4 ms·

I was tempted to reply, because I think you've made some points I can understand, but object to. And some others I believe you simply misunderstood. > Well yea

by snitko 12y ago

I was tempted to reply, because I think you've made some points I can understand, but object to. And some others I believe you simply misunderstood. > Well yeah, your victims pay for it. That's not what I meant. I meant that when a country starts a war, it's not politicians who pay for it. Citizens pay for wars with their taxes. Politicians simply sell them a war, while not investing any money of their own. In fact, what happens is, politicians make money, because there are companies who benefit from wars (oil, military equip and tech), so they lobby politicians. If politicians or companies had to pay for wars out of their own profits, there would be no wars. > In theory Capitalism distributes the most to those who provide the most, which sounds great. That's a misunderstanding. A rich person can only spend that much for himself (even then, by buying things, he actually creates jobs). He then has to invest into something he believes to be sustainable. Thus, I see businessmen as ultimate redistributors. They proved on the market they're good at handling money, thus they deserve to have more of them. Politicians only proved they can manipulate public opinion and you are entrusting them your own and someone else's tax money. I don't think it's a good idea at all. > And you think a society that would pass such a vote would be any kinder in a free market Yes, because in a free market the redheads would be able to legally invest money of their own to protect themselves from other people, who wish to kill them. With government, since it has the monopoly on protection and laws, no such thing would be possible. In other words, in a completely free market minorities are able to put a price tag on them being discriminated against, while when you have government, they would actually be paying for their own discrimination. Gay people have been paying taxes just like everyone else, yet until some point, it was even illegal to be gay, not even talking about marriage. >No, my whole point is that access to services is a form of freedom Very well. Even by your definition then, when government takes a portion of my money as tax for the services I don't use or disagree with (like wars) it takes away my freedom to use other services I consider good. The crucial distinction is force. Government is force that is abused because it's so centralized. Government is telling other people what they can or cannot do, how they can or cannot spend their money and what services they can or cannot use. It doesn't matter what you consider freedom to be. With government some may indeed get a little more "freedom", but always at the expense of someone else and always with people in the government benefiting most from their position. I'm simply against this redistribution, because it is based on a system that is inherently unfair and broken. No, it cannot be fixed.

