Anarcho capitalist

[ender2664]

Any anarcho capitalists on here?

[ChrisBlair]

I'm underpaid and I don't trust the government. Does that count?

[ender2664]

Lol!
Being underpaid isn't a determining factor, but notnot trusting government is!

[Thor142]

yup.

[ender2664]

Originally Posted by Thor142

yup.

[kalimus]

Nope. Government application of force through regulation protects people from things like breach of contract. While I don't particularly agree with or trust everything government does, there are some responsibilities that I feel they have regarding how companies conduct their business.

All that aside, "anarcho capitalism" is kind of an oxymoron, as capitalism operates within a certain set of constraints, practices, rules, and beliefs, while anarchists tend not to believe in or support any of those concepts.

[ender2664]

Originally Posted by kalimus

All that aside, "anarcho capitalism" is kind of an oxymoron, as capitalism operates within a certain set of constraints, practices, rules, and beliefs, while anarchists tend not to believe in or support any of those concepts.

We support all of those things but believe that the government should not be the one providing those services.

[Thor142]

Originally Posted by ender2664

We support all of those things but believe that the government should not be the one providing those services.

Exactly. It's a monopoly of services. Any time you have a monopoly of a particular service the quality of service goes down as the cost of the service goes up. Fortunately for the state they also have a monopoly on the use of force so those of us who disagree can be coerced into obedience.

[kalimus]

Originally Posted by ender2664

We support all of those things but believe that the government should not be the one providing those services.

And there is the problem in my mind. A true anarchist doesn't believe any of that, and believes that people should be able to conduct themselves in any manner they choose. The problems that causes would eventually "work itself out". People would police themselves.

As soon as you lay down rules and regulations, regardless of who sets them, you cease to become an anarchist. That's what I mean by an oxymoron. Capitalism and the ways that it work have to operate under some sort of authority, no matter if the government makes the rules or not.

Assuming no conflict of ideals, which there most definitely is, you would depend on a utopian environment where the ones making the rules are not corrupt, and would operate ethically and fairly.. something most capitalists are not known for. Additionally, you would have to accept that the rules would have to be enforced, and the only true way to enforce those is under application of force. Anarcho-capitalists don't believe in that, and is the backbone of the belief that takes government out of the equation.

Government operates with its only power being the ability to apply force, either through taxation or penalties (fines, jail time, stripping licenses, etc). To give that power to an independent entity and have it operate any differently would rely on non-bias, non-corruptible, non-selfish entities which frankly don't exist. It has a negative consequence of having the rules and regulations non-uniform as well, causing other difficulties. It also relies heavily on the notion that people will regulate the market with their wallets, which is a pipe dream. Their inability to do that is what made monopolies on products and services a possibility, and introduced additional governmental regulation and oversight.

In my opinion, this manner of free market would only work in civilizations that are very small, and where almost all (if not all) exchange of goods is done in a small region.

[sherob]

... almost old school Libertarianism.

[Thor142]

Anarchy and statism are incompatible, which explains why statists must mislead people by defining anarchy as chaos and disorder. Somebody once declared that the only two political theories that are completely consistent are anarchy and totalitarianism. Anarchy fully embraces the concept of self, totalitarianism fully rejects that concept. Statism always degenerates into totalitarianism.
Darrell Anderson

[Thor142]

It always confuses me when the biggest flag waving "patriots" scoff at anarchism. We Americans have neither freedom nor liberty. Unless both boil down to having a big screen TV with your favorite sports team on it. We are wholly and entirely subjects of the state. Everything the government does to us we make believe we have some say in through voting and that these acts are for the greater good. The truth is though it's all about power and control of the individual. Governments by nature increase in size and scope of power and control. That's what they do. That's all they've ever done. Every single one in history has ended in a violent totalitarian state.

[Oogabooga]

Whats your bitcoin address?

[kalimus]

Originally Posted by Thor142

Anarchy and statism are incompatible, which explains why statists must mislead people by defining anarchy as chaos and disorder. Somebody once declared that the only two political theories that are completely consistent are anarchy and totalitarianism. Anarchy fully embraces the concept of self, totalitarianism fully rejects that concept. Statism always degenerates into totalitarianism.
Darrell Anderson

It's cool you found a quote. I read the rest of it, and I don't disagree with the author. Anarchy doesn't HAVE to be chaos and disorder, but it always degenerates into it. Outside of small, isolated pockets of population, there is no successful example of an anarchist society. Relying on the masses to govern themselves and be decent to each other is just as doomed to fail, in my eyes, as is allowing an elite group of untouchables to make all our decisions for us. To act the way that would make an anarchist society successful, would require the human race to go against their basic instincts. Look what happens in places when Rule of Law collapses. It turns violent.

Anyway, that's a little off topic. I believe there can be a balance. I don't believe it has to be all or nothing. I believe if I was forced to make a choice between all or nothing on one side of the spectrum, I would choose anarchy. But until that is the only choice, I believe that government can be both small in scope AND effective. Governments getting out of control is only the fault of the people under them. Those people give the government power because they don't believe people can govern themselves.