What it means to be an Anarcho-Capitalist

[AdamLanes 1]

Please take a few minutes to read this excellent, short article about Anarcho-Capitalism.

What it means to be an Anarcho-Capitalist

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Anarcho-Capitalism is idiotic bullshit.

[quade 3]

I gave it a once over. Reads like gibberish to me. I failed to see the larger point it was trying to make, if there even was one.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[AdamLanes 1]

Here is the basic point from the article:

"Accordingly, anyone who is not an anarchist must maintain either: (a) aggression is justified; or (b) states (in particular, minimal states) do not necessarily employ aggression."

It then goes on to prove this point.

[quade 3]

Quote

Here is the basic point from the article:

"Accordingly, anyone who is not an anarchist must maintain either: (a) aggression is justified; or (b) states (in particular, minimal states) do not necessarily employ aggression."

It then goes on to prove this point.

It's gibberish because he equates aggression with, from what I can see, just about any level of tax or trade higher than a swap meet. While I'll admit that some companies, groups of companies and maybe even some taxes can truly be called aggressively evil in their dealings, I don't think it applies to all of them. I fail to see where he makes a distinction or lays out a logical course of action to better the world.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[AdamLanes 1]

Yes Quade, it is always aggressive to initiate force. In fact, the initiation of force is the definition of aggression. Government has the legal monopoly on the use of force. Taxes are not voluntary, but instead are collected through the threat and use of force.

[billvon 2,470]

> Government has the legal monopoly on the use of force.

True. Indeed, any justice system is meaningless without the ability to use force to uphold that justice system. Participation is not voluntary, but instead is coerced through the threat and use of force.

The other option, of course, is anarchy, where everyone can use force to do whatever they like. In such systems the strongest and most violent win and rule the rest.

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

The other option, of course, is anarchy, where everyone can use force to do whatever they like. In such systems the strongest and most violent win and rule the rest.

That isn't Anarchy.

[dreamdancer 0]

i counter with...

Quote

Libertarian socialism (sometimes called socialist anarchism, and sometimes left libertarianism) is a group of political philosophies that aspire to create a society without political, economic, or social hierarchies, i.e. a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to the tools of information and production.

This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions that own and control productive means as private property, so that direct control of these means of production and resources will be shared by society as a whole. Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that informs the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of social life. Accordingly libertarian socialists believe that “the exercise of power in any institutionalized form – whether economic, political, religious, or sexual – brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised.”

Libertarian socialists place their hopes in trade unions, workers' councils, municipalities, citizens' assemblies, and other non-bureaucratic, decentralized means of direct democracy. Many libertarian socialists advocate doing away with the state altogether, seeing it as a bulwark of capitalist class rule, while others propose that a minimal, non-hierarchical version is unobjectionable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[billvon 2,470]

>That isn't Anarchy.

Actually, it is. I can decide that slavery should be legal, and no one else can impose their morality on mine in an anarchist system. I can then keep slaves, provided I am strong enough/have enough guns/enough employees to keep them from escaping.

Of course, someone else could come along and, through the threat of violence, force me to release them to conform to a law they came up with. That would be the end of that particular anarchistic system.

Here's one definition of anarchism, from Max Stirner: "the only limitation on the rights of the individual is their power to obtain what they desire, without regard for God, state, or moral rules." Slavery fits that neatly. The weak have very few rights, since they have no power to obtain what they want.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

> Government has the legal monopoly on the use of force.

Indeed, any justice system is meaningless without the ability to use force to uphold that justice system. Participation is not voluntary, but instead is coerced through the threat and use of force.

Taxation and justice are not moral (or functional) equivalents.

Quote

The other option, of course, is anarchy, where everyone can use force to do whatever they like. In such systems the strongest and most violent win and rule the rest.

Actually, there are other options available.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,470]

>Taxation and justice are not moral (or functional) equivalents.

I agree. Thus, economic anarchy is not the same as pure anarchy.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

>Taxation and justice are not moral (or functional) equivalents.

I agree. Thus, economic anarchy is not the same as pure anarchy.

And also, a system could be taxless, but still have justice (and, separately, a functional justice system).

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,470]

>And also, a system could be taxless, but still have justice.

Who pays for the justice system, then?

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

>And also, a system could be taxless, but still have justice.

Who pays for the justice system, then?

It should be possible to pay for it without taxation. A number of alternatives come to mind, including;

(a) make those sentenced to a crime pay for their proceedings (in whatever manner you desire--I can think of several options).

(b) establish a justice system endowment from the outset, whereby the justice system (and whatever other elements of government you deem impossible to live without) are supported from their endowments, without the need to raise additional revenues. Note that this method ought to work for paying for all government, and naturally controlling it's growth.

(c) require those seeking the benefit of the justice system to pay user fees (this may not be practical if the injustice they seek redress for is theft, of course), which could be implemented along with part (a), to provide restitution to the seeker of justice

I'm sure there are many others--that's just what I came up with this 30 seconds.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 25]

Adam,

I've just finished reading the article. Here's a (relatively) Libertarian response.

The author misses the distinction between initiating aggression and responding to aggression (with force). The ideal Libertarian (not Anarcho-Capitalist) state would be empowered only to respond to aggression (so, to enact justice when one citizen infringes the rights of another), but never to be the first initiator of aggression (or the first user of force, if you prefer).

This appears to be the central point at which Libertarians part company from Conservatives (who believe the state legitimately holds the power to initiate the use of force), and also with Anarcho-Capitalists (who believe the state use of force to be illegitimate in all cases, even as a response).