aninhumer 12y ago
> That's not what I meant. I think you've misunderstood my question then. I never mentioned wars. I'm asking why these entities with the power to violently coerce others would operate friendly protection agencies, instead of simply stealing from everyone around them? I consider this a pretty obvious and fundamental flaw with anarcho-capitalism, and I've never heard a coherent argument against it, so I'd really appreciate an answer here. > He then has to invest into something he believes to be sustainable. Which works pretty well in our current situation where you have a bunch of regulations in place to stop them abusing that power. They can't use violence. They can't lie to consumers. They can't make dangerous products. They can't abuse their workers. You only have to look at developing countries to see how companies operate outside these restrictions. > Thus, I see businessmen as ultimate redistributors. Except nothing gets redistributed. They invest, and unless they fail, they get even more money back. And after a certain point, they can even leave the investment to other people. Then you have a bunch of rich people doing nothing, but enjoying the majority of the wealth. Their investments may slowly improve life for the poor, but the massive inequalities remain. > Yes, because in a free market the redheads would be able to legally invest money of their own to protect themselves from other people, who wish to kill them. Yet again, assuming they have any money. If your hypothetical society hates redheads to the point of wanting them dead, then I would expect them to be incredibly poor, since their ability to participate in the market would be extremely limited. > With government some may indeed get a little more "freedom", but always at the expense of someone else Freedoms always come at the expense of other freedoms. Freedom from slavery means limiting the freedom to keep slaves, but I think most people are happy with that. There will always be trade-offs, the question is how we decide which freedoms are more important than others. Can you explain why you think the freedom to decide how the last 10% of your income gets spent is more important than the freedom to eat? > No, it cannot be fixed. Why not? I have already suggested the solution (direct democracy) and your only objection is that it allows the majority to abuse the minority, but you haven't explained how capitalism fixes that.
- snitko 12y ago
  >I think you've misunderstood my question then. I never mentioned wars. I'm asking why these entities with the power to violently coerce others would operate friendly protection agencies, instead of simply stealing from everyone around them? I consider this a pretty obvious and fundamental flaw with anarcho-capitalism. So the first thing to understand here is that monopolies and cartels can't exist without government protection for a long time (if you look at every case of a monopoly/cartel careful enough, you'll see some government involvement). When some company introduces a new, revolutionary technology (Microsoft or Apple both being examples) they may capture the market for a while, but not for long. Government didn't order Google to compete on the smartphone market. It happened because it was profitable to do so. Now back to protection agencies. Suppose I'm an evil protection agency that wants to force everyone to pay, just like a government would. Alright. I send everyone an extortion notice and suggest that if they don't pay, we come and take money + fines (for our extra effort) by force and if they resist - we imprison them. People, being free and not brainwashed as they are, wouldn't see us as a protection agency anymore, but as an extortion agency. They wouldn't have any illusions about us being nice and kind. Therefore, there would arise a demand for another protection agency, that would offer protection from the evil agency. Naturally, people would rather pay the second protection agency, as it doesn't demand pay, but offers a service, therefore presenting itself like a legitimate business. The other protection agency would quickly lose its market share and wouldn't be able to finance its extortion, not even talking about any kind of war with the second agency. In the case in which the two agencies form an extortion cartel, it is not difficult to imagine a third firm emerging. And so on. Therefore, competition is the key. Free market always serves the customer. >Then you have a bunch of rich people doing nothing, but enjoying the majority of the wealth You have to be precise here. What does enjoying the wealth mean? If they buy stuff, they create jobs. If they don't buy, but hoard, they are not enjoying the wealth in any way. Every time an evil businessman tries to enjoy his wealth, he creates jobs. And the more he enjoys, the more jobs are created. That's inevitable. >Yet again, assuming they have any money. If your hypothetical society hates redheads to the point of wanting them dead, then I would expect them to be incredibly poor, since their ability to participate in the market would be extremely limited. Now let's look at this comparison fairly. We talk about two societies, one with no state and one with a state, both hate redheads. Now if the majority in a society with a state hates redheads, wouldn't they pass laws that would restrict redheads from escaping the poverty? You'd think that. So redheads wouldn't have any money either. Worse even, in a society with a state if it's not the rest of the 90% that hate redheads, but say, only 70%, they can still pass a law that says "redheads cannot be hired for more than $1 an hour". Then, even those who have nothing against redheads will not be able to hire them, whereas in a stateless society they would. >Can you explain why you think the freedom to decide how the last 10% of your income gets spent is more important than the freedom to eat? I think it's very important to communicate one sound principle, with which I hope you might agree sometime: you can't do good by forcing other people to do it (that is, by using the money you stole from them). If I had nothing to eat tonight, do you think it's okay if I go and rob you? If you don't think it's ok, why do you believe it's okay for the government to do the same on my behalf? How is it more humane or fair to you? If anything, I'm not going to ask you to fill any forms, so it's gonna save you some time.

