Anarchy = True Freedom?

Denerick

It is nothing to do with Nike owning the whole country. What I'm saying is that it is would be too easily open to abuse - the system would lack the constitutional checks and balances to prevent Nike forcibly controlling entire countries. And that goes for other multinationals obviously. Nike could very easily buy up the government - effectively buy the organs of government from poor and corrupt tinpot regimes. I see no effective barrier to this happening in a Libertarian world.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

Libertarians are not anarchists. Even the earliest free market thinkers such as Smith saw a role for the state - ie, in infrastructure (And in Smith's case, in education) Whatever organs of the state that would survive would be those organs that maintain law and order - ie, the Justice system. In turn I would imagine in a Libertarian system that parliaments/congresses are elected; hence a working government one could corrupt and buy off.

The problems with all these fringe idea's are that they are too easily open to abuse. Electoral democracy is the only political system that has been proven to endure and guarantee personal liberty and personal safety in equal measure, under the right conditions.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

It has been proven to endure in at least three countries since it established - the USA, the UK and Ireland. And in every case we've seen a gradual increase in personal liberty. The reason electoral democracy failed was because of the international tensions caused by terrible theories of extreme left and right. The international climate is much different now. Electoral democracy requires a large majority of the population accepting it. When they do, they guarantee liberty. Extremists destroy liberty because they have little conception of the necessity for limiting power (Power limitation is outside the scope of an extremist)

Nike could buy and run the Chadian government. They could do that with most third world countries. The reason they don't is because they can't - due mainly to those 'evil' institutions the other poster was complaining about (The IMF, The World Bank etc.)

Were trading standards and 'international law' is non-existant it would be very easy for this to happen. Especially with no barriers of entry. Economically speaking a few corporations in collusion would control everything, everywhere. Its inevitable.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

It has been proven to endure in at least three countries since it established - the USA, the UK and Ireland. And in every case we've seen a gradual increase in personal liberty. The reason electoral democracy failed was because of the international tensions caused by terrible theories of extreme left and right. The international climate is much different now. Electoral democracy requires a large majority of the population accepting it. When they do, they guarantee liberty. Extremists destroy liberty because they have little conception of the necessity for limiting power (Power limitation is outside the scope of an extremist)

But thats allways going to be the problem with Democracy, the ideals of the majority must be passed onto all. A good example of this is the Californian Proposition 8 which pushes the ideals of the majority [in this case Same sex marrige] onto the minority of which it actually matters. [in this case homosexuals.] In a Libertarian scoiety Homosexuals would be free to marry whoever they wanted, groups that don't like this such as the Church of Latter Day Saints may simply ignore such activity. People that agree with the mormons will inevitably join their movement thus demonstrating their right to live as they please.

Nike could buy and run the Chadian government. They could do that with most third world countries. The reason they don't is because they can't - due mainly to those 'evil' institutions the other poster was complaining about (The IMF, The World Bank etc.)

How ? As Donegalfella has explained Nike would have to buy the land of the people, some will sell some won't. Also seeing as Chads Gross Domestic Product is 16 billion and Nikes total revenue is 18 billion it would effectivly bankrupt the company.

Were trading standards and 'international law' is non-existant it would be very easy for this to happen. Especially with no barriers of entry. Economically speaking a few corporations in collusion would control everything, everywhere. Its inevitable.

No it's not. Let us take Internet browsers as an example: Internet Explorer used to own the majority of the browser market though their services where less then up to scratch, so what happened ? Mozilla Firefox happened thats what, now alot of people that bought a PC install Firefox as a priority. Not only that but Google has also seen it's opertunity and launched Chrome. So there you have it, a once near monopoly that has been reduced to 66.1% of the market share. [source wikipedia]

turgon

Denerick wrote: »

The government did not screw the economy.

Others would disagree.

To expand upon the analogy of web browsers, the whole system of finding out the best option yourself (responsibility), rather than letting Microsoft dictate, has shown many benefits. However people arent yet used to the open source thing, and cant think outside the box. Thus Ive had to install Firefox for people and then for the next few days heaping praises on me and the browser. However ideally everyone would become aware of the problem and find the solution themselves.

