9 ms·

The depth of Anarcho-Capitalist or strong Libertarian pessimism astounds me. > because paying more taxes to the US government is never a good thing. > not eve

The depth of Anarcho-Capitalist or strong Libertarian pessimism astounds me. > because paying more taxes to the US government is never a good thing. > not everybody wants to fund the US's empire building overseas wars, torture camps, surveillance infrastructure, propaganda machine, and massive money-wasting bureaucracy. Do you really think this is what the bulk of our taxes in the US go to? What about taking care of our sick? Funding projects that are too risky for our current quarter to quarter ROI business culture? Keeping people from starving? Taking care of the disabled? Education? I could go on and on. Even our 'Imperial military' does a lot of humanitarian good across the world and responds to disasters like no other organization on Earth. I'm not saying it is all sunshine and lollipops. Obviously there are things that I'd rather our government not do, but, when it comes to living in a Democratic Republic, sometimes you have to accept the will of the majority even if you don't agree with it. And sometimes there is enough room for bad actors to do things that range from unethical to appalling. It is a process of constant reform. It always will be. But calling for a dismantling, to toss away the collected, hard earned, wisdom of the last 250 years codified into laws and hundreds of years of Common Law before that because parts are lousy? Honestly, that just seems like a lazy approach. Not to mention an approach that lacks imagination when it comes to really mentally modelling what such a system would look like without resorting to near utopian wishful thinking. I mean, really, laws, like sysadmins, are doing their job well when you hardly notice they are there. The stuff you are noticing is horrible, but it is just the surface oil slick on a much calmer and more important sea.

mindcrime 12y ago
The depth of Anarcho-Capitalist or strong Libertarian pessimism astounds me. I'm not sure how you concluded that the Anarcho-Capitalist position is a pessimistic one. I'd say it's exactly the opposite! We are the ones who are optimistic enough to believe that we don't need a huge government apparatus, collecting tax dollars at the end of a gun barrel, and using that money to fund aggressive use of force, in order to have a peaceful, just, and fair society. From where I'm sitting, it looks like it's the bastardised modern-day "liberalism" that is so full of pessimism. These people think that we need widespread use of coercive force in order to have peace and justice. It's exactly what Bastiat was saying when he spoke about the law becoming a perversion of itself. Obviously there are things that I'd rather our government not do, but, when it comes to living in a Democratic Republic, sometimes you have to accept the will of the majority even if you don't agree with it. Well yeah, if you're outnumbered and outgunned and the majority show a propensity for violence. I'm reminded of the old saw: "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote".
- clavalle 12y ago
  This is what this conversion always boils down to: use of force. Here's the problem with that 'bedrock' you are standing on: the vast majority of us are not coerced at all. We've happily agreed to this system. Have you convinced yourself that we are all just to stupid to recognize some yolk that only people with your mindset can see? I feel silly that I feel the need to tell you this but we are not stupid and any justification you make for why people embrace a strong governmental structure that is predicated on most people being too dumb to know what is good for them is built on a flimsy foundation at best. Think about it: how can people simultaneously be too dumb to do and see what is best for them under their current system but would be able to function just fine under if under a more pure market force dominated Anarcho-Capitalist framework? I also don't understand the obsession with the market as rigidly defined by Anarcho-Capitalists. Not all human exchange that leads to the benefits of market forces needs to be done through currency and its near analogues. Democracy and Government operate under its own types of markets and mediums of exchange. People still act for their own best interests under those systems. I don't understand why they all have to be homogenized. Having diverse means of exchange seems more robust to me. And the Anarcho-Capitalist idea of Liberty really only seems to function when there is one person in the world. As soon as there are two people and their Rights and Liberties come at odds, it is like starting from scratch every time. Who's Rights and Liberty trumps whos? It is like deciding that all previous decisions are useless...humanity hasn't gotten as far as it has by starting over all of the time. Passing along and even codifying wisdom into effective systems, including government systems, is a big reason we, as a species, has been so successful. Yes, markets are a nice system too, but why limit ourselves to just one?
  - mindcrime 12y ago
    Have you convinced yourself that we are all just to stupid to recognize some yolk that only people with your mindset can see? Of course not. I also don't understand the obsession with the market as rigidly defined by Anarcho-Capitalists. The anarcho-capitalist position doesn't define markets particularly rigidly at all. "voluntary exchange" is pretty much it. How much more liberal a definition are you looking for? Not all human exchange that leads to the benefits of market forces needs to be done through currency and its near analogues. Agreed. I'm not sure why you think that position is at odds with anything I've said though. As soon as there are two people and their Rights and Liberties come at odds, it is like starting from scratch every time. Who's Rights and Liberty trumps whos? Again, this is where the optimism comes in. I'm optimistic that most conflicts can be resolved peacefully. Where they can't, there isn't - at the end of the day - any way I can see to prevent someone from using superior force to vanquish someone who possesses less strength. But that doesn't mean that we should institutionalize the use of force as a routine part of how we conduct business with each other.
brandonmenc 12y ago
> Do you really think this is what the bulk of our taxes in the US go to? It's certainly not insignificant. Our defense spend is around 72% of our Medicare + Social Security spend.

