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

Anarcho - Capitalism

124

Comments

  • 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.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    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.


  • 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).


  • 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.


  • 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
  • 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.


  • 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


  • 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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    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
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    SupaNova wrote: »
    Lol at the links, one saying choosing the option of employment is selling yourself into slavery.
    Wage slavery. If we accept the premise laid out at the beginning of this thread - "I am the owner of my body and I am the rightful owner of the product of my labour"- then any condition whereby someone is forced to renounce the 'product of their labour' is a form of slavery or coercion. If the 'choice' is either death through starvation or selling my labour (and the products of this) then I am being forced to enter into a employment relationship that deprives me of this basic right to the fruits of my labour. There might as well be a gun to my head

    There is of course a separate issue with anarcho-capitalism permitting actual slavery (a logical conclusion from treating bodies as economic units) but I don't think that's what you were getting at
    Its voluntary because you have the choice of starting your own business and making your own living. You have a voluntary choice
    And who is going to work in this business of yours? What if you don't have the necessary capital to set up a business? What if, as faces 99% of people today, there is simply no choice but to work for a wage/salary?

    See, the basic problem with anarcho-capitalism (and I fully agree that its not anarchism at all) is that, similar to little girls dreaming about feudalism, everyone imagines themselves at the top. No one dreams that they'd be one of the peons slaving away on subsistence wages with no union or state protection. But this also cuts to the core of the contradiction in anarcho-capitalism: the persistence of inequality in a stateless society. As long as you have a capitalist-worker dynamic you will have conflict, class conflict. Today there is a vast state apparatus that works to manage this conflict or render it harmless. Yet you propose drastically heightening the unequal relations in society and stripping away the protection of the state

    Without a state, an anarcho-capitalist society would resemble nothing more than a Boer farming landscape: a class of helots kept in line by shotgun-wielding ranchers. Leaving aside the sheer undesirability of this scenario, it is a state of affairs that would last all of two minutes. Good luck enforcing a coercive social order without a police force or army


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    "I am the owner of my body and I am the rightful owner of the product of my labour"- then any condition whereby someone is forced to renounce the 'product of their labour' is a form of slavery or coercion.

    You are not forced to renounce the product of your labor. You sell your labor voluntarily.
    If the 'choice' is either death through starvation or selling my labour (and the products of this) then I am being forced to enter into a employment relationship that deprives me of this basic right to the fruits of my labour.

    In your scenario you still have a choice like a small tribe in remote amazon has the choice of doing something or dying, just because you live in a part of the world where there is more wealth does not mean you should be provided for without doing something. In other words have other people give you their wealth.

    There is a lot more that goes into making the fruits/products than just labor. If it was just labor then you would make the fruit yourself. You are basically complaining that we have to do something to live. I would rather sell my labor than have to become a hunter gatherer or farmer and provide everything for myself.
    And who is going to work in this business of yours? What if you don't have the necessary capital to set up a business? What if, as faces 99% of people today, there is simply no choice but to work for a wage/salary?

    You have to gain capital by creating it for yourself or selling your labor in return for capital. Just because you or 99% of people don't own a factory or have the capital does not mean someone should just give it to you. Now not only are you complaining that you have to do something to live, you are complaining that people with more capital wont give it to you for free.

    If you hate capitalism so much why not aim to become self sufficient, i bet you will find statism and its taxes providing far more barriers to the goal of self sufficiency than capitalism. I am sure there are plenty of people like minded. Why don't you set up a small version of the system you would like and see how it works out?

    Libertarian's have their version:
    freestateproject.org/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    SupaNova wrote: »
    You are not forced to renounce the product of your labor. You sell your labor voluntarily
    Yes, I can "voluntarily" make the choice between working for you or starving. That is not a choice in any meaningful sense. Neither are the alternatives you provide. Without capital or land there is no alternative but to sell my labour if I want to avoid poverty. In doing so I have no choice but to void my 'rights' to the product of my labour
    In your scenario you still have a choice like a small tribe in remote amazon has the choice of doing something or dying, just because you live in a part of the world where there is more wealth does not mean you should be provided for without doing something. In other words have other people give you their wealth.
    What? Are you suggesting a return to subsistence farming? That the alternative to wage slavery is living like some tribe in the Amazon? (:confused:) Regardless, its a moot point. Peasants have land that they can retreat to and cultivate; workers don't

