PDA

View Full Version : Question for all you anarcho-capitalists out there.




Standing Like A Rock
10-14-2008, 07:59 PM
First, I am not taking a stance on anarcho-capitalism in this post, this is not meant to be a discussion thread on the subject, I am just looking for your answers.

With that said, if you are debating with somebody that the world should be in an anarcho-capitalism state, how do you defend the following counter argument?

How would law and order be maintained?

Why would the largest corporation eventually not just take over by force, put all other corporations out of business, and have a monopoly over everything, and essentially be a mafia like rule over everybody?

kombayn
10-14-2008, 08:03 PM
Maybe if all the private police departments and law-makers had nukes, we'd all be safe. ;)

Standing Like A Rock
10-15-2008, 08:45 PM
i need some more answers here.

muzzled dogg
10-15-2008, 08:50 PM
the way i see it is that that's the ultimate end of anarcho capitalism and the only thing that i can see that might actually lead to anarcho communism

mudhoney
10-15-2008, 09:34 PM
Just think about what means a corporation would have for becoming huge in the first place, and how using force at some point in time would reflect on their business. Are you suggesting that they become huge in the first place by force or by legitimate means?

The main point to keep in mind is that consumers and other businesses are going to be severely put off by any company that uses force, and they would not be able to base a business around it. If they do it enough to the point where enough people are willing to take action, they would probably hire defense of some sort to use force in reaction to their ways.

In the end, an anarcho-capitalist would argue that without institutionalized legal plunder in the form of government, the use of aggression to get ones way would not be tolerated as much as it is with government backing it up, and it would be difficult to find a business that thinks it's more effective to gain wealth through force than legitimate voluntary exchange.

The Market For Liberty (http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/) was a real eye opener for me for how anarcho-capitalism makes sense and could function.

danberkeley
10-15-2008, 09:40 PM
private courts. private security. since all land (the part that has been homesteaded, at least) would be private, someone who owns a plot of land would set the rules (laws) for people who step onto his land. "corporations" are "creations" of the state. besides, 40,000 people die on public (read government) roads every year and the government isn't punished. where's the "law & order" there?

Conza88
10-15-2008, 10:27 PM
Murray Rothbard is going to give a better answer than anyone else here... :)

Ask him ;).. it'd taken the same amount of time as creating the thread to google it at mises... but ok. :)

12: The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts
http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=87

From for a new liberty.... ethics of liberty look up aswell. :D

Or.... http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe5.html

or FAQ..... http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html

;)

3. Do anarcho-capitalists favor chaos?
15. How would anarcho-capitalism work?

muzzled dogg
10-15-2008, 10:29 PM
i've read 'for a new liberty' a few times and i don't remember rothbard ever explaining wtf is gonna happen when one dude owns everything

Conza88
10-15-2008, 10:32 PM
i've read 'for a new liberty' a few times and i don't remember rothbard ever explaining wtf is gonna happen when one dude owns everything

Cus in a free market it wouldn't happen.... lol

One private security firm for the entire country? :rolleyes:

How are they getting their money? If one company starts going nuts - breaking laws etc.. their gonna get their ass sued. Private Courts.. and if they own one court aswell, then you sue them and take them to another...

If there is corruption expected in a court, no-one will use it, business will take a hit...

People really need to figure out how the free market works... Human Action people... :rolleyes:

muzzled dogg
10-15-2008, 10:33 PM
Cus in a free market it wouldn't happen.... lol

why not?

AutoDas
10-15-2008, 10:44 PM
How are you going to force someone to use your court that favors you instead of theirs that favors them? Or what about even having them show up in the first place?

Conza88
10-15-2008, 10:46 PM
How are you going to force someone to use your court that favors you instead of theirs that favors them? Or what about even having them show up in the first place?

They don't have to show up.,.. haha, no forced compulsion. But they'd be stupid not too..

As I pointed out, this is all addressed.. don't think you're the first person to pose that question; mises.org is more than likely to have the answer, or some epic book listed on the booklist I posted sev. posts ago.

muzzled dogg
10-15-2008, 10:53 PM
How are you going to force someone to use your court that favors you instead of theirs that favors them? Or what about even having them show up in the first place?

if i can remember correctly, rothbard says that like some old ass merchants used to do, society would discriminate against you and shun you for not participating in owning up

mudhoney
10-15-2008, 11:02 PM
why not?