mindcrime 12y ago

The depth of Anarcho-Capitalist or strong Libertarian pessimism astounds me. I'm not sure how you concluded that the Anarcho-Capitalist position is a pessimistic one. I'd say it's exactly the opposite! We are the ones who are optimistic enough to believe that we don't need a huge government apparatus, collecting tax dollars at the end of a gun barrel, and using that money to fund aggressive use of force, in order to have a peaceful, just, and fair society. From where I'm sitting, it looks like it's the bastardised modern-day "liberalism" that is so full of pessimism. These people think that we need widespread use of coercive force in order to have peace and justice. It's exactly what Bastiat was saying when he spoke about the law becoming a perversion of itself. Obviously there are things that I'd rather our government not do, but, when it comes to living in a Democratic Republic, sometimes you have to accept the will of the majority even if you don't agree with it. Well yeah, if you're outnumbered and outgunned and the majority show a propensity for violence. I'm reminded of the old saw: "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote".

clavalle 12y ago
This is what this conversion always boils down to: use of force. Here's the problem with that 'bedrock' you are standing on: the vast majority of us are not coerced at all. We've happily agreed to this system. Have you convinced yourself that we are all just to stupid to recognize some yolk that only people with your mindset can see? I feel silly that I feel the need to tell you this but we are not stupid and any justification you make for why people embrace a strong governmental structure that is predicated on most people being too dumb to know what is good for them is built on a flimsy foundation at best. Think about it: how can people simultaneously be too dumb to do and see what is best for them under their current system but would be able to function just fine under if under a more pure market force dominated Anarcho-Capitalist framework? I also don't understand the obsession with the market as rigidly defined by Anarcho-Capitalists. Not all human exchange that leads to the benefits of market forces needs to be done through currency and its near analogues. Democracy and Government operate under its own types of markets and mediums of exchange. People still act for their own best interests under those systems. I don't understand why they all have to be homogenized. Having diverse means of exchange seems more robust to me. And the Anarcho-Capitalist idea of Liberty really only seems to function when there is one person in the world. As soon as there are two people and their Rights and Liberties come at odds, it is like starting from scratch every time. Who's Rights and Liberty trumps whos? It is like deciding that all previous decisions are useless...humanity hasn't gotten as far as it has by starting over all of the time. Passing along and even codifying wisdom into effective systems, including government systems, is a big reason we, as a species, has been so successful. Yes, markets are a nice system too, but why limit ourselves to just one?
- mindcrime 12y ago
  Have you convinced yourself that we are all just to stupid to recognize some yolk that only people with your mindset can see? Of course not. I also don't understand the obsession with the market as rigidly defined by Anarcho-Capitalists. The anarcho-capitalist position doesn't define markets particularly rigidly at all. "voluntary exchange" is pretty much it. How much more liberal a definition are you looking for? Not all human exchange that leads to the benefits of market forces needs to be done through currency and its near analogues. Agreed. I'm not sure why you think that position is at odds with anything I've said though. As soon as there are two people and their Rights and Liberties come at odds, it is like starting from scratch every time. Who's Rights and Liberty trumps whos? Again, this is where the optimism comes in. I'm optimistic that most conflicts can be resolved peacefully. Where they can't, there isn't - at the end of the day - any way I can see to prevent someone from using superior force to vanquish someone who possesses less strength. But that doesn't mean that we should institutionalize the use of force as a routine part of how we conduct business with each other.

brandonmenc 12y ago

> Do you really think this is what the bulk of our taxes in the US go to? It's certainly not insignificant. Our defense spend is around 72% of our Medicare + Social Security spend.