Road to Libertarianisme/ Anarcho-Capitalisme?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
61

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Who is we? Collectivist fallacy.[/quote]

…says the man who constantly refers to “the market”.
[/quote]

But there is a distinction between the market – a process that signals prices to buyers and sellers – and the collectivist “we” when it is used to describe quantitative absolutes.

For example, the saying, “we are all in this together” is a collectivist fallacy.

We are not all in this together because “we all” have different circumstances.[/quote]

You get on this type of defense when (I believe) you have no where to go . While this may or may not be true , it has no meanning or consequenses. It is a diversion so you do not have to answer questions .

like why is there not 1 example of this far superior form of NonGovernment. I think the form you speak of would kind of be like a default form of Gov. When all else fails .

62

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

You get on this type of defense when (I believe) you have no where to go . While this may or may not be true , it has no meanning or consequenses. It is a diversion so you do not have to answer questions . [/quote]

On this, we agree. He does this every time - he presents a defense of incoherent dissembling, inventing new (meaningless) definitions in an attempt to reconcile errors and outright contradictions on his part, and counterfeit pretense of “you just don’t get it” faux-logic.

The over-under is three posts till he does this when asked a direct question.

63

Maybe we could all learn something from this documentary.

64

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Who is we? Collectivist fallacy.[/quote]

…says the man who constantly refers to “the market”.
[/quote]

But there is a distinction between the market – a process that signals prices to buyers and sellers – and the collectivist “we” when it is used to describe quantitative absolutes.

For example, the saying, “we are all in this together” is a collectivist fallacy.

We are not all in this together because “we all” have different circumstances.[/quote]

You get on this type of defense when (I believe) you have no where to go . While this may or may not be true , it has no meanning or consequenses. It is a diversion so you do not have to answer questions .

like why is there not 1 example of this far superior form of NonGovernment. I think the form you speak of would kind of be like a default form of Gov. When all else fails .[/quote]

What you said, “what if we were attacked by a tyrant” is wrong. How can “we” get attacked? What you meant to say was what if some people that lie in the US borders get attacked. Obviously not all of us can get attacked at the same time. I am just calling you out because as I have stated throughout this thread you lack the ability to recognize logic.

Now, as far as me diverting from the topic…you still have not answered any of my assertions that were on topic.

65

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If your form of no government is so superior , why does it not flourish. I mean not one example.[/quote]

Is it not obvious to you why?

Because people with power never want to give it up. The system supports itself by enriching the political class.

The only way to do away with it is to ignore it completely and convince others to do the same.

66

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
this is why I do not understand the attraction, I think the people that own the roads would tax the shit out of us[/quote]

That just means you do not understand economics.

There is a price that the market will bear and if it goes below or above that price goods or their buyers disappear, respectively.

Besides this, there would be many transit companies that would probably end up being owned by road conglomerates which would end up making transportation much cheaper than it is now.

Not only that, prices signal to investors whether or not it might be worthwhile to invest in alternatives to the current means of transportation.

But you see, all of these things rely on a completely free markets…that includes roads, too.

Oh, and BTW, the people that “own” the roads now DO TAX THE SHIT OF US, ANYWAY![/quote]

It means no such thing , if some one has a monopoly . That means they have a monopoly . Why doesn’t this free market move into a third world country so they can use it as an example on how the free market is so superior to good government[/quote]

Because most third world countries have tyrants as leaders. Kind of hard to do what you wish when you are in a position to killed for doing it. How is it possible to have a monopoly when someone can freely come in and compete with prices that will be higher than yours.[/quote]

what if we were attacked by a TYRANT :slight_smile: [/quote]

Private Defense Contractors, even the government thinks they are better than foot soldiers.

67

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
NONE HAS THE MARKET RULING. [/quote]

The market does not rule as a government does. It organizes supply with demand based on the many actions of individuals acting in their best interests. Government could not do that if it tried and as we have constantly seen only raise the price of everything it touches – including roads. Indeed, the government needs to market for its existence.

Logic. You lack the ability to recognize it.[/quote]

Criminals would love this scenerio , I know the market would have law enforcement for sale .

It is not that I have an unability to understand this fantasy , it is you that fails to understand the realality of your proposal. I am not saying that your proposal would not work , I believe it would be a far inferior life for most everyone and I feel the longer it went with out direction the worst it would become

Again I contend your form of government could work well under NO circumstance , If you do dis agree tell me what would be an ideal cicumstance[/quote]

I already told you what my ideal is. I would rather people be free to choose what is in their own best interests and not have it be decided for them by government (or the “will of the people”).

