Except mine does not lead to violation of private property.
[/quote]
By design, no. But eventually, some Company-kingdoms realize just how much power they’ve amassed, and still being ravenous, set eyes upon smaller neighboring companies. Some people like private property so much, they want other’s property, too. Even when the other isn’t willing to give it up.
Except mine does not lead to violation of private property.
[/quote]
By design, no. But eventually, some Company-kingdoms realize just how much power they’ve amassed, and still being ravenous, set eyes upon smaller neighboring companies. Some people like private property so much, they want other’s property, too. Even when the other isn’t willing to give it up.[/quote]
Private security, they already have it. And big companies are not very efficient, I doubt it they would have as much power as big companies have today.
Wouldn’t you be better off studying libertarianism from some of its well known scholars than trying to be convinced it could work by anonymous people posting on T-Nation? Honestly, what information would have to be presented to you to suffice as a reasonable answer? [/quote]
Why do you assume I haven’t done any reading on “libertarianism”? Merely because I ask those prmoting it to defend it here on the forum? If you or anyone else thinks anarchy works, why can’t you defend it when asked?
As for reading Spooner or Rothbard, I’ve read some of both, mostly Rothbard. It’s horrid. His presumptions are preposterous and his view of human nature is as if he’s never engaged in human interaction in his entire life (and set aside the rank hyopcrisy of him being an academic at state institution). Moreover, his “paleolibertarian” adventures advocating race and class resentment (“Cops must be unleashed [on street criminals]…and allowed to administer instant punishment”, cops should be able to “clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares?”) are disgusting and stupid.
I’m convinced it won’t work because it flies directly in the face of human nature. And I have seen no explanation to the contrary, at T-Nation or otherwise, that overcomes this fatal flaw.
I think some Austrian economics is good (particularly thoughts on ‘malinvestment’), but disagree with a fair bit of the rest of it. But to your larger point - no, I don’t think “libertarianism” is viable at all, at least not the version served up by anarchists or near-anarchists.
Except mine does not lead to violation of private property. [/quote]
I am not criticizing the End, I am criticizing the foolish Means you use - there isn’t a wacky “ism” that couldn’t work if you got a set of people to agre to its tenets and live by it. The problem is the Means in flawed because human beings aren’t apt to following along taht loyally - thus the flaw in Communism, and thus the flaw in your argument. Read closer.
No, they aren’t Anarchists because they submit to a very real authority that governs their behavior. Just because they choose not to use your semantics of calling that authority “the state” doesn’t mean the authority isn’t any less real or coercive than “the state’s”.
The Amish demand very strict social and religious rules and mete out harsh punishment if the rules of the community aren’t followed. They don’t permit non-conformity. Their governance structure may be extremely local, but it also extremely strict and un-free.
Enough with this nonsense that the Amish are rootin’, tootin’ libertarian anarchists.
There’s nothing to explain - the have their own “state”, and it is tougher than the set of social rules you live under.
The Wild West didn’t have anarchy. Good Lord.
And who enforces “private law” once breached? If someone refuses to pay you for work done, how do you collect when they say “nuts to you on payment - have a nice life”?
Why do I get this weird feeling our resident “anarchists” have practically no experience in interacting in the business world? I don’t mean that as an insult - I just can’t figure where this naivete comes from.
[quote]Yes, Anarchism can work. “Such a process [as capitalism] cannot be adopted by a government, for it is not an artificial construct. Capital accumulation, exchange and investment are all naturally occurring” (1). And, in order to keep oneself from violating someone’s private property and liberty (through socialist measures, as the state is inherently a social construct), the state would have to abolished first in order to fully allow capitalism to work.
Nope, it can’t. Humans are no more capable of living well under anarchy than they are communism. Each system requires drastic and radical assumptions about human nature that simply aren’t true.
Someone has to be given authority to protect civil liberties and property rights. If left solely to individuals to protect these interests themselves, you simply have a state of nature ruled by force, not law. Humans don’t want that, and neither do you, which is why humans form “states” in the first place (and always have).
By design, no. But eventually, some Company-kingdoms realize just how much power they’ve amassed, and still being ravenous, set eyes upon smaller neighboring companies. Some people like private property so much, they want other’s property, too. Even when the other isn’t willing to give it up.[/quote]
Exactly. Our resident anarchists are nothing more than apologists for feudalism.