Conza88 asked where they would get the money to "own everything", and it's a legitimate question. People who have questions about anarcho-capitalism seem to just throw out arbitrary situations without asking themselves how some private entity would acquire the means of doing evil on a huge scale.

So your question is what will we do "when one dude owns everything". Please clarify the question. Did this hypothetical person (1) acquire unimaginable sums of wealth to accomplish this, or (2) was coercion used?

#1 is completely unworkable, I hope that's obvious. Not only because of the amount of wealth that would be needed to pay off so many people, but also because a whole lot of people aren't going to sell their property for just about any amount.

So that brings us to #2, which I'd say is definitely possible, but only through government. The only way to establish such broad ownership of everything is to essentially do what we do today, and keep most of the public in a frame of mind that the State is inevitable, and absolutely necessary. Then, of course, taxes would be collected and used to promote this massive monopoly of force, and punish those who do not follow the government's logic. In conclusion, the only way to own everything is erode the ideas of private property from the minds of the masses and strike down those who dissent.

If you have another idea of how your hypothetical situation would manifest itself let me know what that is. Otherwise, just writing out arbitrary situations without discussing how they came about is a pretty bad way to discuss this subject.

muzzled dogg
10-15-2008, 11:14 PM
i guess i hadn't considered a fresh start in this anarcho capitalist society. i figured we'd be living as we are today, when there's a huge range of weath, and then tomorrow someone flipped a switch...

in which case i think exxon mobile and time warner would buy up all the roads, etc., and basically drain the masses

how else would it work?

even if you had a fresh-start, and everyone had the same amount of wealth, as soon as someone has earns a little money, wouldn't the rich get richer exponentially?

i'm asking cause honestly don't knwo

Conza88
10-15-2008, 11:15 PM
Conza88 asked where they would get the money to "own everything", and it's a legitimate question. People who have questions about anarcho-capitalism seem to just throw out arbitrary situations without asking themselves how some private entity would acquire the means of doing evil on a huge scale.

So your question is what will we do "when one dude owns everything". Please clarify the question. Did this hypothetical person (1) acquire unimaginable sums of wealth to accomplish this, or (2) was coercion used?

#1 is completely unworkable, I hope that's obvious. Not only because of the amount of wealth that would be needed to pay off so many people, but also because a whole lot of people aren't going to sell their property for just about any amount.

So that brings us to #2, which I'd say is definitely possible, but only through government. The only way to establish such broad ownership of everything is to essentially do what we do today, and keep most of the public in a frame of mind that the State is inevitable, and absolutely necessary. Then, of course, taxes would be collected and used to promote this massive monopoly of force, and punish those who do not follow the government's logic. In conclusion, the only way to own everything is erode the ideas of private property from the minds of the masses and strike down those who dissent.

If you have another idea of how your hypothetical situation would manifest itself let me know what that is. Otherwise, just writing out arbitrary situations without discussing how they came about is a pretty bad way to discuss this subject.


http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d132/DMBSignguy/clapping.gif

Socialists do exactly the same thing... they recon the questions never been asked, nor even considered before.. that there is no coherent or possible argument against it. You answer it, then the new hypothetical scenario comes rolling out.. :)

Shem, you need to re-read For A New Liberty then... because Rothbard does answer it...

http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf

Page 239 (247 on pdf)...

Outlaw Protectors

We have saved for the last this problem: What if police or judges and
courts should be venal and biased—what if they should bias their
decisions, for example, in favor of particularly wealthy clients? We have
shown how a libertarian legal and judicial system could work on the
purely free market, assuming honest differences of opinion—but what if
one or more police or courts should become, in effect, outlaws? What
then?

Yes... what then.... :p Go read it to find out. :cool:

muzzled dogg
10-15-2008, 11:17 PM
Shem, you need to re-read For A New Liberty then... because Rothbard does answer it...

http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf

Page 239 (247 on pdf)...

Outlaw Protectors

We have saved for the last this problem: What if police or judges and
courts should be venal and biased—what if they should bias their
decisions, for example, in favor of particularly wealthy clients? We have
shown how a libertarian legal and judicial system could work on the
purely free market, assuming honest differences of opinion—but what if
one or more police or courts should become, in effect, outlaws? What
then?

