More Rants

[Winchester]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1335915425' post='2425838']
Actually, I've read and own at least five books by Dr. Woods. He has good arguments with regards to economics and Constitutional issues. But he's a conservative-libertarian, not an anarchist.

Anarcho-capitalism is fairies and unicorns fantasy.
[/quote]
You might want to pay more attention to what Woods says. A couple minutes in, Tom gets his opening statement. He addresses the real unicorn fantasy.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpmqy9tC4uI [/media]

[Kia ora]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1336002870' post='2426256']
They were certainly no cowards when it came to preaching moral truth.
[/quote]
They never condemned slavery as an unjust institution.

They had to look after their flock. If they said 'don't pay taxes to the evil emperor guyz', the Christians would have been annihilated.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Kia ora

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1336045126' post='2426470']
You might want to pay more attention to what Woods says. A couple minutes in, Tom gets his opening statement. He addresses the real unicorn fantasy.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpmqy9tC4uI [/media]
[/quote]Link doesn't show up for me, and my short attention span prevents me from watching some vid, trying to figure out what YOU think Tom is saying. Can you provide a succint statement making your point because I can't see how the floopy you defended or deflected Soc's saying anarcho-capitalism can only be fantasy.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Kia ora' timestamp='1336047347' post='2426482']
They never condemned slavery as an unjust institution.

They had to look after their flock. If they said 'don't pay taxes to the evil emperor guyz', the Christians would have been annihilated.
[/quote]
Do I recognize the influence of Sobran, in this response?

[Winchester]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1336049104' post='2426492']
Link doesn't show up for me, and my short attention span prevents me from watching some vid, trying to figure out what YOU think Tom is saying. Can you provide a succint statement making your point because I can't see how the floopy you defended or deflected Soc's saying anarcho-capitalism can only be fantasy.
[/quote]
I don't really need to deflect his personal opinion about anarcho-capitalism--it's a personal opinion that consists of hot air and derision.

I've provided a link to a useful video, which is not the only time Tom Woods speaks out in favor of (at the least) market anarchy. If I get around to it, I type out an actual quote. Sorry to have insulted your religion.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1336066917' post='2426552'] Sorry to have insulted your religion.
[/quote]Considering my religion is a superficially pragmatic acceptance of a limited perception of reality, your insult did as much harm as a marshmallow trying to crack a walnut.

But seriously. You often enlighten me (ie: Gov. inflation of currency), I was hoping to learn something without expending much effort on my part.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1336067922' post='2426561']
I was hoping to learn something without expending much effort on my part.
[/quote]

Story of my life right hurr!

[Winchester]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1336067922' post='2426561']
Considering my religion is a superficially pragmatic acceptance of a limited perception of reality, your insult did as much harm as a marshmallow trying to crack a walnut.

But seriously. You often enlighten me (ie: Gov. inflation of currency), I was hoping to learn something without expending much effort on my part.
[/quote]
I'm unsure of your tactics, right now, so I'm going to keep acting tough until I figure it out.


Give me time, I'll think of something. And thanks.

[Anomaly]

I'm being sincire. I read Benson's peice you linked to. I think it's a better defense of the order of a relationship between market and Government, not a good defense that Government laws aren't needed. That's why I'm curious how you are defining anarcho-captitalism.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1336073431' post='2426603']
I'm being sincire. I read Benson's peice you linked to. I think it's a better defense of the order of a relationship between market and Government, not a good defense that Government laws aren't needed. That's why I'm curious how you are defining anarcho-captitalism.
[/quote]
I agree that Benson's piece does not seal the deal for claims of anarchy. The order amongst merchants arose in a world with various governments, so one could argue that government was necessary to provide that climate, and it would take a Hoppe or Tucker to argue against them successfully.

As far an anarcho-capitalism I view it as a market entirely free of aggression, including government interference. I suppose it's also a belief that government intervention is a drain on the economy, not a boon, and that all the functions of government can be provided by non-government entities. A common response is that companies would operate for profit, and thus not have our best interests at heart. It seems to me that government also operates for profit, but they call it taxation. The relationship I would have with a security guard I hired is significantly different from the relationship I have with a police officer, whose paycheck comes not from an entity that I hire or choose, but an entity that claims I must support it or face violence. Once I accepted that all law is force, my outlook on the state changed.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1336074507' post='2426607']
Once I accepted that all law is force, my outlook on the state changed.
[/quote]Societal Order is like a stool, you need more than one leg. If one leg is too long or too short, the stool is unsteady. Remove the leg that's too long, you end up with an even more unsteady stool.

You hire a securtity guard, you coerce him to do his job to YOUR requirements, or you fire him, taking away his paycheck that pays for his food and shelter. He can't chose to do the job the way HE deems acceptable, he must behave within the parameters you have defined.