Denerick

Nike is just an example; we could be talking about any multinational corporation. I'm simply stating that without checks and balances the possibilities for abuse are too astounding - especially when we begin to reject international legal institutions which are essential in the age of globalisation. A company would not need to buy up the private property of the citizens - it would only need to buy the government, which it easily could. It could also very easily pay for its own army and police within the country so as to do away with the national resistance. What are the essential barriers to a company doing this in a Libertarian system? The simple fact of the matter is that they couldn't within the present legal system but easily could in a system in which the rule of law is compromised and governments are relegated to a feeble police force. This is why these fringe idea's which exist on paper don't work and it is why nobody takes them seriously - their own proponents don't really consider the drawbacks in a practical situation.

We can harp on about electoral democracy all we want - it has been proven to endure and it has proven to gradually increase liberty. Fine, the US was founded as a Liberal federal Republic as long as you owned property and were white. Over the years it gradually grew to enfranchise everyone. From simple and humble roots it grew to be the political system it is today. And liberty has only advanced in American history.

The position of women and blacks actually re-inforces what I say because under electoral democracy they gradually attained their liberty - contrast with the situation of women in Soviet Russia, where women achieved their liberty but gradually everone lost their liberty as the socialist system created a beast all of its own and left the power void wide open for a megalomaniac like Stalin.

I'm growing tired of this so if I'm not posting back don't be offended or think that I'm chickening out. I just feel like we're going in circles. I might post if I get the energy sometime tomorrow.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

I can see hundreds of advantages. Skewering the labour force so as that it works for you and you only for essentially slave labour for example.

And of course there is corruption rampant in some of these countries - up until now multinationals have faced international legal and moral obstacles. Take those away and what could stop them effectively doing whatever they wanted?

The individual example doesn't matter as much as the fact that it COULD HAPPEN WITH RELATIVE EASE. There is very little in the way of constitutional or even practical obstacles put in their way. Its the same for all anarchism, it'll never work because it will simply mean the local scumbag - the strongest person - will be able to create a mini state on his own, and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't give a rats ass about constitutions or human rights.

Which is why I'm tired of this. If you think the whole world is airy and fairy and will accept a stateless society without attempting to gain political power on their own its just too naive for me. Not arsed continuing this if we're just going to keep going round in circles.

af_thefragile

Denerick wrote: »

I can see hundreds of advantages. Skewering the labour force so as that it works for you and you only for essentially slave labour for example.

And of course there is corruption rampant in some of these countries - up until now multinationals have faced international legal and moral obstacles. Take those away and what could stop them effectively doing whatever they wanted?

The individual example doesn't matter as much as the fact that it COULD HAPPEN WITH RELATIVE EASE. There is very little in the way of constitutional or even practical obstacles put in their way. Its the same for all anarchism, it'll never work because it will simply mean the local scumbag - the strongest person - will be able to create a mini state on his own, and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't give a rats ass about constitutions or human rights.

And why would anyone follow this "local scumbag"??
If they can figure out he's a scumbag and doesn't care about anyone, people will just not follow him. They'll throw him overthrow him, which would be much easier to do in a small society than a whole nation.

And what makes you think its not these "local scumbags" ruling over countries right now? And no one can stop them or overthrow them cuz people have let this "scumbag" become too powerful.


Also if the people see that the company is exploiting them, they can just simply refuse to work. They can go on strike, they can protest, they can revolt. Putting aside the fact how impossible it'ld be for a multinational to buy a country, especially a libertarian country where the people own the land and businesses. The multinational company, to take over the whole country would have to buy the land and businesses over every single person in the country. Which is impossible.

All you guys have is negative speculation. The only way of finding out if anything you've said will turn out true is to give it a shot and see what happens.

And you guys always keep ignoring the fact that the current government structure we're living in is highly inefficient and is only helping out these big corporations you dislike ultimately. Look at how much money the governments have just spent in bailing out these big corporations. Corporations that have been greedy and inefficient. Corporations that have taken unacceptable risks and have failed. Instead of letting them pay and learn from their mistakes, we're paying for their screwups given them the opportunity, government backing and encouragement to carry on what they're doing and screw up once again!

