No one likes Ancaps

[Doctor Amadeus]

I don't honestly see how this would happen under an anarcho-capitalist society, relative to a state-run society. Maybe you could elaborate.

Inclusion rather than exclusion, embracing diversity as the strength it is not a weakness, but upholding common ideas above all, to share some things but provide opportunities for others for everybody.

That's great? No one is stopping you from upholding your moral values.

Oh but you see unfortunately certain greed for a very few always goes unchecked, it is why we have so many with so little and so few with so much. Merit is no longer a system which richly rewards the brightest or the most capable, only the most willing.

Being clever isn't the same as being smart.


Being clever is about a trick, no actual skill, just observation, and then being the one willing to do what other won't not can't and profiting. Someone who is smart is someone who acts with information, understands the why and why not, and acts accordingly. Based on real data, real information, not conjecture and hearsay.

- - - Updated - - -

Inclusion rather than exclusion, embracing diversity as the strength it is not a weakness, but upholding common ideas above all, to share some things but provide opportunities for others for everybody.




Oh but you see unfortunately certain greed for a very few always goes unchecked, it is why we have so many with so little and so few with so much. Merit is no longer a system which richly rewards the brightest or the most capable, only the most willing.

Being clever isn't the same as being smart.


Being clever is about a trick, no actual skill, just observation, and then being the one willing to do what other won't not can't and profiting. Someone who is smart is someone who acts with information, understands the why and why not, and acts accordingly. Based on real data, real information, not conjecture and hearsay.

For some even everything isn't enough they will still eyeball old ladies purses, I am ok with the world not being big enough to tolerate these kinds of people.

[Anonymous1038853]

Inclusion rather than exclusion, embracing diversity as the strength it is not a weakness, but upholding common ideas above all, to share some things but provide opportunities for others for everybody.

... What? I don't see how this relates to the point you're responding to. An anarcho-capitalist system will result in "buying all the water rights" and "stifling progress" because embracing diversity and upholding common ideas? It doesn't even make grammatical sense, to me. I'm asking you: How are the things you proposed actually more likely under a free-market society than one with a central authority?

Oh but you see unfortunately certain greed for a very few always goes unchecked, it is why we have so many with so little and so few with so much. Merit is no longer a system which richly rewards the brightest or the most capable, only the most willing.

Free markets reward those who best facilitate the values of others. Kinda by definition.

Being clever is about a trick, no actual skill, just observation, and then being the one willing to do what other won't not can't and profiting. Someone who is smart is someone who acts with information, understands the why and why not, and acts accordingly. Based on real data, real information, not conjecture and hearsay.

I don't understand what this has to do with anything.

For some even everything isn't enough they will still eyeball old ladies purses, I am ok with the world not being big enough to tolerate these kinds of people.

... Still not following you. Sorry.

[Doctor Amadeus]

... What? I don't see how this relates to the point you're responding to. An anarcho-capitalist system will result in "buying all the water rights" and "stifling progress"

If left unchecked yes, more money seems to buy more influence also, money should afford you a solid gold house and 30 cars if that gets you off, it should not literally hog all the natural resources and everything else at the expense of humanity.

.because embracing diversity and upholding common ideas? It doesn't even make grammatical sense, to me. I'm asking you: How are the things you proposed actually more likely under a free-market society than one with a central authority?

Just because you can, doesn't mean you do. Free Market societies uncheck gets out of control like industry, and then the why suddenly is no longer important

.Free markets reward those who best facilitate the values of others.

No it doesn't and people can be manipulated they are all the time, free markets are dumb unintelligent ideas, that catch resources up into some sort of lottery.

.I don't understand what this has to do with anything.

Because for innovation to work MERIT has to mean something. Values have to mean something a standard of living has to be recognized.

.... Still not following you. Sorry.

The world isn't big enough for everything that is in it, and people too stupid to know what things are or where they come from or care what they do.

[Deleted]

I mean, I know the ideology, since I consider myself a proponent of it. What you articulated generally fits what we advocate for.

But okay. I'm going to assume (naively) that you're defining capitalism in the way it is under anarcho-capitalism. That is, the free exchange of goods and services. Why exactly does that need to be kept "in check?" How ought it be kept in check?

Also, keep in mind that anarcho-capitalism is an end-state. The sentiment of "burning the entire place down" isn't inherent to the ideology. Some people will advocate that it be achieved through civil conflict, sure. Others don't. I'm in the latter camp.

Free exchange of goods and services may sound as such a wonderful idea until it is taken to an extreme, and it always is taken to the extreme. Our social and economical systems should be beneficial to all people, not just the select few who are best at gaming the system and their offspring.

Every capitalistic system that is left unchecked will transform into some form of oligarchy within a generation or two, there is no escaping this. It is in the nature of the capitalistic system, people that preform very well will have more to voting power, as in a capitalist society everything is for sale. They use this voting power to enact more favorable rules for them, while at the same time make it harder for other companies to compete with them. And why wouldn't they? It is in their best interest after all. Even in our society were we supposed to have rules in trade to stop monopolies and have a political system in place that supposedly can not be bought we have monopolies and politicians that are being bought. In a world were there aren't any rules like those throwing money at a problem you have will solve anything.