Yes... what then.... :p Go read it to find out. :cool:
how is this related whatsoever to what i've said in this thread?

sailor
10-15-2008, 11:22 PM
Why would the largest corporation eventually not just take over by force, put all other corporations out of business, and have a monopoly over everything, and essentially be a mafia like rule over everybody?

"Mafia like rule"? You mean "state like rule"!


And what if it did? In the worst case we`d just have a state back up much like the one we have now.

Conza88
10-15-2008, 11:24 PM
how is this related whatsoever to what i've said in this thread?

....


i've read 'for a new liberty' a few times and i don't remember rothbard ever explaining wtf is gonna happen when one dude owns everything

Outlaw Protectors
We have saved for the last this problem: What if police or judges and
courts should be venal and biased—what if they should bias their
decisions, for example, in favor of particularly wealthy clients?

Well he addresses it elsewhere, but in terms of courts because thats what autodas brought up I went in that direction... your question; well what if one dude owns everything.. can easily be substituited in principle, with what Rothbard deals as 'in favor of particularly wealthy clients'... wish is what a owner of a lot of things would be. :)

Conza88
10-15-2008, 11:26 PM
"Imagine a society with no government. Individuals purchase law enforcement from private firms. Each such firm faces possible conflicts with other firms. Private policemen working for the enforcement agency that I employ may track down the burglar who stole my property only to discover, when they try to arrest him, that he too employs an enforcement agency.

There are three ways in which such conflicts might be dealt with. The most obvious and least likely is direct violence-a mini-war between my agency, attempting to arrest the burglar, and his agency attempting to defend him from arrest. A somewhat more plausible scenario is negotiation. Since warfare is expensive, agencies might include in the contracts they offer their customers a provision under which they are not obliged to defend customers against legitimate punishment for their actual crimes. When a conflict occurred, it would then be up to the two agencies to determine whether the accused customer of one would or would not be deemed guilty and turned over to the other.

A still more attractive and more likely solution is advance contracting between the agencies. Under this scenario, any two agencies that faced a significant probability of such clashes would agree on an arbitration agency to settle them-a private court. Implicit or explicit in their agreement would be the legal rules under which such disputes were to be settled.

Under these circumstances, both law enforcement and law are private goods produced on a private market. Law enforcement is produced by enforcement agencies and sold directly to their customers. Law is produced by arbitration agencies and sold to the enforcement agencies, who resell it to their customers as one characteristic of the bundle of services they provide."
- David Friedman, Law as a Private Good

"There are several obvious advantages to private law.

* You are likely to be treated better by a PDA than a monopoly government agency, since you are a customer (or at least a potential customer) rather than a suspect.
* Victimless "crime" laws are significantly less likely, since customers would bear the cost of enforcing laws against vices rather than passing the cost on to society at large. (E.g. Someone opposed to marijuana is likely to vote against legalization, but less likely to pay $100/year to make it illegal.)
* But most importantly, everyone gets their own preferred law, rather than having to submit to winner-take-all imposed law. E.g. A religious puritan may subscribe to a PDA under a plan in which adulterers (who subscribe to this plan) would be stoned to death. His next-door neighbor may subscribe to a service that allows open copulation in the front yard. Both can have their way, since jurisdictions are simply the combined properties of the subscribers.

Non-government military provision is more familiar to most people, under the guise of ''militia''. A militia is a voluntary defense service which is unlikely to invade a foreign country, build weapons of mass destruction and death, fund itself with stolen money, or most other questionable actions in which government militaries routinely engage.

A militia is geared to do one thing: defend the local people. Anarcho-capitalists also see a role for defense firms and mercenaries, to take care of security issues not so localized. Note that, since the costs of warfare are borne by those firms who engage in it, they are considerably more likely to sue for peace than a State, which is able to shove costs onto their plundered and conscripted citizenry."

http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html#part16

muzzled dogg
10-15-2008, 11:34 PM
i hope you're not quoting all that bullshit for me

i'm asking what happens when one dude owns everything?

you and everyone you know or have ever known is broke. you have no money, no job, no education, no land, no possessions

is this the ultimate fate in an anarcho-capitalist society for 99% of the people?

sailor
10-15-2008, 11:42 PM
i'm asking what happens when one dude owns everything?

You don`t need to be asking. You just need to look at cases when this had happened before.

Say Stalin. He owned the whole of USSR. Or Mao Tse Tung. Owned the whole of China.

