John Stossel: "I Was Brainwashed"

respect said:
How are you going to file all of these lawsuits without the state?
Click to expand...

The most common response to people who bring up an anarchic model is "only the State can do X". There are very straightforward responses to how private individuals in an anarcho-capitalist societies can actually do the necessary activites of government better than the government can.
 
PGH said:
No. That's what would happen constantly under the system of non-government you propose.
Click to expand...

That is the exact opposite of what would happen.

Currently, those who are too weak to fend off the State police are being stolen from daily.
 
Garrette said:
I need only go as far as this claim to realize the emptiness of the model, regardless if I have engaged in the looting of other people's labor or not:
This could be conceivably true only insofar as the labor were totally independent of the labor (and ownership of the product of labor) of everyone else. If instead, as is most likely to be the case, your labor and its products are contingent upon someone else's provision of some of the resources (i.e., products of others' labors), then this claim is vacuous.
Click to expand...

Not true.

Since I own the product of my labor, I have a right to trade that which I produce voluntarily.

In order for me to legitimately acquire resources from someone else, all that is necessary is for me to conduct a trade with them that they also agree to.
 
timhau said:
Right. Like in Brazil or China, which hardly have any government at all.
Click to expand...

Like in China, where economic growth can be pretty directly attributed to the gradual relaxation of government controls from the economy. Totalitarian China << Capitalist China.
 
Remind me again why you own your own body in Libertopia? Isn't it the product of your parents' labor? Or at least your Mom's?
 
AvalonXQ said:
The most common response to people who bring up an anarchic model is "only the State can do X". There are very straightforward responses to how private individuals in an anarcho-capitalist societies can actually do the necessary activites of government better than the government can.
Click to expand...

How would I be compelled to obey a private legal system?

What would stop me from telling an arbitrator to eat %#$^ and buying the property on the other side of his and building a second hog farm there out of spite (and I would)?
 
TmoonII said:
Is this similiar to the Amish economy?
Click to expand...

No, since the division of labor is facilitated by the voluntary exchange of monies that both parties are in agreement to.

If I offer to trade a gold coin for a weeks worth of labor, and the other person voluntarily agrees to this exchange, there is no problem.
 
michaelsuede said:
Somalia is not in a state of true anarchy, ... tribal warlords are operating states within the region known as Somalia
Click to expand...

So, these tribal warlords came into existence because of ... wait, wait, don't tell me, intervention by outside evil State blah blah blah ...
 
AvalonXQ said:
The most common response to people who bring up an anarchic model is "only the State can do X". There are very straightforward responses to how private individuals in an anarcho-capitalist societies can actually do the necessary activites of government better than the government can.
Click to expand...

You're right- although it at first appears to be a complex probelm it does have many solutions that are simple, need and wrong.

Anarcho-capitalism has never been shown to work in the real world, indeed the concept is so alien to basic human nature that it has never been seriously attempted. The problem is that for an-cap to work there must be a group with is powerful enough to enforce the principle of non-initiation of violence without trampling on anyones rights. Aside from the facts that, due to the problem of primary acquisition, the mere act of calming property is an initiation of violence (or the threat of violence) and aside from the fact that peoples rights will conflict all the time and without some agreed on powerful arbitrator disputes will be settled by the strongest not by the person with the most just cause, any group which is powerful enough to enforce the principle of non-initiation of violence will also be powerful enough to initiate violence on their own to their advantage.
Unless and until you can change basic human desires and psychology an-cap will just be a pipe dream.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Like in China, where economic growth can be pretty directly attributed to the gradual relaxation of government controls from the economy. Totalitarian China << Capitalist China.
Click to expand...

That is correct.

However, China also has some things working in its favor that help to promote its manufacturing dominance. - namely our federal reserve.

By buying up our treasury bonds, China has been on the receiving end of US inflationary monetary policy. What this means is that China labors to produce real "things" and in exchange, we give China a bunch of funny money.

This keeps the price of labor, and subsequently Chinese products, relatively low because the Chinese are basically not allowing their people to buy their own products. All that crap that China makes could be bought by their own people rather than being shipped over to the US in exchange for funny money.

If China stopped buying our bonds, the Chinese currency would appreciate and subsequently make their imported products more expensive for US consumers. The rise in Chinese prices would make US manufacturing more economically competitive.

The reason why the US has lost so much manufacturing ground to China is almost exclusively due to the Federal Reserve.
 
respect said:
How would I be compelled to obey a private legal system?
Click to expand...

Again, these are some of the most basic questions which are asked of anarcho-capitalism, since people find it hard to accept the idea of not giving any abstract entity the absolute moral right to just harm you, steal from you, or kill you.
From the principle of non-aggression follows that when someone is violent against you, you are justified to use force in response -- to protect yourself and your property.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Again, these are some of the most basic questions which are asked of anarcho-capitalism, since people find it hard to accept the idea of not giving any abstract entity the absolute moral right to just harm you, steal from you, or kill you.
From the principle of non-aggression follows that when someone is violent against you, you are justified to use force in response -- to protect yourself and your property.
Click to expand...

That doesn't answer the question. How does a private legal system enforce its laws?
 
brodski said:
You're right- although it at first appears to be a complex probelm it does have many solutions that are simple, need and wrong.

Anarcho-capitalism has never been shown to work in the real world, indeed the concept is so alien to basic human nature that it has never been seriously attempted. The problem is that for an-cap to work there must be a group with is powerful enough to enforce the principle of non-initiation of violence without trampling on anyones rights. Aside from the facts that, due to the problem of primary acquisition, the mere act of calming property is an initiation of violence (or the threat of violence) and aside from the fact that peoples rights will conflict all the time and without some agreed on powerful arbitrator disputes will be settled by the strongest not by the person with the most just cause, any group which is powerful enough to enforce the principle of non-initiation of violence will also be powerful enough to initiate violence on their own to their advantage.
Unless and until you can change basic human desires and psychology an-cap will just be a pipe dream.
Click to expand...

Claiming anarcho-capitalism is a pipe dream because you don't believe the market is capable of protecting property rights a fairly weak argument.

So you're saying that if the police and courts were funded through voluntary insurance payments instead of taxes, society would devolve into chaos?

I think not.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Again, these are some of the most basic questions which are asked of anarcho-capitalism, since people find it hard to accept the idea of not giving any abstract entity the absolute moral right to just harm you, steal from you, or kill you.
From the principle of non-aggression follows that when someone is violent against you, you are justified to use force in response -- to protect yourself and your property.
Click to expand...

and what if those stronger than you do not believe in non-initiation of violence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom