3 ms·

I suppose you would have to expound on what is meant by "facilitating the creation of wealth" for me to answer that question.

by ancap 11y ago

learc83 11y ago
Police and military protecting trade routes from bandits, and pirates. Roads, and other infrastructure that facilitates trade and communication. Courts that enforce contracts. Water rights management to that facilitates the creation of cities (note I'm talking large scale here, not municipal water companies--think the federal government prevents people in State A from draining all the water from a river before it gets to State B) Public health infrastructure (large scale, like fighting epidemics) That kind of thing, plus many smaller scale and more intangible benefits that come from living in a civilized society.
- ancap 11y ago
  There has been plenty written on how those things could be privatized (see the writings of Murray Rothbard and Walter Block). Regarding your earlier comment about "a debt to society", no one is in debt to society for those things, because no one contractually agreed to be in debt. Yes those services exist, and yes they provide real benefits, but the problem is they are not voluntary. Being in debt involuntarily is akin to slavery. Now, that is the philosophical justification for one who believes in the non-agression principle. Obviously such a belief is more of a hope for a utopia which will never be realized in the foreseeable future.
  - learc83 11y ago
    I considered myself first a libertarian and then an anarcho-capitalist from about 15 to 27, so I'm pretty familiar with the arguments (though I'll note that I'm no longer convinced by all of them). The concept that involuntary debt is automatically bad is an axiom that most people who believed like I did start with. But it's not the self-evident axiom that I once thought. There are many cultures that consider children to have certain filial obligations (and some states in the US still have such laws), you might consider that wrong, but it's not self-evident that it is. There are also situations where the law considers continued enjoyment of some good or service to create an obligation to pay for that good or service regardless of whether the person enjoying it requested it in the first place. I don't think this is self-evidently wrong either. To explain why I'm not longer an anarcho-capitalist: As I got older, I started to realize that almost everything I'd accomplished was primarily a result of the situation I was born into. Intelligence and success are primarily a product of upbringing and genetics, not something I accomplished on my own that I should feel proud of. I haven't moved over to pure socialism, but I no longer feel that allocating wealth based purely on the circumstances of birth (because let's face it, an individual's ability to make money is based almost entirely on the circumstances of their birth.) is the best system. There are times when capitalism is the best, most efficient system for everyone involved (even if it's not the most egalitarian). But I've increasingly realized there are also time when capitalism reaches a local optimum. And I don't think we should let ideology blind us to that.
    - ancap 11y ago
      >There are many cultures that consider children to have certain filial obligations (and some states in the US still have such laws), you might consider that wrong, but it's not self-evident that it is. >There are also situations where the law considers continued enjoyment of some good or service to create an obligation to pay for that good or service regardless of whether the person enjoying it requested it in the first place. I don't think this is self-evidently wrong either. As I said previously, at least for me, believing that the non-aggression principle should be the governing principle of society is a utopian view. That is, to say, it is a hope of what society could be, not a pragmatic solution that could be implemented today or tomorrow. Similarly, anyone who holds any concept of a utopian society likely recognizes they will never see it come to fruition but they hope to move things in that direction. >but I no longer feel that allocating wealth based purely on the circumstances of birth (because let's face it, an individual's ability to make money is based almost entirely on the circumstances of their birth.) is the best system. But this is a mis-characterization of what capitalism is. Some of the most poor people of the world today face the exact lifestyle that nearly everyone faced a few hundred years ago. It was only through capitalism, existing sometimes in a very limited fashion, which fueled the industrial revolution and enabled those of us who are so rich to enjoy our lifestyles today (and let's face it even the poorest of any first world country, are vastly rich compared to living conditions a few hundred years ago). >But I've increasingly realized there are also time when capitalism reaches a local optimum. And I don't think we should let ideology blind us to that. I would be curious to hear what situation you would describe as capitalism reaching a "local optimum". In my experience, every situation categorized as a "market failure", when investigated, is anything but. That goes for the idea of "natural monopolies", recent market crashes, skyrocketing tuition, skyrocketing medical costs, pollution, etc. I would be happy to point you to material to research any one of these issues.