Strangley it wasn`t in an anarchist society though. :rolleyes:

danberkeley
10-15-2008, 11:43 PM
in which case i think exxon mobile and time warner would buy up all the roads, etc., and basically drain the masses


huh? where would they get the money to buy up all the roads?

sailor
10-15-2008, 11:47 PM
huh? where would they get the money to buy up all the roads?

They would take a hugeass loan from a state owned bank and bribe the politicans in the commision for selling the roads to get a cheaper price.


Oh no wait, they couldn`t do that could they since there would be no state. :rolleyes:

muzzled dogg
10-15-2008, 11:47 PM
You don`t need to be asking. You just need to look at cases when this had happened before.

Say Stalin. He owned the whole of USSR. Or Mao Tse Tung. Owned the whole of China.

Strangley it wasn`t in an anarchist society though. :rolleyes:

you're just telling me where it has happened, and not telling me why it wouldn't theoretically



huh? where would they get the money to buy up all the roads?

from our wallets

sailor
10-15-2008, 11:53 PM
you're just telling me where it has happened, and not telling me why it wouldn't theoretically

No. I`m telling you in what conditions it has happened before. You are a big boy, you can figure it out.

danberkeley
10-15-2008, 11:53 PM
from our wallets

How so??? Say I buy oil from Exxon. They take my money and I take their oil. Then, Exxon buys my road. They take my road and I take their money. Exxon will never end up owning everything. Even if they did own all the roads, we would have all the money and all the oil.

sailor
10-15-2008, 11:58 PM
How so??? Say I buy oil from Exxon. They take my money and I take their oil. Then, Exxon buys my road. They take my road and I take their money. Exxon will never end up owning everything. Even if they did own all the roads, we would have all the money and all the oil.

Maybe they will tax you?

Oh no wait.

They couldn`t do that since that would make them into a state. And being a state they would actually be our protectors against the nefarious really rich dudes, so we would actually have nothing to worry from them.

That is it!

We just need them to take our money by threat of violence and we are saved from the rich people!

danberkeley
10-16-2008, 12:02 AM
Maybe they will tax you?

Oh no wait.

They couldn`t do that since that would make them into a state. And being a state they would actually be our protectors against the nefarious really rich dudes, so we would actually have nothing to worry from them.

That is it!

We just need them to take our money by threat of violence and we are saved from the rich people!

"Taxes" arnt exclusive to the state.

nickcoons
10-16-2008, 12:04 AM
i'm asking what happens when one dude owns everything?

The problem is that your question comes with an implication, and that implication is "it's possible for one dude to own everything," but you make that implication without providing any evidence to back it up.

There are two reasons this wouldn't happen.

First, how much do you think "everything" costs? The total values of all the assets around the world is literally in the hundreds of trillions of dollars, if not quadrillions of dollars. No "one dude" or even "multi-national conglomerate" has anywhere near that kind of cash to buy everything.

Second, in order for someone to buy something, there has to be someone willing to sell it. The only way someone could buy everything is if everyone was willing to sell everything they owned.

So when you ask what happens when someone owns everything, anarcho-capitalists see that as a question based on a flawed premise, because someone can't own everything in order to be able to pose the question "what happens when...". This is why you're getting the confusing answers. Does that clear it up a bit?

sailor
10-16-2008, 12:07 AM
"Taxes" arnt exclusive to the state.

Yeah and the bear doesn`t shit in the woods. :rolleyes:

danberkeley
10-16-2008, 12:25 AM
Yeah and the bear doesn`t shit in the woods. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: Someone leasing private property could charge a sales tax that goes to the owner of the property. That's how malls/shopping centers work.

sailor
10-16-2008, 12:36 AM
Except thats not a tax.

Conza88
10-16-2008, 12:42 AM
The problem is that your question comes with an implication, and that implication is "it's possible for one dude to own everything," but you make that implication without providing any evidence to back it up.

There are two reasons this wouldn't happen.

First, how much do you think "everything" costs? The total values of all the assets around the world is literally in the hundreds of trillions of dollars, if not quadrillions of dollars. No "one dude" or even "multi-national conglomerate" has anywhere near that kind of cash to buy everything.

Second, in order for someone to buy something, there has to be someone willing to sell it. The only way someone could buy everything is if everyone was willing to sell everything they owned.

So when you ask what happens when someone owns everything, anarcho-capitalists see that as a question based on a flawed premise, because someone can't own everything in order to be able to pose the question "what happens when...". This is why you're getting the confusing answers. Does that clear it up a bit?