    As for "other people give you their wealth", I have no idea where you are getting this from. The whole point is that, if we accept the OP's A-C dictum, my wealth is actually being taken from me. That is, I am forced (because I don't want to die of starvation) to work for wages that are less than the value of the product of my labour. In an A-C society, or any one in which a division between bosses and workers remains, it is impossible for me to be "the rightful owner of the product of my labour"
    There is a lot more that goes into making the fruits/products than just labor
    Yes, capital and raw materials. Which labour then converts into goods to be sold. I don't see the relevance though given that most people don't own either of the first two. Unless you're proposing socialising the means of production?
    You are basically complaining that we have to do something to live. I would rather sell my labor than have to become a hunter gatherer or farmer and provide everything for myself
    No, I'm pointing out the contradiction inherent in A-C. That is, to repeat myself, that under A-C the vast majority of people would:

    a) not be entitled to the product of the labour
    b) the continuation of class society would demand the maintenance of state society
    You have to gain capital by creating it for yourself...
    No, you can't create capital out of thin air. You have to accumulate it. Which you can do of course through selling your labour. Which brings us back the necessity of wage slavery
    Just because you or 99% of people don't own a factory or have the capital does not mean someone should just give it to you. Now not only are you complaining that you have to do something to live, you are complaining that people with more capital wont give it to you for free.
    This is just insulting. Not once have I suggested anything remotely like this. You are simply talking right past me
    If you hate capitalism so much why not aim to become self sufficient, i bet you will find statism and its taxes providing far more barriers to the goal of self sufficiency than capitalism. I am sure there are plenty of people like minded. Why don't you set up a small version of the system you would like and see how it works out?

    Libertarian's have their version:
    freestateproject.org/
    Because you can't simply step outside capitalism


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    Without capital or land there is no alternative but to sell my labour if I want to avoid poverty.

    Yes this boils down to having to do something to live.
    In doing so I have no choice but to void my 'rights' to the product of my labour

    If you work in a factory the product of your labor is not the product produced by the factory. I worked in a factory for a summer placing boxes of product in a bigger box. The fruit of my labor was not the product produced. The product of your labor is worth what you agree to sell it for. You can accumulate capital and land for yourself, no one should just give it to you.
    I have no idea where you are getting this from. The whole point is that, if we accept the OP's A-C dictum, my wealth is actually being taken from me. That is, I am forced (because I don't want to die of starvation) to work for wages that are less than the value of the product of my labour.

    How is your wealth being taken from you. Your labor is worth the price you sell it for. How do you know the wages you work for are less than the product of your labor?

    Edit: If i agree to sell my labor for roughly €800 pm working in a factory which i did. If I wanted to think about it non monetary terms, the value of my labor was fuel and insurance for my car, going out on the weekend, eating food, dvd's, internet, game of poker at the local, swim once a week etc etc. I was quite happy to put boxes in another box to get that in return. If i wanted more in return i would have had to convince my employer i was worth more, or find alternative employment.
    No, I'm pointing out the contradiction inherent in A-C. That is, to repeat myself, that under A-C the vast majority of people would:
    a) not be entitled to the product of the labour
    b) the continuation of class society would demand the maintenance of state society

    a)You are still assuming the final product as the value of their labor, which it is not
    b)This whole class thing is in peoples heads. I have friends/acquaintances that are in politics, that run businesses, that work in factories. I don't see political classes, capitalistic classes, and working classes or imaginary class wars.
    No, you can't create capital out of thin air. You have to accumulate it. Which you can do of course through selling your labour. Which brings us back the necessity of wage slavery

    Yes you have to accumulate raw materials, but you can create/build capital goods, a simple example would be a fishing rod. I never meant for it to come across as just being created out of thin air.
    This is just insulting. Not once have I suggested anything remotely like this. You are simply talking right past me

    I didn't mean to insult. Its hard to debate properly with you when i don't know your beliefs. But since you believe selling your labor to be slavery i assumed some sort of Marxist belief.
    Because you can't simply step outside capitalism