If it wasn't for the government, all these failed businesses would have been wiped off the world giving opportunity for the smaller, more efficient businesses to grow. Your big multinational corporations wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the government.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

Big corporations existed before excessive government bailouts and regulations... and they will exist long after.

Call it negative speculation if you want, but any system that lacks satisfactory checks and balances will be called to account for these deficiencies. Its all possible. Its too easy to distort and lie.

You say people can overthrow the local scumbag... Who exactly? Me? You? I don't have a clue how to fire a gun and I don't want to know. All that local scumbag needs to do is pay off a coterie of like minded local scumbags to provide his private army. And the people who suffer are the physically weak like myself and presumably yourselves.

Its childish to assume these things won't happen when there is nothing satisfactory that could prevent them from happening. Under a libertarian system the remaining government function is the imposition of law and order - when somebody controls that they essentially have free rein to do as they wish in the country. private property laws would quickly become a dim irrelevancy. Yet you provide no reasons other than 'they'd have to buy up the land'. They wouldn't. They'd just need to murder a couple of thousand and the land would very quickly become subservient to whomever had the resources to control it.

Anarchism or even libertarianism might work in an ideal world where mankind is inherently good. But we don't live in an ideal world and mankind is inherently evil. Thats why electoral constitutional democracies work. They assume mankind is evil and that some liberty has to be sacrificed for the common good. Otherwise Hobbe's state of nature would ensue. And it has historical precedent to back it up. These half baked theories do not.

Denerick

And you guys always keep ignoring the fact that the current government structure we're living in is highly inefficient and is only helping out these big corporations you dislike ultimately. Look at how much money the governments have just spent in bailing out these big corporations. Corporations that have been greedy and inefficient. Corporations that have taken unacceptable risks and have failed. Instead of letting them pay and learn from their mistakes, we're paying for their screwups given them the opportunity, government backing and encouragement to carry on what they're doing and screw up once again!

They have bailed out the banks - the primary mover of the economy. If they did not the economy would be in a far worse state than they currently are. Its called responsible governance.

The only people who pay and learn from mistakes when the banks go bust are me and you and everybody else in society.

All I can say is thank God politicians have learnt from the mistakes of the Great Depression.

Iwasfrozen

Big corporations existed before excessive government bailouts and regulations... and they will exist long after.

Really TNC's existed before Governence ? Thats news to me.

Call it negative speculation if you want, but any system that lacks satisfactory checks and balances will be called to account for these deficiencies. Its all possible. Its too easy to distort and lie.

Satisfactory Checks and balances for what ? If an employee doesn't like his job then he can work for another firm. In a Libertarian society frims will compete for manpower.

You say people can overthrow the local scumbag... Who exactly? Me? You? I don't have a clue how to fire a gun and I don't want to know. All that local scumbag needs to do is pay off a coterie of like minded local scumbags to provide his private army. And the people who suffer are the physically weak like myself and presumably yourselves.

Don't you think the Police [read back a few pages] will stop this Scumbag and his cartel from taken over the district ? Also what motivation would there be for this Scumbag and his army to take over the area ? What would they gain ? Believe it or not, not even mercenaries will fight for an ideal they consider inherently wrong.

Its childish to assume these things won't happen when there is nothing satisfactory that could prevent them from happening. Under a libertarian system the remaining government function is the imposition of law and order - when somebody controls that they essentially have free rein to do as they wish in the country. private property laws would quickly become a dim irrelevancy. Yet you provide no reasons other than 'they'd have to buy up the land'. They wouldn't. They'd just need to murder a couple of thousand and the land would very quickly become subservient to whomever had the resources to control it.

I think it is more Childish to assume that these scenarios will take place, as I've said the Police will stop any gun toting physco's from taking over the land. Suggesting that any cartel will usurp the people of their own property is absurd, as I've said no man will fight for an ideal they consider fundemently wrong.