Exactly. His premise is flawed, and he expects us to go along with it. And to not question the very foundation the question is being posed on / because of.

:)

There's a video interview with Rand.. (even though she ain't teh coolest) it gets answered legitimately... (Basically what we have been saying) except there are pixels etc.. and it's visual.. and on national tv... lol Will find it if you want..

danberkeley
10-16-2008, 12:48 AM
Except thats not a tax.

What would you call it then?

mudhoney
10-16-2008, 01:00 AM
:rolleyes: Someone leasing private property could charge a sales tax that goes to the owner of the property. That's how malls/shopping centers work.

That's a voluntary charge based on a price determined by the value of setting up a shop on that property. Since this is under the realm of property rights, equating this with a tax would essentially be saying that the state owns the entire country and the people living there are simply leasing the land, and therefor the state has the right to charge people for what they do on that land.

Edit: Well, voluntary in the sense that one can decide that it's not a good deal and choose against having a shop on that person's property.

Standing Like A Rock
10-16-2008, 10:04 PM
Another Question:

If all roads are privatized, and companies make money off them from either tolls or monthly dues, what happens if you do not pay the road that you live on. It would not make sense to put a toll at every single drive way and if you do not pay for access to that road, how can they make sure that you do not use it?

sailor
10-16-2008, 10:37 PM
Another Question:

If all roads are privatized, and companies make money off them from either tolls or monthly dues, what happens if you do not pay the road that you live on. It would not make sense to put a toll at every single drive way and if you do not pay for access to that road, how can they make sure that you do not use it?

Lol, I think it tells something when you must resort to something as obscure as this to provide "a challenge".

You would not want to sell the road on which you live on. And because it would be clear to everyone that they could not possibly efficiently charge you for its use no one would want to buy it from you either. Which is why you could not sell the road to put yourself in this position even if you wanted to.

sailor
10-16-2008, 11:00 PM
That the roads would be privatised means that you would get to own the part of the road in front of your house (since it was built by your taxes). Now if you and your neighbors were smart you would start a company to which every townsperson would give his part of the road in return for an equal part of the stock of the company.

Then every townsperson would control the company through their equal stock share. And would have no incentive to charge themselves the use of own town streets and complicate their own lives.

What the townspeople could do however was charge people from out of town if they wanted to use them. They would probably not want to do that as it would hurt the local economy, but it might be an attractive proposition for some Florida town where old people retire to, or for a town that would want to cut down on the traffic to attract retirees or hippies or young families or whoever to try to increase the housing prices.

danberkeley
10-17-2008, 12:25 AM
That's a voluntary charge based on a price determined by the value of setting up a shop on that property. Since this is under the realm of property rights, equating this with a tax would essentially be saying that the state owns the entire country and the people living there are simply leasing the land, and therefor the state has the right to charge people for what they do on that land.

Edit: Well, voluntary in the sense that one can decide that it's not a good deal and choose against having a shop on that person's property.

That's why I put "taxes" in quotes. I was refering to the "a charge ... imposed by authority on persons" part in m-w.com's definition of "taxes". Of course I was using "taxes" loosely.

danberkeley
10-17-2008, 12:30 AM
Another Question:

If all roads are privatized, and companies make money off them from either tolls or monthly dues, what happens if you do not pay the road that you live on. It would not make sense to put a toll at every single drive way and if you do not pay for access to that road, how can they make sure that you do not use it?

Tolls at every drive way probably wouldnt work but that's why there would be courts to impose injuctions and so on on residents who used the road but didnt pay. There could be a collection service company. Perhaps, under the contract, the automobile could be towed if dues weren't paid. So on and so on. The market would find a way of dealing with all this.

Conza88
10-17-2008, 04:15 AM
Another Question:

If all roads are privatized, and companies make money off them from either tolls or monthly dues, what happens if you do not pay the road that you live on. It would not make sense to put a toll at every single drive way and if you do not pay for access to that road, how can they make sure that you do not use it?

Hire a private security organization to police the roads... OBVIOUSLY.

It would work like this... sensors in the road, and you'd have a sensor on your car.. license plate no, address etc etc. (VOLUNTARY, the info is always going to stay private... and if you don't want people even a private company tracking where your car goes, then you ride or walk! or choose another company that doesn't) anyway, sensor on road, sensor on car... under neath. The technology is already here...

