Albert P. Franco, II wrote:
>
> >> Without some government the Bad Guys will be the only ones with anything.
> >> It is only with the threat of losing their power that leaders do good. If
> >> they had no power which could be lost or taken they will always do what's
> >> best for them in the short term, which is usually to shit on the peons.
> >> Dictators (like Pinochet and Gates) do their dirty deeds because they feel
> >> no need to placate the masses.
> >
> >If they wield no real power, and proceed to do whatever is best for them
> >in the short term, they will be screwing themselves over in the long
> >term (or short term, if doing what they want results in someone shooting
> >them in self defense).
> >
>
> I re-read my original sentence and it seems that your interpretation is
> possible. I would like to clarify that the power I refer to is only that
> part of their power which might be lost or threatened. Clearly if they have
> no power they can't lose it. I want to say that if some or all of their
> power could be placed in jeopardy they would tend to better behaved. Why do
> you suppose Clinton spent so much time licking everybodys' boots and
> repeatedly embellishing his "apologies" to the "public".
But how can you plausibly threaten the power of he who has the most
power? That would imply that a greater power exists -if so, how do we
control those who wield *it*? Checks and balances don't work if those
in power aren't willing to check others in power (because, for example,
they're on the same side).
> >And precisely what dirty deeds has Mr. Gates ever done? Excluding those
> >actions in which the judicious use of state regulation was involved.
>
> You obviously think that anything goes in business. Frankly Gates is a
> perfect example of why you anarcho-BS is doomed to failure. He will do
> anything (and has) he can to be the only player in every market he touches.
So? As long as he doesn't initiate force against anyone, I see no
reason why he should be physically prevented from doing what he does. I
dislike the way he operates, but neither I nor anyone else has the right
to initiate force upon him to stop him, so long as he doesn't initiate
force himself.
My solution to the problematic behavior of Mr. Gates is not to patronize
him wherever possible, to within a certain level of convienience. For
example, I do not run MS software on my system --it sucks compared to
Linux.
Other people hate microsoft even more, and actively work against it.
These people either work for competing companies, agitate the public to
shun microsoft, or write good open source software, in an attempt to
remove microsoft's market.
> He has destroyed otherwise perfectly good businesses and products just to
> increase his profits. He has violated workers rights to increase his
> profit.
How? What rights have been violated? Did he at any time initiate force
against any of these workers? Did he hire soldiers to storm into
competitors' offices to murder and destroy everyone and everything? If
he has, I certainly haven't heard of it.
I suspect that any "rights" which you think have been "violated" turn
out to be non-rights, if you're anything other than a socialist. (which
you may very well be --in which case, you'd be irrational and very good
at doublethink, making intelligent argument futile)
> In short he has demonstrated that if you let him murder wouldn't be
> to far a step to reach his goals.
I do not agree with this appraisal, and do not care, as long as he
doesn't initate force, or use the state to initate force. Until then,
he has as much right to do what he does as you have to do whatever it is
that you do.
> He is the monster that proves that your ideas are actually very very old
> (caveman days) and are doomed by progress and civilization. Injecting
> capitalism (investment oriented markets) into barbarism doesn't change the
> fact that it is still barbarism, which in facts negates the ability to have
> investment oriented markets, or capitalism. Who would invest if someone
> with a gun could come and take it without out fear of retribution.
But my point all along is that anyone who takes a gun and tries to take
something *is* likely to face retribution --either from those he steals
from, or from others who don't wish to be robbed by him. This
retribution can take many forms, ranging from death, to ostracism, to a
lowering of his reputation, depending upon how severe his crime was.
You just haven't been reading what I've been saying, have you?
> >> years, then how the hell do think you can convince somebody that the people
> >> are going to be able to control warlords and monopolies. It's called, "You
> >> don't like it? Bang, Bang, you're dead!"
> >
> >Yah, and then somebody else points a gun at Mr. would-be warlord and
> >goes Bang, Bang, he's dead (it's unsafe having warlords about --sorta
> >like scorpions). That is, if Mr. would-be manages to shoot me without
> >being shot himself.
> >
>
> And so everybody's so busy shooting each other that nobody is investing,
> and I have to ask, "What happened to the capitalism part of
> anarcho-capitalism?"
Such events would be rare, since it's pretty easy for all parties
concerned to figure out the likely result of such an exchange. Mr.
would-be-warlord will probably not act on his desires, since he knows
that it would at best drop his reputation through the floor, and at
worst, result in his death.
Unless of course, he's a real lunatic -in which case, he'd have gone
out and attacked someone anyway. It's actually better this way. At
least we don't have to worry about intelligent would-be-warlords
manipulating the state to do their dirty work for them.
In sum, the possibility of getting killed tends to put a damper on the
would-be-warlord population.
> >> Try to lift yourself out of the bullshit of your theory and give us at
> >> least one REAL example (current or historic) of a large scale, long lasting
> >> anarcho-capitalist society. Hippie communes are too small, and make sure
> >> it's capitalistic. If you can't think of one in the next year or so then
> >> come back and tell us.
> >
> >It hasn't happened yet. But then, neither had the USA, before 1776.
> >The above is not a reasonable argument.
>
> WRONG!!!! Parliaments and representative governments did exist in somewhat
> other forms. 1776 was NOT a revolution it was evolution. It comes from
> among other things the Magna Carta of England as well as many other
> concepts astutely compiled by the "forefathers".
Ok, then think of it this way. Instead of having one big, centralized
state, where orders are given from on high, and are thus frequently
inequitous to lowly individuals, let's go for a more evenly distributed
model. Let's carry this distribution to the point where everyone
governs himself and his property.
Previous attempts at such things would have failed, since humaity lacked
communications systems which were fast enough to link such a system
together.