Anarchism or even libertarianism might work in an ideal world where mankind is inherently good. But we don't live in an ideal world and mankind is inherently evil. Thats why electoral constitutional democracies work. They assume mankind is evil and that some liberty has to be sacrificed for the common good. Otherwise Hobbe's state of nature would ensue. And it has historical precedent to back it up. These half baked theories do not.

You believe people are inherently evil and must be constently punished by having their freedom removed like a bad child who is grounded for behaving in a way that they have never been given the chance to because they are inherently evil.
See how silly it sounds when you say it ?

They have bailed out the banks - the primary mover of the economy. If they did not the economy would be in a far worse state than they currently are. Its called responsible governance.

When making that point it is important to remember that the Government did not bailout the banks, we did. Government money comes 100% from you and me, it is sucked out of our pocket from the day we are born. The Government does not control that money, we do. The Government simply takes our money and feeds it to the financial black hole that is the Banks.
In a Libertarian society there would be no Banks to finance [suck the money out of our pockets] and no Government to take our money from us.

The only people who pay and learn from mistakes when the banks go bust are me and you and everybody else in society.

My point exactly.

All I can say is thank God politicians have learnt from the mistakes of the Great Depression.

Don't really know enough about the causes of the Great Depression to comment on this one, prehaps a history bluff can fill us in on this one ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

af_thefragile

Denerick wrote: »

Big corporations existed before excessive government bailouts and regulations... and they will exist long after.

NO, they didn't.
You once again completely ignored the role of IMF and World Bank.

af_thefragile

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

When making that point it is important to remember that the Government did not bailout the banks, we did. Government money comes 100% from you and me, it is sucked out of our pocket from the day we are born. The Government does not control that money, we do. The Government simply takes our money and feeds it to the financial black hole that is the Banks.
In a Libertarian society there would be no Banks to finance [suck the money out of our pockets] and no Government to take our money from us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGKkfKhbrDM

Don't really know enough about the causes of the Great Depression to comment on this one, prehaps a history bluff can fill us in on this one ?

The Great Depression was caused by the banks lending out loans which they could ask the person/corporation to return at anytime within a 24hr time limit. Can't remember the name of these loans. There were a few other aspects that led to it too.
Though it was due to the FED's creation and intervention that the depression lasted for almost 20 years. If it wasn't for the FED, the market would have one bad year and would have had recovered pretty soon from the collapse. Markets rise and fall all the time.

Denerick wrote: »

You say people can overthrow the local scumbag... Who exactly? Me? You? I don't have a clue how to fire a gun and I don't want to know. All that local scumbag needs to do is pay off a coterie of like minded local scumbags to provide his private army. And the people who suffer are the physically weak like myself and presumably yourselves.

Yes, the collective group of people (including the police force) who don't believe in the "scumbag". They can protest and revolt. ALso where is this scumbag guy gonna get all this money from to pay off his people and his army?

Its childish to assume these things won't happen when there is nothing satisfactory that could prevent them from happening. Under a libertarian system the remaining government function is the imposition of law and order - when somebody controls that they essentially have free rein to do as they wish in the country. private property laws would quickly become a dim irrelevancy. Yet you provide no reasons other than 'they'd have to buy up the land'. They wouldn't. They'd just need to murder a couple of thousand and the land would very quickly become subservient to whomever had the resources to control it.

And people/the world would let them murder those couple of thousand people without raising a voice?

Anarchism or even libertarianism might work in an ideal world where mankind is inherently good. But we don't live in an ideal world and mankind is inherently evil. Thats why electoral constitutional democracies work. They assume mankind is evil and that some liberty has to be sacrificed for the common good. Otherwise Hobbe's state of nature would ensue. And it has historical precedent to back it up. These half baked theories do not.

This is the exact midset people need to get rid of first for any change and progress to happen.
We need to stop believing mankind in inherently evil cuz when you look at the other side, you'll also find out mankind is also inherently good and compassionate. Right now in this world there might only be a handful of genuinely evil people living. Most of the people who end up committing evil acts are just victims of situations and consequences. Given the opportunity, everyone wants to be good and live a happy peaceful life. No one wants to go to war or use force to gain power over someone else. Everyone ultimately just wants to be left alone to live their life peacefully and happily.