    Yes you would have to work to achieve a way out, just like some Libertarians are doing. Like i said people don't just give you stuff for free. Why don't 10,000 people who believe that selling their labor is slavery embark on a similar project.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    SupaNova wrote: »
    Yes this boils down to having to do something to live
    Well I'm glad we've established this fact that no one was arguing. But it is important nonetheless
    If you work in a factory the product of your labor is not the product produced by the factory. I worked in a factory for a summer placing boxes of product in a bigger box. The fruit of my labor was not the product produced. The product of your labor is worth what you agree to sell it for
    Nope and nope. In the first place you have contributed labour to a product and thus a share of the value of that good is the product of your labour. But then when you total up the value of the labour contributed to a product (ie, everyone who actually makes it) then you'll find that, even accounting for raw materials and other expenses, its still less than the sum that the good is sold for. It cannot be any other way so long as someone is making a profit

    But that's an over-complication. So let's assume that its just me making chairs and each day I produce 5 chairs. I've agreed to sell my labour to you for €50 a day and it costs €20 in expenses to manufacture a chair. Simple, no? The issue is that when you go an sell the chair for €100 each, that is a profit of €30. Now the product of my labour is not €50; that's a completely arbitrary figure that I've agreed with you. The true fruits of my work is the monetary value of the good produced. That is, if I make a chair that sells for €100 then I should receive €100 minus expenses

    This is what it means when I say that the statement "I am the owner of my body and I am the rightful owner of the product of my labour" does not hold for a A-C society. You might reject this of course but then good luck arguing against taxes or the like
    You can accumulate capital and land for yourself, no one should just give it to you.
    Yes, by working for others. You seem to be missing my point here. I'm not suggesting that people should be given things for free, I'm arguing that the very nature of capitalist enterprise means that there are bosses and workers. Which are, like it or not, different classes with different interests. Most obviously, workers want higher wages while bosses want to minimise such expenses
    Edit: If i agree to sell my labor for roughly €800 pm working in a factory which i did. If I wanted to think about it non monetary terms, the value of my labor was fuel and insurance for my car, going out on the weekend, eating food, dvd's, internet, game of poker at the local, swim once a week etc etc
    To be blunt, in which case you don't understand the meaning of the term. That is not the value of your labour, it is the value of the amount that you have agreed to sell your labour for
    Yes you have to accumulate raw materials, but you can create/build capital goods, a simple example would be a fishing rod. I never meant for it to come across as just being created out of thin air
    Well let's run with your example. First of all I need initial capital to buy a fishing rod and a licence. This sum might be small (I have no idea) but then that would be understandable given that the returns are so minuscule. How many people do you know who make a living from going out with a fishing rod?

    (As an historical aside, this was once pretty applicable, on a grand scale, during the first emergence of capitalism in England. The authority of the state was used to sweep away the old feudal rights and allow proto-capitalists to seize assets - land, forests, fishing rights, etc - that were once held in common. Hence the 'primitive accumulation of capital')


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    Nope and nope. In the first place you have contributed labour to a product and thus a share of the value of that good is the product of your labour. But then when you total up the value of the labour contributed to a product (ie, everyone who actually makes it) then you'll find that, even accounting for raw materials and other expenses, its still less than the sum that the good is sold for. It cannot be any other way so long as someone is making a profit

    Ok this is what we are disagreeing on. You are forgetting who contributed to the building of the factory, the investors and the entrepreneurs who had to accumulate capital. The profits go to the people who set up or originally invested the capital. No one is in the business of putting their hard earned capital to work building a factory for nothing in return. If people who built up capital were required to invest it for 0 profits there would never be any investment, people would just consume their capital.
    But that's an over-complication. So let's assume that its just me making chairs and each day I produce 5 chairs. I've agreed to sell my labour to you for €50 a day and it costs €20 in expenses to manufacture a chair. Simple, no? The issue is that when you go an sell the chair for €100 each, that is a profit of €30. Now the product of my labour is not €50; that's a completely arbitrary figure that I've agreed with you. The true fruits of my work is the monetary value of the good produced. That is, if I make a chair that sells for €100 then I should receive €100 minus expenses

    I take it he doesn't have the tools or materials to make chairs himself. If he did he would work for himself. Should a person who accumulated the tools give them to someone for free to make chairs so they can receive the full benefit of making the chair? All the chair maker has to do is save and accumulate his own tools and capital and he can then, get the sole benefit of making the chair.