Anyway, you'd get a monthly bill... and if you stop paying the bill... They know you're number plate.. they can damn well look out for you and stop you and force you OFF their PROPERTY... ;)

:)

Truth Warrior
10-17-2008, 04:32 AM
First, I am not taking a stance on anarcho-capitalism in this post, this is not meant to be a discussion thread on the subject, I am just looking for your answers.

With that said, if you are debating with somebody that the world should be in an anarcho-capitalism state, how do you defend the following counter argument?

How would law and order be maintained?

Why would the largest corporation eventually not just take over by force, put all other corporations out of business, and have a monopoly over everything, and essentially be a mafia like rule over everybody? Sorry, that's just another bogus BSQ.<IMHO>

Anarcho-capitalism STATE is merely another oxymoron, kinda like Libertarian Party.

Ozwest
10-17-2008, 04:33 AM
First, I am not taking a stance on anarcho-capitalism in this post, this is not meant to be a discussion thread on the subject, I am just looking for your answers.

With that said, if you are debating with somebody that the world should be in an anarcho-capitalism state, how do you defend the following counter argument?

How would law and order be maintained?

Why would the largest corporation eventually not just take over by force, put all other corporations out of business, and have a monopoly over everything, and essentially be a mafia like rule over everybody?

Define anarcho-capitalist.

I might be one.

Truth Warrior
10-17-2008, 04:38 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism)

Conza88
10-17-2008, 04:44 AM
Define anarcho-capitalist.

I might be one.

1. What is anarcho-capitalism?
Anarcho-capitalism is the political philosophy and theory that

1. the State is an unnecessary evil and should be abolished, and
2. a free-market private property economic system is morally permissible.

Part one is simply the definition of "anarchism," and part two is soft propertarianism, known more generally as "a free market" or "laissez-faire." Let's look more closely at each of the two parts of our definition. Moral permissibility is a "minimum" position. Almost all anarcho-capitalists believe also that a laissez-faire economic system is generally better than alternatives. Some strong propertarians, such as objectivists, go further and claim that laissez-faire is the only moral economic system.

A typical dictionary definition of anarchism is: "The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished." This definition follows the etymology of the word: "Anarchism" is derived from the Greek αναρχία meaning "without archon" (ruler, chief, or king.) This is the core meaning of the term - against the State. This means against it in principle, as an institution, not merely against certain policies or personnel.

Murray Rothbard coined the term "anarcho-capitalist" in the winter of 1949 or 1950. "My whole position was inconsistent [...], there were only two logical possibilities: socialism, or anarchism. Since it was out of the question for me to become a socialist, I found myself pushed by the irresistible logic of the case, a private property anarchist, or, as I would later dub it, an anarcho-capitalist."

http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html

Ozwest
10-17-2008, 04:49 AM
1. What is anarcho-capitalism?
Anarcho-capitalism is the political philosophy and theory that

1. the State is an unnecessary evil and should be abolished, and
2. a free-market private property economic system is morally permissible.

Part one is simply the definition of "anarchism," and part two is soft propertarianism, known more generally as "a free market" or "laissez-faire." Let's look more closely at each of the two parts of our definition. Moral permissibility is a "minimum" position. Almost all anarcho-capitalists believe also that a laissez-faire economic system is generally better than alternatives. Some strong propertarians, such as objectivists, go further and claim that laissez-faire is the only moral economic system.

A typical dictionary definition of anarchism is: "The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished." This definition follows the etymology of the word: "Anarchism" is derived from the Greek αναρχία meaning "without archon" (ruler, chief, or king.) This is the core meaning of the term - against the State. This means against it in principle, as an institution, not merely against certain policies or personnel.

Murray Rothbard coined the term "anarcho-capitalist" in the winter of 1949 or 1950. "My whole position was inconsistent [...], there were only two logical possibilities: socialism, or anarchism. Since it was out of the question for me to become a socialist, I found myself pushed by the irresistible logic of the case, a private property anarchist, or, as I would later dub it, an anarcho-capitalist."

http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html

So you are a Libertarian who spray paints graffiti?

I back you 100%, but spray paint my place,and deal with the consequences.:D

Power to you.

Conza88
10-17-2008, 04:51 AM
So you are a Libertarian who spray paints graffiti?

I back you 100%, but spray paint my place,and deal with the consequences.:D

Power to you.