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

It should be possible to pay for it without taxation. A number of alternatives come to mind, including;

(a) make those sentenced to a crime pay for their proceedings (in whatever manner you desire--I can think of several options).

This would provide incentives to those working in the justice system to convict, regardless of guilt. One incentive is the revenue stream and/or free/low cost labor each conviction would produce. Another incentive would be that the costs associated with acquittals would go unrecovered.

Quote

(b) establish a justice system endowment from the outset, whereby the justice system (and whatever other elements of government you deem impossible to live without) are supported from their endowments, without the need to raise additional revenues.

Who would bear the cost of setting up such a perpetuity? Who would guarantee the continued revenue stream?

Quote

(c) require those seeking the benefit of the justice system to pay user fees (this may not be practical if the injustice they seek redress for is theft, of course), which could be implemented along with part (a), to provide restitution to the seeker of justice

That sounds like a justice system that provides the best justice money can buy (i.e. justice only for those who can afford it).

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,470]

>make those sentenced to a crime pay for their proceedings . . .

Well, looking solely at the prison system, costs per inmate range from $25,000 to $77,000 a year. It may be unrealistic to expect a criminal who gets caught (which, by definition, makes him not a very smart criminal) to make that much money while in prison (or even after being released.)

>establish a justice system endowment from the outset . . .

While this can work, it either requires heavy taxation up front to fund the endowment, or requires voluntary contributions to the fund. And I am sure you will agree that having a justice system paid for by Enron, Exxon and Microsoft is not a great idea.

>require those seeking the benefit of the justice system to pay user fees . .

That seems like a bad idea. Consider the case of an unemployed rape victim or a former white collar worker fired for being gay. Neither will likely be able to afford justice.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Who would bear the cost of setting up such a perpetuity?

The founders of the state, or, alternately, the citizens at the time the reform was instituted.

Quote

Who would guarantee the continued revenue stream?

The citizens. Who are the same folks that guarantee everything else.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

>make those sentenced to a crime pay for their proceedings . . .

Well, looking solely at the prison system, costs per inmate range from $25,000 to $77,000 a year. It may be unrealistic to expect a criminal who gets caught (which, by definition, makes him not a very smart criminal) to make that much money while in prison (or even after being released.)

That's an excellent argument for reforming the prison system, isn't it? If we didn't incarcerate non-violent offenders, they'd be able to work off their debt to society much quicker. And if we decriminalized victimless crimes, then we'd have a whole lot fewer "criminals" to deal with.

Plus, if we focused prison time on training inmates to be productive members of society, they'd probably require less intensive security, and also be more likely to earn money to square their debt later.

That still leaves the question of violent offenders who need to be permanently locked up, but there are solutions there, too, such as an endowment based system, or simply an expulsion from the geographic space occupied by the system.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Who would bear the cost of setting up such a perpetuity?

The founders of the state, or, alternately, the citizens at the time the reform was instituted.

So, you would establish the funds by way of wealth redistribution.

Quote

Quote

Who would guarantee the continued revenue stream?

The citizens. Who are the same folks that guarantee everything else.

In other words, taxpayers, since taxes are how the citizens guarantee such financial obligations.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Who would bear the cost of setting up such a perpetuity?

The founders of the state, or, alternately, the citizens at the time the reform was instituted.

So, you would establish the funds by way of wealth redistribution.

Nowhere did I say that.

If you're establishing a new system, it's easy to require a voluntary "buy in" fee to create the endowment(s). People want to join the new system, they pay in. They don't, then no problem, they stay wherever they are at.

If you're reforming an old system, you can levy a per-person fee that doesn't redistribute wealth at all.

Quote

Quote

Who would guarantee the continued revenue stream?

The citizens. Who are the same folks that guarantee everything else.

In other words, taxpayers, since taxes are how the citizens guarantee such financial obligations.

[billvon 2,470]

>That's an excellent argument for reforming the prison system, isn't it?

Absolutely! And I'm all for that.

However, that doesn't change the problem. Cut the number of inmates by 2 and the total cost goes down by 2 - but the income base also goes down by 2, so you have the same problem. Cut the least violent offenders, and you are left with the more violent offenders, who cost more to detain (more security required) and have less earning potential. So your cost goes up.

And you can bill a nearly insane zero-morals mugger all you like after you release him - he's not going to pay you back. What do you do then? Put him back in jail?

>Plus, if we focused prison time on training inmates to be productive
>members of society, they'd probably require less intensive security, and
>also be more likely to earn money to square their debt later.

That's quite reasonable, but is unlikely to fly with the law-n-order types who dislike "coddling criminals."

>That still leaves the question of violent offenders who need to be
>permanently locked up, but there are solutions there, too, such as an
>endowment based system, or simply an expulsion from the geographic
>space occupied by the system.

You mean like Australia? I think we're out of such places in the world. In any case, such a system would not work without much tighter border controls.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

So, you would establish the funds by way of wealth redistribution.

Nowhere did I say that.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

And you can bill a nearly insane zero-morals mugger all you like after you release him - he's not going to pay you back. What do you do then? Put him back in jail?

Put him in a work camp, where he can work off his debt.

Quote

You mean like Australia? I think we're out of such places in the world. In any case, such a system would not work without much tighter border controls.

I was thinking something like Nevada, actually. You could easily fence off a few hundred square miles there and just toss people in to fend for themselves.

In all seriousness, any discussion of a system like this pretty much has to be contemplating the establishment of a new system. Which means the real answer is "like the United States." We'd just eject people from our island and send them back to California.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com