I just don’t get how you can think that a free market on law enforcement could be a bad thing. More choices is always better than one – even if a few might be corrupt it beats the corruption of a monopoly institution like government. In a free market those that do not meet the needs of the consumers go out of business. The government no matter how faulty it gets will never be “out of business”. Democracy ensures that one dunderhead will be replaced for an other.

Furthermore, with government out of the way all goods and services would become cheaper and more abundant – again, this gives people more freedom to choose and thus they are much better off for it. I have a feeling its your inability to grasp how the free market works to achieve the optimal price that keeps you from being convinced of my arguments.[/quote]

One of the problems is everyone has different ideals . There would be no coheision.[/quote]

This will always be a problem and government does not solve it. The market actually allows people with different and competing ideals to get along with one an other.[quote]

I think rather than paid law enforcement we would have gangs , some being kinder than others but you would have to belong to a gang for protection. I thin society as a whole would be contolled not by the market but by the strongest gangs .[/quote]

We already do have gangs that do this because they understand that government cannot.[quote]

I think for a free market it is imperative to have a good government. That is why the free market does not exsist in places like Somalia and Afganistan .I know our Gov is bloated and needs parred down. I got that [/quote]

If the free market does not exist it is because the government tries to govern it. The black market is a market that attempts to subvert government oppression. The unfortunate part is that black markets are not free precisely because gangs and the like have an incentive to be violent as long as the government keeps narcotics’ prices artificially high thru prohibition[quote]

I believe to say the market would self equal and controll everything is a kin to the tail wagging the dog[/quote]

It’s not really the “market” that corrects itself. The market is just a process for exchange. The market influences and is influenced by people acting in their own best interests. It requires unhampered price signals to work. When the government interferes it masks real prices and therefor the actors in the market cannot know what is really going on.

When the signals are unhampered it does not guarantee that all actors will make the right choices but at least they will know sooner rather than later that they have made the wrong choice and then can “fix” what they have done. That is how the market is “self correcting”. It is continually sending signals to buyers and sellers who can only act on the information that comes from the market.

This is why when prices are artificially high it creates bubbles. Investors jump into the market expecting greater ROI than can be realized by current productive capacities and the whole thing must collapse – unless the government further distorts prices by bailing out the failures.[/quote]

About the only thing I can agree with is that we have gangs but not for the same reason. If your form of no government is so superior , why does it not flourish. I mean not one example .[/quote]

Because people do not always do what is best for them. Why if doing crack-house meth is bad for you that some people do it. Because of concupiscence. Also because there are plenty of people driven to power, some people are driven to have someone rule over them.

There are plenty of places that were not ruled by the State. But of course they went in two directions, a State government either took claim over their land as the law, or someone persuaded the people that it would be better to have a forced government.

A lot of Anabaptist’s fall into this category.

68

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Who is we? Collectivist fallacy.[/quote]

…says the man who constantly refers to “the market”.
[/quote]

But there is a distinction between the market – a process that signals prices to buyers and sellers – and the collectivist “we” when it is used to describe quantitative absolutes.

For example, the saying, “we are all in this together” is a collectivist fallacy.

We are not all in this together because “we all” have different circumstances.[/quote]

You get on this type of defense when (I believe) you have no where to go . While this may or may not be true , it has no meanning or consequenses. It is a diversion so you do not have to answer questions .

like why is there not 1 example of this far superior form of NonGovernment. I think the form you speak of would kind of be like a default form of Gov. When all else fails .[/quote]

It is usually a default, but now there is always some default State Department from some other country very willing to come in and set up there new government.

However, there is no such thing as Non-Government, however Anarchy is without the State.

69

[quote]toddrc wrote:
Maybe we could all learn something from this documentary.

Like what? That I do not like living in the desert?

70

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Who is we? Collectivist fallacy.[/quote]

…says the man who constantly refers to “the market”.
[/quote]

But there is a distinction between the market – a process that signals prices to buyers and sellers – and the collectivist “we” when it is used to describe quantitative absolutes.

For example, the saying, “we are all in this together” is a collectivist fallacy.

We are not all in this together because “we all” have different circumstances.[/quote]

You get on this type of defense when (I believe) you have no where to go . While this may or may not be true , it has no meanning or consequenses. It is a diversion so you do not have to answer questions .

like why is there not 1 example of this far superior form of NonGovernment. I think the form you speak of would kind of be like a default form of Gov. When all else fails .[/quote]

What you said, “what if we were attacked by a tyrant” is wrong. How can “we” get attacked? What you meant to say was what if some people that lie in the US borders get attacked. Obviously not all of us can get attacked at the same time. I am just calling you out because as I have stated throughout this thread you lack the ability to recognize logic.

