View Single Post
Helm Helm is offline
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mount Fuji
Old Jun 10th, 2005, 02:45 PM       
I actually missed the whole of your rebuttal before.

Originally Posted by The One and Only...
You entirely misunderstand me. What I mean is that the State is dominated by corporations seeking to manipulate the market in ways that would be advantagous to them. That, my friend, is corporatism, and it's something I'm entirely opposed.
I did not misunderstand you. What you posted was not what you had in your mind. To this newer point I agree wholeheartedly.

I'm not bringing this up as any sort of an attack on your system, but merely to illustrate that I know what you're talking about.
You know what you're talking about because in 8th grade you shared my opinion on how a properly democratic goverment would work?

My problem with such systems now is that there is still an abrogation of rights. People should not be forced to have restraints on their liberty just because the majority of people wills them. A better idea is to let people establish and join communities on a basis of free choice.
Absolutely nobody is stopping you from leaving such a democratic country and persuing your freedom in greener pastures.

Aside from the economic inefficiency (which I realise you don't want to debate), the State will never permit this to occur. It invariably serves the existing hierarchy; it will certain not dissolve itself.
Of course this will be economically inefficient. For a duration. Economy should serve man, not shackle him and be strawmanned into every political argument as "omg what would happen to the economy!". The disadvantage can be managed. As to the State not permitting it to occur, last time I checked, you control the various aspects of state through the power of voting. Wee. The State cannot 'stop' something from happening if it's the will of the people. In the case somebody tries, he's attempting a coup, and as is the usual case, the people go off with his head in a pinch.

[quoteFor some it's an end in itself.[/quote]

I am prepared to align even with such people since we share the same intermediate goal.

You said that anarcho-capitalism would be smashed by those who weren't content with it.
Yes, and this displays my failure to understand what, how?

Actually, private defense forces in the context of a pseudo-ancap society have been fairly successful, such as in medieval Iceland.
medieval Iceland? Are you retarded?

Justice is put into the context of human rights - nothing more, nothing less.
Boy, are you completely unread. First of all a system of Justice a living, dynamic thing that changes with the times. New bills are suggested and passed every day. It's not just about 'human rights'. And justice is as much as to the actual constant word of the law as it is the interpretation of it. It is in the latter that privatized forces would fail completely. A private enterprize only has one goal, and that is to enmass the biggest amount of profit and cut back on it's losses. The model of the conglomerates that you yourself said have reached within the State and are wrestling control of in the name of profit. Are you sincerily telling me that you'd be happy with Policing Companies, that you'd entrust them with the duty of interpreting the law?

Beyond that, polycentric legal codes and multiple defense agencies allow individuals to choose how to live their own lives. It's quite possible that a community of, say, hardcore Christians, might choose to hire Archangels Inc. to protect them from outside forces and hire the Shepards Corp. to bring offenders of the community laws to a private court.
I'm sure your Paladin character will roll perfect twenties in his Divine Intuition rolls.

Ya know, most people I know don't seek power so much as they seek a happy, enjoyable life. Funny how that goes. Regardless, I don't think that you can change human instinct, and I think that ancap is more than able to handle it. I seriously doubt communes would have the economic power necessary to defeat the "solos."
Oh, proof by sincere doubt. Consider me covered.

You're assumption is still that human nature can be changed to a great extent through socialist nurturing, something which I strongly disagree with.
Whoa, proof by strong disagreement. Case closed!

Also, I never said human nature can be fundamentally altered. The jury's still out on that one, but probably, it can only happen naturally through many such 'nurtured' generations. I was/am saying that it's workings can and should be explored to the point where they're made transparent for all, and controlled. This is not happening right now. Nobody is trying. Everybody is being automatic. I had this discussion with the Apportioner in this forum 3 years ago and when he first suggested that man goes to war because of his instinctual leanings, I considered it absurd and fought the notion well into my following study of determinism before I decided to stop lying to myself. Most people, even to suggest that they're not IN COMPLETE CONTROL of themselves flinch and kneejerk all over the place. Nobody is trying. We have to try.

All I'm going to say is look up the labor theory of value, and the subjective theory of value, and tell me which one makes more sense.
I have a general understanding of both terms. Of course labour value is for most intents and purposes the most socially viable. Labour value should be constant for anyone more advanced economical framework (multinational trading, for example) to work. I can understand how subjective labour costs might make sense if you're living in a commune and you buy chickens for two sets of shoes, but clearly applying subjective values to labour in any level over that is retarded.

Their legitimacy as to being anarchists. Right now there is a huge debate with the socialists as to whether ancaps are truely anarchist at all; they view anarchism to be inherently anti-capitalist.
Of course 'ancaps' are not anarchists. They're 'ancaps'. Just as anarcho-communists are not communists. Names are just names. Trying to keep people from using the name of something you hold dear so they don't spoil it into their ( admittedly stupid, in this case) version is pointless. Things are better measured in examination of their parameters, not their names. Though, I'd choose a less misleading name for anarchocapitalism, personally, like 'hahaha'.
Reply With Quote