Previous forms of government all reflect this fact. Communication was
always very centralized, and thus governance had to be as well, to keep
everyone up to speed on what's going on. As communications technologies
improved, states have become more and more decentralized. (go from the
mesopotamian warrior-kings, to Rome, to monarchy, to parliamentary
government, to the US).
And today, we are presented with the internet --the ultimate in
decentralized, near instantaneous communications. We aren't very far
from making it possible for anyone, anywhere, to communicate with anyone
else, wherever they may be. Obviously, this makes it possible to
progress even further by decentralizing things even more!
The net result is indistinguishable from anarcho-capitalism. I'd be
satisfied with it. Do you like it better from this angle?
> Your propositions emanate from a basis which existed before there were
> nations and well before investment and economic development began. In fact,
> anarchy had to be overcome before consistent development could occur. Once
> we organized our societies and brought long (relatively) periods of peace
> to the general populace economic and scientific development began to grow.
> Certainly you will find it impossible to site any anarchic or nearly
No, but you couldn't have cited the United States before it existed
either.
> anarchic "society" (oxymoron)
Only if you persist in confusing society with the state.
> which has brought sustained significant
> development.
>
> >
> >You can, of course, as me how it *could* happen. And unfortunately,
> >you're partially correct, it couldn't happen under current conditions.
> >The amount of personal firepower that is easily accessible by everyone
> >is not sufficient to back up the soverignity of each individual. It's
> >all linked to whether weapons technology is such that individuals can
> >operate weapons which are just as effective as those wielded by highly
> >trained and specialized groups. The pendulum of weapons tech. swings
> >back and forth over time. During the American Revolution, the pendulum
> >was on the side of individuals, as can be shown by the fact that the
> >revolutionaries were carrying better weapons than those carried by
> >professional soldiers, and could use them to equal or larger effect.
> >
> You whole thesis is based on violence, the exact opposite of what's
> required for sustained economic growth.
Nope, it's based on *reality*. The only way to ensure that no one will
inflict violence upon you is to be capable of inflicting at least as
much violence upon any attacker. What I'm telling you is that if the
above conditions exist, violence will become a very unhealthy trade, and
will not be practiced by anyone aside from the occasional lunatic who
wants to commit suicide in an interesting fashion.
> You lose! Consistently wrong
> answers. You just don't get it.
I beg to differ. It would appear that *you* just don't get it. Re-read
what I've said in the light of my above paragraph, and see if you come
to the same conclusion.
> War does not produce wide spread economic
> growth in those zones affected by the war. It destroys the infrastructure
I agree that war destroys infrastructure, and is not going to cause
widespread economic growth. I never said otherwise. But lets look at
war for a moment, hmm?
Those who start wars usually do so because they think they can win them,
am I correct? It would be insane to do otherwise. If conditions were
such that nobody could be sure of winning, there would be very little
incentive to start a war, don't you agree?
Of course, in reality, wars are started between nations by their
leaders, who supposedly act on the behalf of their people. It is
currently possible for the leader of a nation to have an incentive to
start a war which his country cannot win, so long as *he* profits by it
-in terms of money, power, etc. As long as he doesn't lose personally,
he can do whatever he likes (if he's sufficiently amoral, which we must
assume that some leaders will be).
This is not the same on an individual level, however. It is never in
the interest of the attacker to attack someone unless he can be
reasonably sure of winning. The attacker cannot divorce himself from
the results of his actions, as the leader of a nation can, because he
cannot separate his being from his body in any effective sense. That
is, if his body loses the fight, he's screwed.
The point you raise would seem to be yet another argument for
anarcho-capitalism. It would appear that preople have even more
incentive not to hurt each other under those conditions than under
present ones.
> that only an organized government is capable of maintaining.
This is untrue. Organized government is not necessary for the
maintenence of infrastructure. See my other posts, or "The Market for
Liberty".
> The real answer is to keep the government focused on keeping the peace and
> maintaining the infrastructures using as light a hand as possible--which is
> never going to be an easy task.
It is an impossible task, as my discussions with Jim Choate have shown.
> But no government is NO GROWTH. The
> libertarians have at least part of the equation correct. They go a little
> too far to one extreme. But this is good, they're mostly just extreme
> enough to pull a wondering government back into the middle where it should
> be. Your anarcho-spew is rubbish, poorly thought out, and without any real
> validation.
I've offered plenty of validation. You haven't bothered trying to
invalidate these validations, which would be the only way you could
logically disprove my arguement. Instead, you've deliberately or
unconsciously misunderstood or misread my arguements until they fit in
with what you wanted me to have said. At which point, you spewed forth
whatever canned response you had ready for what you wished I'd said.
> I bet most of the most fervent defenders of gun ownership on this list
> actually hope never to have to make use of their tunnels, guns, and
> survival rations.
You would be correct. I like to count myself among them. I have no
desire to hurt or be hurt, rule or be ruled.
> War is simply not good economics,
100% correct.
> and anarchy is war--constant, festering,
> sometimes small scale, sometimes large scale, but always war.
Incorrect, for the above reasons.
We don't really disagree on the fundamentals. I suggest that you take a
very close and unbiased look at the points where we seem to disagree. I
suspect that upon closer examination, you will come to the same
conclusions that I have. It all hinges on being able to think about
*why* the state might be the only possible solution to various
problems/required services. This is usually very difficult for most
people, as they've had those beliefs drilled into their skulls since
they were young. I've found that it's much like a religion, in some
respects. At least, all the arguments I've ever had with religious
people on the topic of their religion kept ending up much like our
current discussion). I've since realized how pointless it is to have
such religious arguments. I haven't given up on politial arguments,
however, and I hope I never have to. The result is unpleasant to think
about.
Good luck, and watch out for doublethink!
Michael Hohensee