    Lets take the example of two carpenters working for the factory. One decides to save a portion of his income(accumulate capital). The other consumes all his income. The saver eventually has enough to start working for himself and hire his own employees. Should he now put his hard earned savings(accumulated capital to work) for nothing in return? what would be the point in him saving, going out less, spending less on leisure, perhaps doing overtime etc to just provide a job for someone with no reward?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    To take our example of the furniture factory further. Lets say the original employer has almost all the available skilled labor hired. The guy who branched out will be directly competing for available labor in the area. So the the guy that left to start his own company, has to offer a better wage or working conditions to the employees to get them to work for him. Also he either has to produce a better product, or a similar product for cheaper to gain market share. Can you not see how having more capitalists, entrepreneurs is a good thing for the employees? Competition between in employers is the best way to improve working conditions and pay.

    And also lets say that someone never had to save, and was lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family. If he puts that capital to work for profit, he has to start a business that offers employees better pay or working conditions, and consumers a better quality product, or a cheaper product. In his pursuit of profit, far from being a scourge to society, his capital accumulation and investment actually stands to serve people despite it not being his intention.

    There are some other posters here that could add more to the importance of profit and loss(which people forget about), prices and markets, and value in a more articulate way.
    Which are, like it or not, different classes with different interests. Most obviously, workers want higher wages while bosses want to minimize such expenses
    This seperation into classes is a really destructive and illogical way of thinking. There are employees that earn more than employers. So to separate those into classes where one is beneath the other is silly. Of course within the structure of one company management will earn more than staff. But being a manager is just a job, people would rarely take on the responsibility of management without some extra reward.


  • Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭Hawkeye123


    This concept of Anarcho-Capitalism is interesting. I like the idea. That said, I feel the word "equality" is frequently misused in political debate. It is a loaded term often used by Bolshevik types to acquire by force or coercion that which they did not earn. Often these modern day Robbin Hoods steal from the rich, gorge themselves and then try to bribe the poor by tossing them a few crumbs.

    True equality exists only in capitalist societies. For example, if a citizen in a capitalist society works hard he/she tend to be rewarded accordingly. By contrast, in a Bolshevik society, everyone is poor and that is an unequal society as if fails to reward those who work hardest, take most responsibility and contribute more than the typical lazy-good-for-nothing Bolshevik.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    I'm withdrawing my support from this idea because I think I am incorrect in my assumptions and I need to start from scratch again. I'd also like to apologise to memebers like Oscar, Lockstep, Permabear and the others I engaged with for my arrogance on the topic.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,355 ✭✭✭Belfast


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Absence of government. Markets would work perfectly - and everyone would be happy and prosperous - if governments would only stop interfering.

    Apparently.

    Free Markets would work better that FF/FG/Labour could regulate.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,355 ✭✭✭Belfast


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

    I do not think the nuclear energy would last long without government substitutes or be able to start.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,355 ✭✭✭Belfast


    I do not believe a debate has been undertaken on this fine philosophy so I'll get the ball rolling.

    Anarcho - Capitalism is a philosophy that causes outrage and contempt from all angles of the political spectrum. From "I want a free lunch" democrats to "the cloths on my back aren't mine " anarchists the word anarcho -capitalist conjures up images of men branded by the corporations that they are owned by. This of course is false and only proves the current power of mindless propaganda circulating through society.

    Anarcho - capitalism is a simple, beautiful, rational and moral 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".Thats it. If you agree with this statement - you are also an anarcho capitalist.

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

    All functions of the state can be provided voluntarily.
    • Security
    • Dispute resolution
    • Welfare
    • Health care etc.

    Since humans tend to gravitate slowly but consistently toward more humane and moral standards, it is only a matter of time before this philosophy is realised for its potential and we can finally watch the death of statism.

    Nice idea but I think after not too long some one or group would create a goverment and shut the system down.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Western countries have strong governments and free societies. It is private interests that push draconian legislation. Hillywood for SOPA. Big oil and petro chem for resourse wars. Now private prisons lobbying against relaxing drug laws.

    Did people know monsanto now own their own army via their aquisition of blackwater? People think these power structures would evaporate over night under this new paradigm?

    Maybe if we were to reset everything this ideology could work. But thats fantasy. If we changed to it now there are already people in position to gobble up the power of government with their massive wealth and power.

    Be realistic.