Wait.. what? Property rights anarcho-capitalists still agree with. Including the non aggression axiom. :) Very close to libertarianism.. it just takes out the last bit of state action most minarchists believe the market can't do... lol...

:)

Truth Warrior
10-17-2008, 04:51 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarchism)

Ozwest
10-17-2008, 04:53 AM
You listen to Rap, I listen to Pink Floyd.

I'm 50.

But, old hippies never die.

Only old and bitter.

Ozwest
10-17-2008, 04:57 AM
Wait.. what? Property rights anarcho-capitalists still agree with. Including the non aggression axiom. :) Very close to libertarianism.. it just takes out the last bit of state action most minarchists believe the market can't do... lol...

:)

Grab your torches and pitchforks!

My generation failed. Maybe you can do better.

We had the sounds...

Fuck MTV, and Sony.

Truth Warrior
10-17-2008, 05:05 AM
You listen to Rap, I listen to Pink Floyd.

I'm 50.

But, old hippies never die.

Only old and bitter. A mere pup. :rolleyes: :p

Ozwest
10-17-2008, 05:12 AM
A mere pup. :rolleyes: :p

I'm flabbergasted Truth Warrior!

Ozwest
10-17-2008, 05:14 AM
A mere pup. :rolleyes: :p

You inspired me to listen to some Neil Young!

Turn it up!

Truth Warrior
10-17-2008, 05:23 AM
I'm flabbergasted Truth Warrior! Is that Aussie-speak for drunk? :rolleyes:

Ozwest
10-17-2008, 05:25 AM
That's a Doobie speaking.

Kinda like Sunday for you...

Ozwest
10-17-2008, 05:27 AM
Roll up your sleeves and batter your knuckles Truth Warrior.

I pride myself in leaving young men stranded.

Conza88
10-17-2008, 05:32 AM
Is that Aussie-speak for drunk? :rolleyes:

That'd be:

"I'm full"
"I've got a gut full of piss"
"Smashed"
"Wasted"
"So boned right now"
"Totally out of it"
"I'm off my face"
"He's a write off"
"Pissed"
"He's got the wobbly boot on"
"Blotto"
"two pot screamer"
"Cadberry"
"Wrecked"

Probs left some off. :)

Truth Warrior
10-17-2008, 05:32 AM
Roll up your sleeves and batter your knuckles Truth Warrior.

I pride myself in leaving young men stranded. We're more than thrilled by YOUR decision too, Junior.

Ozwest
10-17-2008, 05:57 AM
That'd be:

"I'm full"
"I've got a gut full of piss"
"Smashed"
"Wasted"
"So boned right now"
"Totally out of it"
"I'm off my face"
"He's a write off"
"Pissed"
"He's got the wobbly boot on"
"Blotto"
"two pot screamer"
"Cadberry"
"Wrecked"

Probs left some off. :)

You sound like one of the insolent shits I fired over the years.

Use-less prick.

Ozwest
10-17-2008, 05:58 AM
We're more than thrilled by YOUR decision too, Junior.

Another piece of wisdom.

fisharmor
10-17-2008, 09:07 AM
Another Question:

If all roads are privatized, and companies make money off them from either tolls or monthly dues, what happens if you do not pay the road that you live on. It would not make sense to put a toll at every single drive way and if you do not pay for access to that road, how can they make sure that you do not use it?

Here's a thought... maybe they wouldn't take the exact form of private roads like you're envisioning.

Consider Microsoft. In the late 90's they certainly "owned everything" when it came to personal computer operating systems. Apple and Commodore both had superior products but for various reasons MS gained superiority and made Gates the richest man on earth.

Who would have thought that the most serious threat to the Microsoft monopoly would be coming from a group of volunteers from around the globe who thanklessly toil in obscurity? Open source programming is not something that someone could have foreseen happening.

Likewise, we can't really foresee what would happen with roads. It wouldn't be the same from locality to locality.

Conza88
10-17-2008, 10:05 AM
You sound like one of the insolent shits I fired over the years.

Use-less prick.

Just cus I know the lingo, doesn't mean I endorse it. :)

Ozwest
10-17-2008, 10:22 AM
Just cus I know the lingo, doesn't mean I endorse it. :)

I sold my business a coup;e years back.

I find it hard not to be the boss. :D

Ozwest
10-17-2008, 10:24 AM
I dealt with property developers.

Need I say more?