by snitko 12y ago

aninhumer 12y ago

> That's not what I meant. I think you've misunderstood my question then. I never mentioned wars. I'm asking why these entities with the power to violently coerce others would operate friendly protection agencies, instead of simply stealing from everyone around them? I consider this a pretty obvious and fundamental flaw with anarcho-capitalism, and I've never heard a coherent argument against it, so I'd really appreciate an answer here. > He then has to invest into something he believes to be sustainable. Which works pretty well in our current situation where you have a bunch of regulations in place to stop them abusing that power. They can't use violence. They can't lie to consumers. They can't make dangerous products. They can't abuse their workers. You only have to look at developing countries to see how companies operate outside these restrictions. > Thus, I see businessmen as ultimate redistributors. Except nothing gets redistributed. They invest, and unless they fail, they get even more money back. And after a certain point, they can even leave the investment to other people. Then you have a bunch of rich people doing nothing, but enjoying the majority of the wealth. Their investments may slowly improve life for the poor, but the massive inequalities remain. > Yes, because in a free market the redheads would be able to legally invest money of their own to protect themselves from other people, who wish to kill them. Yet again, assuming they have any money. If your hypothetical society hates redheads to the point of wanting them dead, then I would expect them to be incredibly poor, since their ability to participate in the market would be extremely limited. > With government some may indeed get a little more "freedom", but always at the expense of someone else Freedoms always come at the expense of other freedoms. Freedom from slavery means limiting the freedom to keep slaves, but I think most people are happy with that. There will always be trade-offs, the question is how we decide which freedoms are more important than others. Can you explain why you think the freedom to decide how the last 10% of your income gets spent is more important than the freedom to eat? > No, it cannot be fixed. Why not? I have already suggested the solution (direct democracy) and your only objection is that it allows the majority to abuse the minority, but you haven't explained how capitalism fixes that.

snitko 12y ago
>I think you've misunderstood my question then. I never mentioned wars. I'm asking why these entities with the power to violently coerce others would operate friendly protection agencies, instead of simply stealing from everyone around them? I consider this a pretty obvious and fundamental flaw with anarcho-capitalism. So the first thing to understand here is that monopolies and cartels can't exist without government protection for a long time (if you look at every case of a monopoly/cartel careful enough, you'll see some government involvement). When some company introduces a new, revolutionary technology (Microsoft or Apple both being examples) they may capture the market for a while, but not for long. Government didn't order Google to compete on the smartphone market. It happened because it was profitable to do so. Now back to protection agencies. Suppose I'm an evil protection agency that wants to force everyone to pay, just like a government would. Alright. I send everyone an extortion notice and suggest that if they don't pay, we come and take money + fines (for our extra effort) by force and if they resist - we imprison them. People, being free and not brainwashed as they are, wouldn't see us as a protection agency anymore, but as an extortion agency. They wouldn't have any illusions about us being nice and kind. Therefore, there would arise a demand for another protection agency, that would offer protection from the evil agency. Naturally, people would rather pay the second protection agency, as it doesn't demand pay, but offers a service, therefore presenting itself like a legitimate business. The other protection agency would quickly lose its market share and wouldn't be able to finance its extortion, not even talking about any kind of war with the second agency. In the case in which the two agencies form an extortion cartel, it is not difficult to imagine a third firm emerging. And so on. Therefore, competition is the key. Free market always serves the customer. >Then you have a bunch of rich people doing nothing, but enjoying the majority of the wealth You have to be precise here. What does enjoying the wealth mean? If they buy stuff, they create jobs. If they don't buy, but hoard, they are not enjoying the wealth in any way. Every time an evil businessman tries to enjoy his wealth, he creates jobs. And the more he enjoys, the more jobs are created. That's inevitable. >Yet again, assuming they have any money. If your hypothetical society hates redheads to the point of wanting them dead, then I would expect them to be incredibly poor, since their ability to participate in the market would be extremely limited. Now let's look at this comparison fairly. We talk about two societies, one with no state and one with a state, both hate redheads. Now if the majority in a society with a state hates redheads, wouldn't they pass laws that would restrict redheads from escaping the poverty? You'd think that. So redheads wouldn't have any money either. Worse even, in a society with a state if it's not the rest of the 90% that hate redheads, but say, only 70%, they can still pass a law that says "redheads cannot be hired for more than $1 an hour". Then, even those who have nothing against redheads will not be able to hire them, whereas in a stateless society they would. >Can you explain why you think the freedom to decide how the last 10% of your income gets spent is more important than the freedom to eat? I think it's very important to communicate one sound principle, with which I hope you might agree sometime: you can't do good by forcing other people to do it (that is, by using the money you stole from them). If I had nothing to eat tonight, do you think it's okay if I go and rob you? If you don't think it's ok, why do you believe it's okay for the government to do the same on my behalf? How is it more humane or fair to you? If anything, I'm not going to ask you to fill any forms, so it's gonna save you some time.