People are good. They just need to change their mindset from a negative one to a more positive one.

Denerick

This is the exact midset people need to get rid of first for any change and progress to happen.
We need to stop believing mankind in inherently evil cuz when you look at the other side, you'll also find out mankind is also inherently good and compassionate.

It is better to assume mankind is evil rather than assume he is good when we come to shape our political structure. Doing otherwise - ie, 'relying' on politicians to be virtuous - is childish, plain and simple.

FDR did not prolong the depression.

Corporations existed well before the FDR era of government regulation (And in some case's government help)

The local scumbag can very easily bully his way into power. Me or you or no-one else on these boards would be able to stop him. Thinking otherwise is childish.

And the reason that I think mankind is inherently evil is 'cuz' we always stretch power to its absolute limit. Political units have always done this. Politics is a path to evil and domination. We have created a political system that limits the evil a politician can perpetuate. Hence thats why its the best possible political system available. All other system do not have the same checks and balances and childishly believe in the 'virtue' of humanity to pull through. I'm sorry to say I don't trust my neighbour, my TD or anyone else - they are a potential murderer, a potential megalomaniac. To assume they are not is to show weakness. If they were not potential murderers we would have no need for a justice system. Think about that for a second.

Denerick

Believe it or not, not even mercenaries will fight for an ideal they consider inherently wrong.

Going on what? You firmly understand the mind of a 21st century mercenary do you?

Denerick

You believe people are inherently evil and must be constently punished by having their freedom removed like a bad child who is grounded for behaving in a way that they have never been given the chance to because they are inherently evil.
See how silly it sounds when you say it ?

You can make anything sound silly by putting on a childish voice. It is rational however. I've got centuries worth of some of humanities greatest political minds on my side... You've got a dead Austrian who no-one listened to even then!

Denerick

af_thefragile wrote: »

NO, they didn't.
You once again completely ignored the role of IMF and World Bank.

Please read a history book. This is insufferable.

af_thefragile

Denerick wrote: »

It is better to assume mankind is evil rather than assume he is good when we come to shape our political structure. Doing otherwise - ie, 'relying' on politicians to be virtuous - is childish, plain and simple.

FDR did not prolong the depression.

Corporations existed well before the FDR era of government regulation (And in some case's government help)

The local scumbag can very easily bully his way into power. Me or you or no-one else on these boards would be able to stop him. Thinking otherwise is childish.

And the reason that I think mankind is inherently evil is 'cuz' we always stretch power to its absolute limit. Political units have always done this. Politics is a path to evil and domination. We have created a political system that limits the evil a politician can perpetuate. Hence thats why its the best possible political system available. All other system do not have the same checks and balances and childishly believe in the 'virtue' of humanity to pull through. I'm sorry to say I don't trust my neighbour, my TD or anyone else - they are a potential murderer, a potential megalomaniac. To assume they are not is to show weakness. If they were not potential murderers we would have no need for a justice system. Think about that for a second.

And what makes you believe this political system created by these "evil" politicians themselves is made to curb their evil?
If a politician was evil and wanted to power over the whole state, there is virtually nothing stopping him. Especially in a socialist state which is only a step away from a totalitarian state.
Who stopped Hitler, Stalin and Mao from getting into power?

Yes, you can't trust anyone. Thats why you've got to take the responsibility yourself. Thats the main concept of the libertarian state. If everyone just looks after themselves, the would would be a better place.
Also there would be no big government for any evil scumbag to take over.
All he can try to do is to take over his society in which sooner or later people will get sick of his oppression and will revolt against him. You can't force your will over people for ever. Neither can you fool everyone all the time.

Also why do you think this scumbag has suddenly become invincible? Even the greatest leaders were brought down eventually. If not by their own people, then by an external force that couldn't tolerate the scumbags evil plans.

Denerick wrote: »

Please read a history book. This is insufferable.

There were no sweat shops before the IMF and World Bank started lending loans to 3rd world countries.
There was only colonial slave labour.
In both cases, it was a government body that played the key part in its creation.