    People should ask themselves why the mega rich are so interested in neutering the power of democracy. Have they ever in history been concerned with the freedom and well being of the underclasses?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,355 ✭✭✭Belfast


    RichieC wrote: »
    Western countries have strong governments and free societies. It is private interests that push draconian legislation. Hillywood for SOPA. Big oil and petro chem for resourse wars. Now private prisons lobbying against relaxing drug laws.

    Did people know monsanto now own their own army via their aquisition of blackwater? People think these power structures would evaporate over night under this new paradigm?

    Maybe if we were to reset everything this ideology could work. But thats fantasy. If we changed to it now there are already people in position to gobble up the power of government with their massive wealth and power.

    Be realistic.

    People should ask themselves why the mega rich are so interested in neutering the power of democracy. Have they ever in history been concerned with the freedom and well being of the underclasses?

    Private interests like monsanto are not interested in small government. They like strong government. They just want to control it is their own interests.

    As you say not sure how realistic it is some one might create private army and take over the country anyway.

    Western countries have strong governments and are not free societies.
    They may be relative free compared to places like Burma but they are not free by standards libertarian.

    Anarcho - Capitalism may be a pipe dream, but I am not sure how viable our present system is in the long run either.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 779 ✭✭✭UsernameInUse


    I'm withdrawing my support from this idea because I think I am incorrect in my assumptions and I need to start from scratch again. I'd also like to apologise to memebers like Oscar, Lockstep, Permabear and the others I engaged with for my arrogance on the topic.

    Why would you withdraw support for the only logical inevitability stemming from Libertarianism? The majority of "Libertarians" on boards.ie are Friedmanites - this is the Chicago School where everything is to be decentralised, yet the cretins in their ignorance don't advocate the greatest economic decentralisation of all - the decentralisation of money. I love Friedman for what he contributed and agree with him on 99.9 percent but Murray Rothbard will always be the genius and rightly so demolished and outed Friedman on numerous occasions - Austrian economics is true.

    Let me put it this way as it was put to me many years ago - we're on a train from statism to freedom. The majority of Libertarians on here would get off at the second last stop. You and I would get off at the last stop. We're all getting off the train, some of us just go one stop further. How can anyone on here advocate rolling back the state, its coercion and it's force of violence when they rubbish the idea (which is the only difference between Anarcho-Capitalism and conventional Libertarianism) of dismantling the government monopoly on the law? In light of this, these Libertarians are basically saying "get out of my way" yet they want to be taken care of by the government.

    If the Libertarians on here were consistent, privatising the law should be the FIRST step towards a free society and I'm sad to see they oppose this step to freedom.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    Belfast wrote: »
    Private interests like monsanto are not interested in small government. They like strong government. They just want to control it is their own interests.

    Well i wouldn't agree with this at all. Private interests like Monsanto don't necessarily like strong government. They like corruptable government. There's a difference.
    They like a malleable government.
    Western countries have strong governments and are not free societies.
    They may be relative free compared to places like Burma but they are not free by standards libertarian.

    If i had a penny for every time the word 'free' or 'freedom' was uttered on this board to advocate an ideology, i'd be a very wealthy individual.:)
    It's a rhetorical device that has little meaning in reality.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    @Username, I think your assertion that most on here are Friedmanites is off the mark. From my experience most are Austrian, and most would argue against central banking and interference with money supply and interest rates.

    If you are a Rothbard fan you might enjoy this, an Irish anarchist Professor talking about his book on Rothbard:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWbLSZbsMj4


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭Pacifist Pigeon


    SupaNova wrote: »
    @Username, I think your assertion that most on here are Friedmanites is off the mark. From my experience most are Austrian, and most would argue against central banking and interference with money supply and interest rates.

    If you are a Rothbard fan you might enjoy this, an Irish anarchist Professor talking about his book on Rothbard:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWbLSZbsMj4

    I'm taking an elective in UCD at the minute (Anarchy, Law & the State), and Prof. Casey is lecturing it, it's great! So interesting.

    (though I wouldn't agree with him at all in relation to his social views as I'm an atheist, however he doesn't push those ideas in his lectures)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    I'm taking an elective in UCD at the minute (Anarchy, Law & the State), and Prof. Casey is lecturing it, it's great! So interesting.

    Lucky you, definitely an interesting guy and also an interesting subject matter.


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


    This post has been deleted.


Advertisement