Now, as far as me diverting from the topic…you still have not answered any of my assertions that were on topic.[/quote]

I agree we can not all get attacked at the same time , so what you are getting hung up on this rather than the point

Let me rephrase it , what if the good people start to be haraased and attacked by the Bad people . Kind of like the taliban . Eithet you are with them or against them

For my sake please ask me the question in a forth right manner and I will do my best to answer it

71

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
this is why I do not understand the attraction, I think the people that own the roads would tax the shit out of us[/quote]

That just means you do not understand economics.

There is a price that the market will bear and if it goes below or above that price goods or their buyers disappear, respectively.

Besides this, there would be many transit companies that would probably end up being owned by road conglomerates which would end up making transportation much cheaper than it is now.

Not only that, prices signal to investors whether or not it might be worthwhile to invest in alternatives to the current means of transportation.

But you see, all of these things rely on a completely free markets…that includes roads, too.

Oh, and BTW, the people that “own” the roads now DO TAX THE SHIT OF US, ANYWAY![/quote]

It means no such thing , if some one has a monopoly . That means they have a monopoly . Why doesn’t this free market move into a third world country so they can use it as an example on how the free market is so superior to good government[/quote]

Because most third world countries have tyrants as leaders. Kind of hard to do what you wish when you are in a position to killed for doing it. How is it possible to have a monopoly when someone can freely come in and compete with prices that will be higher than yours.[/quote]

what if we were attacked by a TYRANT :slight_smile: [/quote]

Private Defense Contractors, even the government thinks they are better than foot soldiers. [/quote]

They are more expensive in the up front, the thing i like about some one else fighting our war , We have Thousands on full blown disability from our military . Wait until America has to support all these kids from Afganistan and iraq . WE need an Army just not one to dominate the world . All we have to do is protect america

72

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Who is we? Collectivist fallacy.[/quote]

…says the man who constantly refers to “the market”.
[/quote]

But there is a distinction between the market – a process that signals prices to buyers and sellers – and the collectivist “we” when it is used to describe quantitative absolutes.

For example, the saying, “we are all in this together” is a collectivist fallacy.

We are not all in this together because “we all” have different circumstances.[/quote]

You get on this type of defense when (I believe) you have no where to go . While this may or may not be true , it has no meanning or consequenses. It is a diversion so you do not have to answer questions .

like why is there not 1 example of this far superior form of NonGovernment. I think the form you speak of would kind of be like a default form of Gov. When all else fails .[/quote]

It is usually a default, but now there is always some default State Department from some other country very willing to come in and set up there new government.

However, there is no such thing as Non-Government, however Anarchy is without the State.[/quote]

Let’s say the state of Non Government is Anarchy by definition

73

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
NONE HAS THE MARKET RULING. [/quote]

The market does not rule as a government does. It organizes supply with demand based on the many actions of individuals acting in their best interests. Government could not do that if it tried and as we have constantly seen only raise the price of everything it touches – including roads. Indeed, the government needs to market for its existence.

Logic. You lack the ability to recognize it.[/quote]

Criminals would love this scenerio , I know the market would have law enforcement for sale .

It is not that I have an unability to understand this fantasy , it is you that fails to understand the realality of your proposal. I am not saying that your proposal would not work , I believe it would be a far inferior life for most everyone and I feel the longer it went with out direction the worst it would become

Again I contend your form of government could work well under NO circumstance , If you do dis agree tell me what would be an ideal cicumstance[/quote]

I already told you what my ideal is. I would rather people be free to choose what is in their own best interests and not have it be decided for them by government (or the “will of the people”).

I just don’t get how you can think that a free market on law enforcement could be a bad thing. More choices is always better than one – even if a few might be corrupt it beats the corruption of a monopoly institution like government. In a free market those that do not meet the needs of the consumers go out of business. The government no matter how faulty it gets will never be “out of business”. Democracy ensures that one dunderhead will be replaced for an other.