You want to relive the era of monarchy and feudalism, then let’s tee up “anarchism”. A society built on ordered liberty would be transformed in competing “strongman” factions vying for power.
Imagine trying to talk a company-kingdom warlord into not taking over his neighbor’s property on the basis that “he would lose customers and never forget the cutomer has the power!”. He’d chuckle right before he bulldozed your little house and garden.
Except mine does not lead to violation of private property. [/quote]
I am not criticizing the End, I am criticizing the foolish Means you use - there isn’t a wacky “ism” that couldn’t work if you got a set of people to agre to its tenets and live by it. The problem is the Means in flawed because human beings aren’t apt to following along taht loyally - thus the flaw in Communism, and thus the flaw in your argument. Read closer.
[/quote]
Anarchy does not call for loyalty, it calls for tolerance.
They are anarchist, they voluntarily submit themselves to the patriarchs, however there is no coercive state, and just because you cannot distinguish between authority as it is with the Amish and authority through the state does not mean they are not anarchists, sorry. I have talked to a few Amish patriarch’s and they are still very well anarchists, communist, but anarchists none the less.
Actually, there is no state with the Amish, just private property. I know the concept of anarcho-communism is tough to understand, but a stone is still a stone.
It doesn’t hmm, interesting. Well it may have not been ‘technically’ since some state probably called dibs on it, but there was no state telling people out there what to do. And they still worked things out.
Ever heard of a lien? I’ll tell you story to help you understand.
I run cattle for part of my living, I own as well as rent land to graze cattle for myself and others, if someone is paying me to run their cattle there is a monthly payment. All my contracts with people include a clause that states if non-payment occurs, I have the contractual-right to put a lien on their property (usually cattle). They also have a contractual-right to dispute the lien if they feel that the lien was not warranted because of non-service. Guess where I go to resolve these issues?
There is an agreed upon private arbitrator that deals with non-payments and non-services.
Read above.
Nope, it can’t. Humans are no more capable of living well under anarchy than they are communism. Each system requires drastic and radical assumptions about human nature that simply aren’t true.
[/quote]
What drastic assumption does one need about human nature to make it work? Tolerance? self reliance? self responsibility? respect for private property? minding your own business?
[quote]
Someone has to be given authority to protect civil liberties and property rights. If left solely to individuals to protect these interests themselves, you simply have a state of nature ruled by force, not law. Humans don’t want that, and neither do you, which is why humans form “states” in the first place (and always have).[/quote]
What about contracts and private law, seems like it would work very well. It works now, although a little less sturdy since bankruptcy ‘reform.’ No, because I want respect for private property, however the United States as well as other States have forced many people off their land because they wanted it, so what about these laws? I am sure private security would work better than the state force, obviously from the our own private contractors.
By design, no. But eventually, some Company-kingdoms realize just how much power they’ve amassed, and still being ravenous, set eyes upon smaller neighboring companies. Some people like private property so much, they want other’s property, too. Even when the other isn’t willing to give it up.[/quote]
Exactly. Our resident anarchists are nothing more than apologists for feudalism.
[/quote]
You gotta be kidding me, the reason why I subscribe to anarcho-capitalism is because of my disdain for feudalism.
[quote]
You want to relive the era of monarchy and feudalism, then let’s tee up “anarchism”. A society built on ordered liberty would be transformed in competing “strongman” factions vying for power.
Imagine trying to talk a company-kingdom warlord into not taking over his neighbor’s property on the basis that “he would lose customers and never forget the cutomer has the power!”. He’d chuckle right before he bulldozed your little house and garden.[/quote]
Your accusations have no merit, I think you need to read up on private security and law. Just because there is no state does not mean there would be no law or justice.
There would be no trying to convince him, he would likely never become big enough to do that and second if he was that big he would likely have a contract with his neighbor that any form of coercive aggression would be halted either through private security and would be taken to court. You act as if without the state there would be no form of law or contract between two people.
Anarchy does not call for loyalty, it calls for tolerance.[/quote]
“Tolerance” doesn’t solve the problem I noted, and this is a throwaway line.
They aren’t anarchists. The submit to an authority. They yield their freedoms to a very strict code of social behavior. They recognize a very, very coercive authority that demands conformity. You may like them - but they aren’t anarchists. This has become plainly foolish.
Read up on the concept of “Gelassenheit”, which the Amish adhere to. The welfare of the community is paramount to the individual under Amish culture - in fact, the exact opposite of “anarchism”.
Semantics - there most certainly is a “state” in the sense that there is a very real coercive authority that trumps individualism. In Amish culture, the community takes precedent above all, and they do not adhere to liberal concepts of private property.
Also of note - you state that the Amish only adhere to “private property” in a state of “anarcho-communism”. Good grief - you are terribly confused, it seems.
[quote]Ever heard of a lien? I’ll tell you story to help you understand.
I run cattle for part of my living, I own as well as rent land to graze cattle for myself and others, if someone is paying me to run their cattle there is a monthly payment. All my contracts with people include a clause that states if non-payment occurs, I have the contractual-right to put a lien on their property (usually cattle). They also have a contractual-right to dispute the lien if they feel that the lien was not warranted because of non-service. Guess where I go to resolve these issues?
There is an agreed upon private arbitrator that deals with non-payments and non-services.[/quote]
You aren’t educating me on anything I don’t know about. And let’s unpack your idea: you say every contract you enter into has a provision aloowing you to arbitrae and attach a lien if you win. Fine.
A dispute occurs. You go to arbitration. You win. The arbitrator, under your contract, says you get to put a lien on the loser’s property. You now have a contractual right to the lien.
The loser says “go to hell, you got no lien on my stuff.” Then what? How do you enforce the lien? Where do you file the lien on real property to assert control over it? Who enforces what you have already described as a “contractual right by lien” over the property when the loser refuses to just hand over the property?
Can’t wait to hear your answer.
I did, and you had better thank your lucky stars that “a state” exists to enforce your contracts you’ve signed with other people, else your glorious arbitration-and-lien provision would be worth about as much as the paper you printed it on.
Yep, all of those, in fact.
You are naive as hell. Private security forces wouldn’t amount to anything more than border wars and gangsterism. Comically juvenile.
Anarchy does not call for loyalty, it calls for tolerance.[/quote]
“Tolerance” doesn’t solve the problem I noted, and this is a throwaway line.
They aren’t anarchists. The submit to an authority. They yield their freedoms to a very strict code of social behavior. They recognize a very, very coercive authority that demands conformity. You may like them - but they aren’t anarchists. This has become plainly foolish.
Read up on the concept of “Gelassenheit”, which the Amish adhere to. The welfare of the community is paramount to the individual under Amish culture - in fact, the exact opposite of “anarchism”.
[/quote]
You have this idea that Anarchy means a bunch of kids in black running around with their fingers in their ears going la-la-la. Just because you submit yourself to something does not mean it is not anarchy, you are talking about one thing when I am talking about another. I am talking about non-state, you are talking about lawlessness, there is a difference.
It is not the opposite of anarchy, I am sorry. The Amish do not have a state, if someone buys their land (if they sold their land) they would not suppose they rule over those people.
Yes, the Amish hold the title to the land that they live on.
I give my claim to a collections agency, they attempt to collect, if they cannot then they reposes the property. And in the real world, when people continue to have non-payments, people do not do business with them. I could just not do business with people that do not have integrity, great idea.
And no, I do not have to go to an arbitrator to get a lien on their property, the lien is put on as soon as I can determine it is a non-payment.
Interesting, I have put liens on property before and never had to involve the state to get my payments. If, in scenario, they signed a contract that said (like it does, sorta) that if there is non-payment and we have to go to an arbitrator and then the arbitrator’s decision is enforce by a private enforcement company like they did before state courts and police came out to the west.
In the United States you can repo someone’s property without involving the states.
Yeah, I guess your assumption is that people are naturally predisposed to not cooperate with others?
You have this idea that Anarchy means a bunch of kids in black running around with their fingers in their ears going la-la-la. Just because you submit yourself to something does not mean it is not anarchy, you are talking about one thing when I am talking about another. I am talking about non-state, you are talking about lawlessness, there is a difference.[/quote]
That’s not what I am talking about, and you still haven’t explained how the Amish live in an anarchic state.
But the collections agency has no means to repossess the land. They have no enforcement mechanism if the landowner decides to defy them. All that exists is a contractual agreement, and no one is there to enforce the contract.
I am not talking about a perennial deadbeat. What if a landowner simply tells you to buzz off but keeps his agreements with other people? People is the real world do this all the time, even with a full-time “state” with full enforcement abilities. Under your state-less arrangement, contracts aren’t ironclad, especially if they are with the little guy who can be ignored.
Yes, you can get a statutory lien outside of your arbitrator because it exists in public law and if enforceable in a existing court. You currently don’t need an arbitrator to get a lien on someone’s property because…wait for it…the state affords you that remedy outside of a contractual right to it/
You haven’t thought this through, have you?
And the comply because they know that if they don’t, the state lien remedy acts as a backstop. They know that the agreement can be enforced in court, which is why they comply. Under your theory, there is no enforcement mechanism.
Only because an agreement is enforceable in court, and the loser knows it, so he complies.
Uh yeah. They certainly can and do cooperate, but they certainly cannot be expected to categorically.
By the way, a point to be made - while we disagree and will get pugilistic on points of political theory, I think it is fantastic that Brother Chris and Dustin have started their own businesses. Fellas, I sincerely wish you the very best of luck.
Let me begin with the definition of a state. What must an agent be able to do to qualify as a state? This agent must be able to insist that all conflicts among the inhabitants of a given territory be brought to him for ultimate decision-making or be subject to his final review. In particular, this agent must be able to insist that all conflicts involving himself be adjudicated by him or his agent. And implied in the power to exclude all others from acting as ultimate judge, as the second defining characteristic of a state, is the agentâ??s power to tax: to unilaterally determine the price that justice seekers must pay for his services.
Based on this definition of a state, it is easy to understand why a desire to control a state might exist. For whoever is a monopolist of final arbitration within a given territory can make laws. And he who can legislate can also tax. Surely, this is an enviable position. - To Battle the State - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
You have this idea that Anarchy means a bunch of kids in black running around with their fingers in their ears going la-la-la. Just because you submit yourself to something does not mean it is not anarchy, you are talking about one thing when I am talking about another. I am talking about non-state, you are talking about lawlessness, there is a difference.[/quote]
That’s not what I am talking about, and you still haven’t explained how the Amish live in an anarchic state.
[/quote]
A state does have power over them, however they have isolated themselves and worked it so they are like a quasi-anarchists. One of there great characteristics is the denial of the state. I am not quite sure how you are thinking of this to show you how I am thinking, but the closest thing I can get to connecting this. Is the Catholic Church and me, I submit myself the authority of the Church, however it is only voluntary, if I choose to no longer submit myself to the Church. The Amish just happened to have stricter rules on submitting to their local leaders. If you do not submit you do not live there.
I am not sure if that is a good analogy, but hopefully you see how I see it.
Same thing for the state, I can hope in my truck and drive it away so they cannot find it. I can hide my cattle in the hill side so they cannot take it. I do not see the state having any more powers than any other private institute except having a monopoly on it.
I see, I have not ran into that thankfully, but I see where it could happen.
Well, I guess if I am in fear of him doing this I could get insurance. Farmers buy insurance on their crops, I suppose there would be someone willing to take the risk for a premium.
On the other side, I could require that he have insurance so when there is a non-payment, I put the lien on his property, and if he says fuck off after the arbitrator (and the insurance agreed on all the details) that the insurance would pay me the payment their that policy covered. I am not sure, it could go many different ways, the market would come up with the best ways to deal with these instances.
I have thought through many different scenarios (I have a lot of time to think sitting on a horse) when it comes to this, however it is de facto. As it would have to go through trial and error in order to come up with the proper and practical manner in which things would be dealt with.
I hesitate to explain an enforcement mechanism, because I have not really thought about it and read up on private enforcement, but I am a repo man would do fine just as they do now. Yes, there will always be people trying to hide their property from being repo’d.
[quote]
Only because an agreement is enforceable in court, and the loser knows it, so he complies.
Uh yeah. They certainly can and do cooperate, but they certainly cannot be expected to categorically.[/quote]
Yes, and I suppose requiring one to have different business insurance (e.g. non-payment, property, loss, health, &c.) would solve some problems, and would help with collecting non-payments as I pointed out earlier.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
By the way, a point to be made - while we disagree and will get pugilistic on points of political theory, I think it is fantastic that Brother Chris and Dustin have started their own businesses. Fellas, I sincerely wish you the very best of luck.[/quote]
I should have put this prelude out there, I do not believe anarchy is a system. As an anarchist, I do not have a belief in any political rulers. The reason for this is I oppose any kind of aggression. I do not think anarchy can be obtained (look at the Amish, they deny the state and they are still ruled over by the state even in Germany).
I oppose murder, rape, robbery. Just like you do. Yes, everyone could stop committing crimes and respect people’s private property, it is easy to imagine, but as you said with what we know about human nature it would be almost impossible.
Always will there be crime, and we do not stop condemning and ridding the world of it. It would be illogical to say, “well we can never stop crime, so crime is justified.”
I’m also not sure how exclusively religious mono-cultures are being used as examples of Anarchy…Seems to be more of a theorcratic island within a nation-state. A nation state whose existence provides rough seas and rocky coast for pirates and invaders looking for plunder.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m also not sure how exclusively religious mono-cultures are being used as examples of Anarchy…Seems to be more of a theorcratic island within a nation-state. A nation state whose existence provides rough seas and rocky coast for pirates and invaders looking for plunder.[/quote]
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Thanks Sambaso! really enjoy a good discussion!
You correctly outline the “collateral” market damage - but the bomb was the original toxic assests, the “seed” as you called it. Without that little gem, nothing else would have occurred. Within normal lending practices (outside the sub-prime market) CDO’s and CDS’ would not have been a problem as the default rate was within accutuarial models and loans were being repaid.
For those, following along, if Sambaso or I use a term/abbreviation you need an explanation for just let us know - this next paragraph is for you, Since I know Sambaso understand the term toxic asset.
A toxic asset can be any loan made by the bank - as long as it is being repaid, it is counted as an asset - the bank expects to fully recoup the lended money with interest. Once a loan is defaulted or in danger of defaulting, it becomes toxic - nominally still an asset but with increased likelihood of becoming a write-off or a loss thus an asset is turned into a liability by virtue of the lendee not repaying the loan.
Sub-prime loans were loans given to people who, under normal lending regulation, could not have possibly ever qualified for the loan to buy that nice new house. The bank was forced into providing such loans (government regulations), but with the guarantee from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac that the government would cover any risks/losses the lenders were exposed to by FM/FM purchasing those sub-prime loans as bundles from the lending institution. This bundling of sub-prime loans then became a tradeable asset - the finanical firms first bailed out were holding massive amounts of these bundled toxic assets.
Normal lending practices, again, would never have resulted in a crisis because the loans would never have become toxic to the point that these purposefully bad sub-prime loans did - it was a ticking time bomb from day one. As the housing bubble, artificially inflated by these sub-prime government-secured loans, finally burst - the bill came due. Someone has to pay the lenders for the loans made under government direction and this directly dried up the credit lines - no one wanted to buy these toxic assets, so they waited and ticked and ticked until finally the financial institutions either had to take the loss and write them off basically destroying their bottom lines and bankrupting thier investors or pass them off to someone else - that someone else became the Federal government through the TARP bill.
Since Freddie and Fannie had bought all of the sub-prime loans they could - and despite years of warning effectively ignored by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd - and finally, there were too many toxic assests on too many balance sheets and no one was willing to lend anymore money to cover these bad loans - either the free market would be allowed to self-correct and take the hard hit to follow - or we could put it off by lending more money to the financial institutions at risk allowing them to continue operating for a while longer.
Enter TARP and the BAilout and then the risks continue to spread. Now there are even fewer available lines of credit and now corporate debt refinancing and operational business loans becomes a crisis - without business able to access the needed credit lines to operate, the economy slows, tax revenues fall and now the governments are in crisis as well.
They need operational loans too (deficit spending) and well as debt financing, but some are to far overleveraged on debt already (Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy. etc) and now they are faced with the same crisis the businesses are facing - take the hit or borrow more - well, there’s even less money - where will they borrow from? thus the current crisis - who will lend to them knowing the risks. At some point the system has to self-correct, no one is big enough to bailout the world . . . [/quote]
You have all the information yet to still aren’t willing to acknowledge the corporate greed that existed and still exists in the system. Risk meant nothing to the banks that were holding these toxic assets because they were able to re package them and make them look more attractive. You’re also not mentioning the role of private insurers. The regulation was happy news for all the lenders and investment banks. Hell some of them may have knew what was coming but they still got involved, they just underestimated the magnitude.
I also don’t like your pessimistic perspective of where we are now. Credit lines have been and are loosening up. Wall Street is incredible smart, not only are the firms making profits but they’re also repaying their bailout money. If theres one thing wall street is good at its creating wealth.
I know theres this debate of whether the US government should have bailed out the massive corporations that they did but I think it had a good impact on the stock market. It gave the markets that tad bit of confidence. The downfall of some of these corporations would have created a panic attack and we all know how markets react to panic…