Government role is to protect and enable a competitive environment for businesses. Anarcho-capitalism would eventually allow monopolies that can operate strictly for profit by elimintate fair competition. Too much government does eventually destroy a free markets ability to be responsive to market demands. But Government also must address the needs and wants of the citizens. There are arguements to be made to provide some protection to industries that employ that Government's citizens. Of course, too much protection allows industries to delay or ignore competion demands for better production technologies, etc. A good example is the protections given to the US auto industry that allowed them to continue to manufacture high profit large cars and not respond to market demands for quality smaller cars. Here comes Datsun and Toyota in the 70 & 80's.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1336006911' post='2426301']
I'm trying to figure out how in the floopy you could possibly get that from what I wrote.
[/quote]
My point is simply that St. Peter recognized the state - despite all its flaws - as possessing legitimate authority that Christians are obliged to respect, as did Christ, St. Paul, and every subsequent Father and Doctor of the Church. They were not anarchists. Anarchists regard the state as having no legitimate authority.

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1336045126' post='2426470']
You might want to pay more attention to what Woods says. A couple minutes in, Tom gets his opening statement. He addresses the real unicorn fantasy.

[/quote]
Interesting. Appears Woods has modified his views a bit, though he had more credibility when he was for limited government, as opposed to anarchism

However, the truth remains that some kind of state is necessary to protect property rights and have a functioning civil society. The recognition and protection of property rights is one of the fundamental roles of government. In places where the government does little to protect property rights (as in much of the third world), poverty, violence, instability, and grotesque inequality reign.

Anarchism seems to rest on the presumption that if the only the state would get out of the way, everyone would simply agree on the rules and to play with them and be nice, and no one would dream of theft or violence to another. Problem is, it's never worked that way since the days of Cain and Abel. Anarchism ignores the inconvenient little (actually, not little at all) reality of original sin. Until Christ comes again, there will be evil ruthless bastards with little regard for rule of law or respecting the rights or property of others, and any functioning human society will have to deal with this unpleasant reality.

In order to have civil society, you need a rule of law, and for the law to have teeth, you need courts of law and some means of law enforcement. Once these are in place, whether you want to call it that or not, you have a state. The alternative is lawlessness and endless wars of vendetta.

Show me [i]one[/i] real-world example of a functioning anarchical human society of any scale in man's history, and I might consider taking anarchism seriously. (Theoretical books, papers, or Youtube videos don't count. After all, Marxism also looked nice on paper, but Marx was likewise in denial of the reality of human nature.) Until then, I will dismiss anarchism as the silly utopian fantasy that it is.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1336074507' post='2426607']
As far an anarcho-capitalism I view it as a market entirely free of aggression . . .
[/quote]
Therein lies the central flaw of anarchist utopianism. You can't just wish away aggression from human nature. Aggression in all its ugly forms will be with us until Judgment Day, and any realistic model for human society must be able to deal with this fact. For competing "business" interests that operate outside the rule of law (such as drug cartels), murder, terror, rape and torture are business as usual.

I agree with you that government has far overstepped its bounds, yet I don't share the fantasy that a world without any form of state or law enforcement would be a desirable condition.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1336077994' post='2426626']
You hire a securtity guard, you coerce him to do his job to YOUR requirements, or you fire him, taking away his paycheck that pays for his food and shelter. He can't chose to do the job the way HE deems acceptable, he must behave within the parameters you have defined.[/quote]
This isn't truly coercion. He isn't forced to accept the job. Neither of us must consent to the demands of the other. If he rejects the job, he simply does not receive the money I would give him. There may be situations in which employers have great advantage, or use their intelligence to go make unjust labor agreements. I don't rule that out.
[quote]
Government role is to protect and enable a competitive environment for businesses. Anarcho-capitalism would eventually allow monopolies that can operate strictly for profit by elimintate fair competition. Too much government does eventually destroy a free markets ability to be responsive to market demands. But Government also must address the needs and wants of the citizens. There are arguements to be made to provide some protection to industries that employ that Government's citizens. Of course, too much protection allows industries to delay or ignore competion demands for better production technologies, etc. A good example is the protections given to the US auto industry that allowed them to continue to manufacture high profit large cars and not respond to market demands for quality smaller cars. Here comes Datsun and Toyota in the 70 & 80's.
[/quote]
Currently, government works to protect many businesses from competition. Monopolies have, through history, actually been the product of government intervention on behalf of a favored business or businesses. Intellectual Property is a form of monopoly. In an area, a business could gain a large market share, but it would have to do so by providing a superior product that people wanted. There are arguments about things like power companies, phone companies, but you will find counter arguments there, as well.

In the advocacy of a state to regulate markets to prevent people from doing evil, there is an assumption that the state, with access to power that no private company enjoys (random stops and searches, laws against resisting police detainment, even if unlawful, etc.), will somehow be free from corruption. This is clearly an argument for minimal government and good constitutions, but these are subject to the same abuse by powerful people. Nothing will solve the problem of evil men.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1336084247' post='2426670']
My point is simply that St. Peter recognized the state - despite all its flaws - as possessing legitimate authority that Christians are obliged to respect, as did Christ, St. Paul, and every subsequent Father and Doctor of the Church. They were not anarchists. Anarchists regard the state as having no legitimate authority.
[/quote]
Do you believe revolt to be inherently immoral?