Furthermore, with government out of the way all goods and services would become cheaper and more abundant – again, this gives people more freedom to choose and thus they are much better off for it. I have a feeling its your inability to grasp how the free market works to achieve the optimal price that keeps you from being convinced of my arguments.[/quote]

One of the problems is everyone has different ideals . There would be no coheision.[/quote]

This will always be a problem and government does not solve it. The market actually allows people with different and competing ideals to get along with one an other.[quote]

I think rather than paid law enforcement we would have gangs , some being kinder than others but you would have to belong to a gang for protection. I thin society as a whole would be contolled not by the market but by the strongest gangs .[/quote]

We already do have gangs that do this because they understand that government cannot.[quote]

I think for a free market it is imperative to have a good government. That is why the free market does not exsist in places like Somalia and Afganistan .I know our Gov is bloated and needs parred down. I got that [/quote]

If the free market does not exist it is because the government tries to govern it. The black market is a market that attempts to subvert government oppression. The unfortunate part is that black markets are not free precisely because gangs and the like have an incentive to be violent as long as the government keeps narcotics’ prices artificially high thru prohibition[quote]

I believe to say the market would self equal and controll everything is a kin to the tail wagging the dog[/quote]

It’s not really the “market” that corrects itself. The market is just a process for exchange. The market influences and is influenced by people acting in their own best interests. It requires unhampered price signals to work. When the government interferes it masks real prices and therefor the actors in the market cannot know what is really going on.

When the signals are unhampered it does not guarantee that all actors will make the right choices but at least they will know sooner rather than later that they have made the wrong choice and then can “fix” what they have done. That is how the market is “self correcting”. It is continually sending signals to buyers and sellers who can only act on the information that comes from the market.

This is why when prices are artificially high it creates bubbles. Investors jump into the market expecting greater ROI than can be realized by current productive capacities and the whole thing must collapse – unless the government further distorts prices by bailing out the failures.[/quote]

About the only thing I can agree with is that we have gangs but not for the same reason. If your form of no government is so superior , why does it not flourish. I mean not one example .[/quote]

Because people do not always do what is best for them. Why if doing crack-house meth is bad for you that some people do it. Because of concupiscence. Also because there are plenty of people driven to power, some people are driven to have someone rule over them.

There are plenty of places that were not ruled by the State. But of course they went in two directions, a State government either took claim over their land as the law, or someone persuaded the people that it would be better to have a forced government.

A lot of Anabaptist’s fall into this category.

[/quote]

I think Anarchy (COULD) be a superior form of life , if you could hand pick everybody in your group. Also there are probablt religeous orders that Govern their members better than any form of Government could .

As with gangs I see it as the group forming organization out of chaos. Probably asmall percentage of the gang sees an orportunity to make money . That is why we have gangs . Nothing to do with the gov except the war on Drugs

74

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If your form of no government is so superior , why does it not flourish. I mean not one example.[/quote]

Is it not obvious to you why?

Because people with power never want to give it up. The system supports itself by enriching the political class.

The only way to do away with it is to ignore it completely and convince others to do the same.[/quote]

While I agree with the first part of this statement , I think we need to control our Government better . not do way with it.

If you do not think that some one or some people or even big business would control the masses, I believe you are only fooling your self . Big business could only thrive in a world where there is order. All you could do in the state of Chaos is protect your wealth

75

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

However, there is no such thing as Non-Government, however Anarchy is without the State.[/quote]

There can’t be “government” without some version of a “state”.

76

[quote]toddrc wrote:
Maybe we could all learn something from this documentary.

Beleieve it or not when I were a kid there were many places like this in America . West Virgina , Kentucky ,Arkansaw,louisiana, and the list goes on .

I think that is fine the people can live like that , I don’t . In all honesty I would like to visit on occasion:)

77

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

However, there is no such thing as Non-Government, however Anarchy is without the State.[/quote]

There can’t be “government” without some version of a “state”.[/quote]

I think this is a moot point

78

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If you do not think that some one or some people or even big business would control the masses, I believe you are only fooling your self . Big business could only thrive in a world where there is order. All you could do in the state of Chaos is protect your wealth[/quote]

This is not true. Businesses that are not protected by the legitimacy of government aggression have to compete on the open market. They cannot control but rather are controlled by consumers.

It is logically simple.

79

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If you do not think that some one or some people or even big business would control the masses, I believe you are only fooling your self . Big business could only thrive in a world where there is order. All you could do in the state of Chaos is protect your wealth[/quote]

This is not true. Businesses that are not protected by the legitimacy of government aggression have to compete on the open market. They cannot control but rather are controlled by consumers.

It is logically simple.[/quote]

Business is reciprocal

80

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I think this is a moot point[/quote]

Not sure if it is “moot” since Brother Chris insists on it as an important aspect of Anarchy, but I do believe it is a truism that can only be defeated by the complete absence of common sense.