John Stossel: "I Was Brainwashed"

[soylent]

I doubt they'd be more than one company left after the terrible insurance wars.

The maffia is a proto-government, waiting in the wings to take over if anarchy where ever to be achieved and legitimate government abolished.

They are also willing to provide you with "insurance" and "protection", for a price.

 

[neocenturion]

Well this certainly has the familiar sound of freeman-on-the-land-nonsense-economic-model.

Sir, you are constantly dodging the important questions. Simply calling something a weak argument is not, in fact, and argument against it. You are going to need to explain how your model functions under the hypothetical scenarios presented to you. You are assuming that everyone under this system will operate with morality and respect for the system, and if they don't, there will be an arbiter to settle it. You are then assuming that the other party will respect this arbiter. You are also contending that if they do not, and initiate violence against you or the arbiter, that you are allowed to defend yourself through violence.

So that brings us to this: What happens if you are killed in the act of defending yourself against unjust violence?

 

[ideogram]

Let's say an entire state agrees with my position.

Would you let them leave the union voluntarily and form an anarcho-capitalist society?

Or would you demand that the US federal government attack them and force them to stay in the union?

You know, this example does not exactly support your point.

 

[PGH]

Let's say an entire state agrees with my position.

Would you let them leave the union voluntarily and form an anarcho-capitalist society?

Or would you demand that the US federal government attack them and force them to stay in the union?

Certainly not anything to worry about. No state agrees with your position. None would. FMOTL is more of a fringe theory than truthers, birthers or moon landing hoaxers.

When you get those millions of people who want to live entirely free of any sort of government or authority we can talk. Though I don't know how that can happen since for all these people to get together they'll need some form of organization and authority..the very thing they want to live without.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Everything I've read here against an-cap seems to come down to two points:

"It is impossible to abolish violent tyranny, for in any system in which a tyrant does not currently rule, a tyrant can and will arise to rule it."

"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't."

... have I missed anything?

 

[michaelsuede]

Everything I've read here against an-cap seems to come down to two points:

"It is impossible to abolish violent tyranny, for in any system in which a tyrant does not currently rule, a tyrant can and will arise to rule it."

"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't."

... have I missed anything?

Yeah, you've pretty much missed the entire philosophy.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Yeah, you've pretty much missed the entire philosophy.

Considering I'm the only poster who appears to have actually agreed with you on any major point, that's quite disappointing.

 

[neocenturion]

Everything I've read here against an-cap seems to come down to two points:

"It is impossible to abolish violent tyranny, for in any system in which a tyrant does not currently rule, a tyrant can and will arise to rule it."

"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't."

... have I missed anything?

Yes. I (and I'm guessing i'll find support here) do not believe that the current system is 'the devil.' Though I have disagreements with some small points with how the system is run, I believe the basic design is exceptional. Thanksfully, being that I live in America, the populace is able to affect change without the need for violence.

An-cap is not only open to violence, it downright requires and fosters it.

 

[brodski]

Everything I've read here against an-cap seems to come down to two points:

"It is impossible to abolish violent tyranny, for in any system in which a tyrant does not currently rule, a tyrant can and will arise to rule it."

"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't."

... have I missed anything?

yes, you've missed:
1) collectivism can often achieve certain things more efficiently and effectively than rabid individualism and
2) an-cap would descend into a state much closer to the common understanding of the word tyranny than any liberal democratic system in effect in the world today.
2a) Violent tyrants do not currently rule modern liberal democracies unless you redefine the terms to remove all meaning form it.

Taken together they pretty much demolish all of an-cap theory as it could be applied to the real world. It has a weak theoretical basis and no practical applications. It doesn't warrant much more of a debunking than it has received here.

 

[PGH]

Certainly not anything to worry about. No state agrees with your position. None would. FMOTL is more of a fringe theory than truthers, birthers or moon landing hoaxers.

Everything I've read here against an-cap seems to come down to two points:

"It is impossible to abolish violent tyranny, for in any system in which a tyrant does not currently rule, a tyrant can and will arise to rule it."

"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't."

... have I missed anything?

Yeah, you've pretty much missed the entire philosophy.

Considering I'm the only poster who appears to have actually agreed with you on any major point, that's quite disappointing.

I love it when they make my point for me.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I love it when they make my point for me.

It's a fun discussion, anyway.

 

[AvalonXQ]

2a) Violent tyrants do not currently rule modern liberal democracies unless you redefine the terms to remove all meaning form it.

I'm fine with just saying "coercive governments", if you feel that "violent tyrants" can only apply in situations where the majority of the country does not agree with the government's behavior or in situations where the violence is only used in situations that you are okay with.
Either way, they still behave immorally.

 

[PGH]

It's a fun discussion, anyway.

Strangely enough I completely agree.

 

[michaelsuede]

Considering I'm the only poster who appears to have actually agreed with you on any major point, that's quite disappointing.

I miss read your post, sorry about that.

 

[PGH]

I miss read your post, sorry about that.

Too late. Your privately funded security forces are already at war with each other.

 

[brodski]

Either way, they still behave immorally.

Only if you accept that immorality can only arise through action rather than inaction. I don't. Most people don't.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Too late. Your privately funded security forces are already at war with each other.

I, like many other people, would probably not have a privately funded security force hired in advance of some actual crime committed against me. I'd rely on my own weapons and home barriers for protection -- just as I do today.
I don't really have any confidence in the police.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Only if you accept that immorality can only arise through action rather than inaction. I don't. Most people don't.

I don't either. But I do believe that initiating coercive violence against another is immoral, and our governments are set up to do just that. They behave immorally.

 

[PGH]

I don't either. But I do believe that initiating coercive violence against another is immoral, and our governments are set up to do just that. They behave immorally.

We all behave immorally! From government to business to people to dogs. That's no reason to throw something out the window. After this anarchy are we gonna have to shoot our dogs and then kill ourselves? 'Cause that is bleak Jack!

 

[lomiller]

So, these warlords in Somalia, how exactly are they different from private security forces?

Another good analogy is mafia protection rackets. It starts out with people paying other people to protect them when the government is no longer able. Next they attack anyone who hasn’t signed up for protection so they have an even bigger incentive to pay for this “protection” Pretty soon they decide to eliminate the competition by attacking their clients so they will pay for their own “more effective” protection. Once the competition is gone they attack their own customers to give them an incentive to pay for “upgraded” protection.

For that matter this is also pretty much how feudal societies progress from relatively egalitarian societies to entrenched hereditary lords and monarchs.