balouts and random acts of violence are merely arbitrary preferences.

    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Yeah ...but Locke was an extremest.

    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    I don't believe a "breakdown" of society is necessary to achive a stateless society. Nor has any movement advocated full property rights and the elemination of the state following a breakdown of society.

    A stateless society will most likly occur through non-compliance in concentrated areas like the example I gave of New Hampsire. I was also thinking about what it would be like to try it here, and really you would only need less than 5,000 in some tight costal region and the state would have to back off completly. There would be other benifits also, if a small community started here, the state would be effectively competing against the community for citizens and therefore would have to completely shrink in size. So, I think even if you are a small government advocate , the best way to shrink the government is not to petition them, but to out compete them.


  • #87
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    Stateless Somalia doing better than state neighbors:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtGkTRnocZI


  • #88
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    But...but...but we just need to get the right people in power...it's not the system ...it can change...it can change...

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/25/guantanamo-files-lift-lid-prison
    Guantánamo leaks lift lid on world's most controversial prison
    • Innocent people interrogated for years on slimmest pretexts
    • Children, elderly and mentally ill among those wrongfully held
    • 172 prisoners remain, some with no prospect of trial or release


    All you supporters of the idea of government are complicit in this.


  • #89
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    simplistic2 wrote: »
    All you supporters of the idea of government are complicit in this.
    Sure, because it's completely and utterly inconceivable that human beings would do bad things to other human beings in the absence of government. If every government disappeared in the morning, all the truly nasty, evil, disgusting human beings on the planet would realise that they were only despicable slimeballs because of the existence of governments, and would instantly mend their ways.

    I'm having trouble deciding which worldview is more delusional, yours or bolshevik's.


  • #90
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Sure, because it's completely and utterly inconceivable that human beings would do bad things to other human beings in the absence of government. If every government disappeared in the morning, all the truly nasty, evil, disgusting human beings on the planet would realise that they were only despicable slimeballs because of the existence of governments, and would instantly mend their ways.

    I'm having trouble deciding which worldview is more delusional, yours or bolshevik's.

    If you support government you support "truly nasty, evil, disgusting human beings that are despicable slimeballs." Because government is the idea that you have the right to engage in "truly nasty, evil, disgusting" acts against other humans.

    The least you could do, if you had any virtue or courage is withdraw support from an idea that spawns this filth.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    simplistic2 wrote: »
    If you support government you support "truly nasty, evil, disgusting human beings that are despicable slimeballs." Because government is the idea that you have the right to engage in "truly nasty, evil, disgusting" acts against other humans.
    And ideology is the unwavering belief, in the face of any and all evidence to the contrary, that <insert whatever the hell it is you're opposed to> is the sole and only reason that people do bad things, and that in the absence of <insert again> people will spontaneously become angels and stop doing the bad things they do.

    I'm really not sure how long and hard you have to work at convincing yourself that free-market capitalists are morally incapable of being horrible, nasty people and that they are somehow forced at gunpoint by governments to overcome their better natures.

    Ideologies of all stripes scare the hell out of me, because they almost invariably seem to require that a major chunk of their adherents' ability to think rationally be surgically removed.


  • #92
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    I begun this thread stating my philosophy :

    "I am the owner of my body and I am the rightful owner of the product of my labor. I believe that it is immoral to initiate or threaten anyone with violence."

    To say that this is an irrational ideology is beyond stupidity. Every ideology in the past that has swept through society has been the opposite of this, from marxism to democracy, none of them have respected person or property.

    The priciples of an-cap are the non-aggression prinicple and full property rights.
    If you really believe that a philosophy that respects person and property is an irrational ideology then it really says more about you then the philosophy.


  • #93
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    simplistic2 wrote: »
    I begun this thread stating my philosophy :

    "I am the owner of my body and I am the rightful owner of the product of my labor. I believe that it is immoral to initiate or threaten anyone with violence."
    That's fine as far as it goes - it even borders on admirable. It's right up there with the core Christian principle of "love thy neighbour as thyself" as a beautifully simple philosophy by which to live your life.

    How'd that Christian thing work out? Any crusades, inquisitions, schisms, anything like that?

    The problem with simple philosophies is that, as your username implies, on closer inspection they tend to turn out to be merely simplistic. Adhering to a simplistic philosophy can be quaint and naive, but when you start labelling people who disagree with that philosophy as supporters of thieves and murderers, and when you cling doggedly to the belief that bad things can only happen through rejection of your ideology, then it becomes hard to distinguish from any other ideology with fanatical adherents.

    For what it's worth, I largely agree with your opening philosophy - as I do with that of Christianity - but I'm not a Christian, and I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. I am suspicious of "trust me, it'll work" approaches in all walks of life. In my experience, it won't. Life is about consensus and compromise, and sometimes about banging heads together.


  • #94
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    Can't wait for the de-regulation of the nuclear engery sector huh?
    Poor companies burdened with all that unecessary regulation.

    There's a good case to be made that the only reason nuclear power stations exist at all is because of government inetrvention.

    I believe the economics of nuclear power don't add up unless the state can take taxes and plough it into the feild (no pun intended).


  • #95
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    There is an obvious problem with having absolutes but i don't think people are getting at it. Nuclear power and our monetary system are obvious examples of government interventions, and it is easy to defend free market capitalism against those.

    The biggest legitimate criticism of free market capitalism can be made when voluntary interaction of two parties has an effect on a third parties property rights, pollution being the obvious example. But thats when it can get tricky, like cars are obviously causing third party violation of property rights by polluting the air on those that don't voluntary participate in owning cars, but i doubt banning cars would be a good idea if we were to blindly stick to principles. You can take that exercise a lot further in many areas if you want.

    The biggest reason people are hating on capitalism at the moment is because of the financial crisis but at the very root of that episode is government and central banks monopoly control of money supply and interest rates. Yet the financial crisis will be blamed on the private financial sectors deregulation, sidetracking the blame and hiding the cause. That being said the financial industry have taken full advantage of our current system for their own gain. The sick part of it all being the bailout of said corrupt financial institutions. Although maybe sicker will be not understanding the causes and ending up a repeat somewhere down the line.


  • #96
    Inhousejoke
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27 ✭Inhousejoke


    No offence guys, but anarcho-capitalism just isn't anarchism. The idea that private control of wealth and resources can play a part in a truly democratic and equal society doesn't make any sense.

    "Anarcho - capitalists want to end equality doled out by state coercion and replace it with equality built on voluntary, respectful and peaceful co-operation."

    How voluntary is it when you work for a capitalist because you own nothing and have to survive?

    "I-dont-own-the-clothes-on-my-back-anarchists."
    -This isn't a realistic representation of social anarchism, it's the means of production we think should be held in common ownership, not your toothbrush! :D

    Anyway, I'm going to post two links to the Anarchist FAQ that deal with and debunk "anacho-capitalism", as it can put it across better and more eloquently than I can! It's a bit of a cop-out, but hey it's late at night...

    http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secFcon.html

    http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append1.html


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    How voluntary is it when you work for a capitalist because you own nothing and have to survive?

    Its voluntary because you have the choice of starting your own business and making your own living. You have a voluntary choice.

    The argument you are making is that its not voluntary because you have to do something to live. Go back as far as hunter gatherer's they had to go out and hunt to gather to survive, was nature an involuntary coercion for them? you are making somewhat of a similar argument. Whats different today? the only thing different is we have governments that can redistribute wealth.

    What has democracy got to do with anarchism, democracy is majority rule, meaning the majority can impose their will on the minority. Anarchism is about freedom liberty and the rights of an individual and protection of these, not the the rights of a majority over a minority.

    The other argument you are making about the means of production is flat out communism. If I build a factory why should that be any different from me building a shed in my backyard?

    Lol at the links, one saying choosing the option of employment is selling yourself into slavery.


  • #98
    Inhousejoke
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27 ✭Inhousejoke


    Grrr, I keep getting into these things when I don't have the time! I'm neck deep in exams at the moment, so I'll give you a nice detailed reply on Friday :D


  • #99
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    SupaNova wrote: »
    There is an obvious problem with having absolutes but i don't think people are getting at it. Nuclear power and our monetary system are obvious examples of government interventions, and it is easy to defend free market capitalism against those.

    The biggest legitimate criticism of free market capitalism can be made when voluntary interaction of two parties has an effect on a third parties property rights, pollution being the obvious example. But thats when it can get tricky, like cars are obviously causing third party violation of property rights by polluting the air on those that don't voluntary participate in owning cars, but i doubt banning cars would be a good idea if we were to blindly stick to principles. You can take that exercise a lot further in many areas if you want.

    I don't see the problem with that? A property rights violation is just that, regardless of how it happens or is percived. The more important question to ask is whether or not it is cost effective to seek retribution.

    I wouldn't bring somebody to court because they tossed a crisp packet in my garden nor would I for the odd bit of fume from a passing car. If a factory set up next door and started pumping toxins into my neighbourhood then it's a different matter.The costs of the third party damage would justify action.

    Absolutes are indeed important in these cases. But I wouldn't worry about it too much.When we are rid of the state, resource allocation will be so efficient that pollution will be minimal.


  • #100
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    Inhousejoke wrote: »
    No offence guys, but anarcho-capitalism just isn't anarchism. The idea that private control of wealth and resources can play a part in a truly democratic and equal society doesn't make any sense.

    Your probably right, I don't really like that word anyway. It is far to abused and I
    don't want to do it anymore damage. I prefer Voluntaryism.
    Can I keep that one?


  • #101
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    There's a good case to be made that the only reason nuclear power stations exist at all is because of government inetrvention.

    I believe the economics of nuclear power don't add up unless the state can take taxes and plough it into the feild (no pun intended).

    I agree here. How could you possibly get insurance on nuclear waste that stays dangerously radio active for thousands of years?

    Try pitching that to the dragons den...


  • Advertisement
Advertisement