I suppose you would have to expound on what is meant by "facilitating the creation of wealth" for me to answer that question.

by ancap 11y ago

I suppose you would have to expound on what is meant by "facilitating the creation of wealth" for me to answer that question.

learc83 11y ago

Police and military protecting trade routes from bandits, and pirates. Roads, and other infrastructure that facilitates trade and communication. Courts that enforce contracts. Water rights management to that facilitates the creation of cities (note I'm talking large scale here, not municipal water companies--think the federal government prevents people in State A from draining all the water from a river before it gets to State B) Public health infrastructure (large scale, like fighting epidemics) That kind of thing, plus many smaller scale and more intangible benefits that come from living in a civilized society.

ancap 11y ago
There has been plenty written on how those things could be privatized (see the writings of Murray Rothbard and Walter Block). Regarding your earlier comment about "a debt to society", no one is in debt to society for those things, because no one contractually agreed to be in debt. Yes those services exist, and yes they provide real benefits, but the problem is they are not voluntary. Being in debt involuntarily is akin to slavery. Now, that is the philosophical justification for one who believes in the non-agression principle. Obviously such a belief is more of a hope for a utopia which will never be realized in the foreseeable future.
- learc83 11y ago
  I considered myself first a libertarian and then an anarcho-capitalist from about 15 to 27, so I'm pretty familiar with the arguments (though I'll note that I'm no longer convinced by all of them). The concept that involuntary debt is automatically bad is an axiom that most people who believed like I did start with. But it's not the self-evident axiom that I once thought. There are many cultures that consider children to have certain filial obligations (and some states in the US still have such laws), you might consider that wrong, but it's not self-evident that it is. There are also situations where the law considers continued enjoyment of some good or service to create an obligation to pay for that good or service regardless of whether the person enjoying it requested it in the first place. I don't think this is self-evidently wrong either. To explain why I'm not longer an anarcho-capitalist: As I got older, I started to realize that almost everything I'd accomplished was primarily a result of the situation I was born into. Intelligence and success are primarily a product of upbringing and genetics, not something I accomplished on my own that I should feel proud of. I haven't moved over to pure socialism, but I no longer feel that allocating wealth based purely on the circumstances of birth (because let's face it, an individual's ability to make money is based almost entirely on the circumstances of their birth.) is the best system. There are times when capitalism is the best, most efficient system for everyone involved (even if it's not the most egalitarian). But I've increasingly realized there are also time when capitalism reaches a local optimum. And I don't think we should let ideology blind us to that.
  - ancap 11y ago
    >There are many cultures that consider children to have certain filial obligations (and some states in the US still have such laws), you might consider that wrong, but it's not self-evident that it is. >There are also situations where the law considers continued enjoyment of some good or service to create an obligation to pay for that good or service regardless of whether the person enjoying it requested it in the first place. I don't think this is self-evidently wrong either. As I said previously, at least for me, believing that the non-aggression principle should be the governing principle of society is a utopian view. That is, to say, it is a hope of what society could be, not a pragmatic solution that could be implemented today or tomorrow. Similarly, anyone who holds any concept of a utopian society likely recognizes they will never see it come to fruition but they hope to move things in that direction. >but I no longer feel that allocating wealth based purely on the circumstances of birth (because let's face it, an individual's ability to make money is based almost entirely on the circumstances of their birth.) is the best system. But this is a mis-characterization of what capitalism is. Some of the most poor people of the world today face the exact lifestyle that nearly everyone faced a few hundred years ago. It was only through capitalism, existing sometimes in a very limited fashion, which fueled the industrial revolution and enabled those of us who are so rich to enjoy our lifestyles today (and let's face it even the poorest of any first world country, are vastly rich compared to living conditions a few hundred years ago). >But I've increasingly realized there are also time when capitalism reaches a local optimum. And I don't think we should let ideology blind us to that. I would be curious to hear what situation you would describe as capitalism reaching a "local optimum". In my experience, every situation categorized as a "market failure", when investigated, is anything but. That goes for the idea of "natural monopolies", recent market crashes, skyrocketing tuition, skyrocketing medical costs, pollution, etc. I would be happy to point you to material to research any one of these issues.