Back in the colonial days, the government used to invade countries and create slave labour.
Nowdays the IMF and World Bank invade countries and create sweat shops which are synonymous to slave labour.

There is no corporation which on its own, without the help of any government entity has managed to become an exploitive "mega-corporation".

Ruskie4Rent

af_thefragile wrote: »

If it wasn't for the FED, the market would have one bad year and would have had recovered pretty soon from the collapse. Markets rise and fall all the time.
.

From my understanding, the lack of intertervention by the FED in the early years might have prolonged the depression.
With the total lack of confidence at the beginning of it i don't know how you can say it would've only lasted a year-it was no ordinary recession.

I'm open to persuasion though....my knowledge on the topic is limited.

Ruskie4Rent

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This also seems to contradict my understanding of the Depression. I'm not saying i think the New Deal had a positive effect....i'm just unsure as to why you think it had such a negative one.

Denerick

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

This also seems to contradict my understanding of the Depression. I'm not saying i think the New Deal had a positive effect....i'm just unsure as to why you think it had such a negative one.

Saying the New Deal prolonged the Depression is mindless speculation. What it did do though, was create a society much more equal and better off as a whole than the supposedly 'booming' one before it. Which is why Libertarians tend to get my goat.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

af_thefragile

Also sorry its from wikipedia:

Austrian School explanations:

Austrian theorists who wrote about the Depression include Hayek and Murray Rothbard. Rothbard wrote "America's Great Depression" in 1963. In their view, the Great Depression was the inevitable outcome of the easy credit policies of the Federal Reserve during the 1920s. Since its enactment in 1913, the Federal Reserve had served as the central bank of the United States. The Federal reserve effectively regulated the amount of credit private banks could issue by providing overnight loans and strict reserve requirements.

The problem with this policy is that the reserve rate and interest rates were centrally decided then uniformly applied to all banks. This central mechanism of interest rate and fractional reserve rate determination stands in stark contrast to market mechanisms which would be distributed and specific to each bank. Uniform central bank policies allowed banks with poor lending policies to have easy access to credit—as easy as conservative banks. Austrian theorists hold that the key cause of the Depression was the expansion of the money supply in the 1920s that led to an unsustainable credit-driven boom. In their view, the Federal Reserve, which was created in 1913, shoulders much of the blame. By the time the Fed belatedly tightened in 1928, it was far too late and, in the Austrian view, a depression was inevitable.

The artificial interference in the economy was a disaster prior to the Depression, and government efforts to prop up the economy after the crash of 1929 only made things worse. According to Rothbard, government intervention delayed the market’s adjustment and made the road to complete recovery more difficult.

Rothbard criticizes Milton Friedman's assertion that the central bank failed to inflate the supply of money. Rothbard asserts that the Federal Reserve purchased $1.1 billion of government securities from February to July 1932 which raised its total holding to $1.8 billion. Total bank reserves only rose by $212 million, but Rothbard argues that this was because the American populace lost faith in the banking system and began hoarding more cash, a factor very much beyond the control of the Central Bank. The potential for a run on the banks caused local bankers to be more conservative in lending out their reserves, and, Rothbard argues, was the cause of the Federal Reserve's inability to inflate.

And if you want more info, you can look up about what the Austrian school of economics says about the great depression and this recession.

Ruskie4Rent

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.

"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."
Today 14:37

But for every economist with those sort of conclusions there are other's who might say that the minimum wage kept prices high- turning around the deflation despite the high umemplyment. The market's 'self-correcting forces' would've been limited given the levels of deflation and unemployment.

That's not my position, but my point is that maybe its not wise to pass your opinion off as fact when it is only based on one school of economic theory. The causes of the great depression (and its recovery) are perhaps a little too complex to make any solid conclusions.

OT. My problem with anarcho-capitalism is similar to communism- it is perhaps a little too utopian.
I think people have a little too much faith in the 'invisible hand' of the market to provide a fair society, where the most capable are rewarded.
I do not think we can be fully responsible for our own successes/failures in life, regardless of how little the government interferes in it.