In that lies the problem, what is in the best interest of a company is almost always not in the best interest of society. Sure, there are some cases were they align, but most of the time they do not. Things like low wages, destruction of nature, moving the company to low wage countries are in no way beneficial to society, they only harm it, and this is only a short version of a long list. But these are things that are sacrificed in the name of profit, why would a company care that they just killed of a species of frog or neut, when they just made millions!?

To get to a solution to these problems i think we have to look at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telos_(philosophy) Telos of things. This is basically a way of looking at things that assesses how good something is in that what it is supposed to do. I think this is a good starting place for a discussion like this.

[Anonymous1038853]

If left unchecked yes, more money seems to buy more influence also, money should afford you a solid gold house and 30 cars if that gets you off, it should not literally hog all the natural resources and everything else at the expense of humanity.

It doesn't, though. It's effectively impossible to "buy all the stuff" under a free market. Unjust monopolies are significantly harder to achieve, absent a state. There's a few reasons for this. The first is that accumulating tangible stuff tends to incur a cost to the holder. They need somewhere to store it. They need to protect it from thieves. Maybe it requires some kind of maintenance, to prevent it from deteriorating over time. That means that simply "owning all the things" just for the sake of it is a significant financial cost. If this person isn't providing a commensurate value to his peers, how exactly is he financing this?

There's also the basic economic principle of supply and demand. Let's say I decide I want to buy every baseball card on the planet. I want to own all of them. Well, as I start accumulating a greater and greater share of them, and take them out of circulation, they become more rare and consequently more valuable. People who own the baseball cards I want can charge exorbitant prices to prevent me from achieving a true monopoly. They can also choose not to sell to me, if they don't trust my motives for whatever reason. That's for things which are (artificially) difficult to produce. Water literally rains from the sky, and food grows out of the Earth. How is anyone going to own all of it, through the free market? More importantly: Why would they seek to do so via such means?

Just because you can, doesn't mean you do. Free Market societies uncheck gets out of control like industry, and then the why suddenly is no longer important

Because I can what? I still don't understand what you're saying. Anyway, I'm still not seeing how an unchecked free-market society gets out of control. The "why" is important if I'm going to take your assertion seriously. Otherwise, Hitchens' Razor.

No it doesn't and people can be manipulated they are all the time, free markets are dumb unintelligent ideas, that catch resources up into some sort of lottery.

I mean, yes. It does. What even is value, if not the things people prioritize in relation to other things? The whole point of free market exchanges is that you (usually) have to give something someone wants, in exchange for the thing you want. Ergo, the people who receive the most of the latter must therefore being doing more of the former.

The world isn't big enough for everything that is in it

_______________

Free exchange of goods and services may sound as such a wonderful idea until it is taken to an extreme, and it always is taken to the extreme.

I think "extreme voluntarism" sounds pretty good, honestly.

Seriously, though: What does this even mean? Anyone can throw around buzzwords like "Yeah, but democracy will be taken to the extreme, and extremes are bad, so nyeah!" What does the extreme of a free-market look like?

Our social and economical systems should be beneficial to all people, not just the select few who are best at gaming the system and their offspring.

The free market does benefit everyone, though. It directly fosters improved means of accomplishing tasks via competition. Industralization has done more to improve the quality of life in various societies in the past few centuries than the thousands of years of civilization prior. For everyone. Including the truly poor and destitute.

Every capitalistic system that is left unchecked will transform into some form of oligarchy within a generation or two, there is no escaping this.

How, exactly? It's one thing to assert this. It's another entirely to explain how this is significantly more likely, relative to a state-governed society.

It is in the nature of the capitalistic system, people that preform very well will have more to voting power, as in a capitalist society everything is for sale. They use this voting power to enact more favorable rules for them, while at the same time make it harder for other companies to compete with them.

Anarcho-capitalist societies don't have a state. That's what the "anarcho" part of the compound term signifies. What "voting power" are you talking about? 'Cause you seem to be referencing corporate lobbying as your basis for condemning the free market, even though the government isn't a free market. That's sort of the whole point.

moving the company to low wage countries are in no way beneficial to society

Labour outsourcing is beneficial, though. It reduces the prices of manufactured goods, which in turn makes them more accessible to the public. It also allows a company to expand its production chains, which means more higher-paying jobs.

[ldev]

another day, another useless bullshit from internet

[Doctor Amadeus]

It doesn't, though. It's effectively impossible to "buy all the stuff" under a free market. Unjust monopolies are significantly harder to achieve, absent a state.

OK and where do you see this idea applied today in terms of a free market incapable of unjust monopolies where capitalism isn't kept in check?

.There's a few reasons for this. The first is that accumulating tangible stuff tends to incur a cost to the holder. They need somewhere to store it. They need to protect it from thieves. Maybe it requires some kind of maintenance, to prevent it from deteriorating over time. That means that simply "owning all the things" just for the sake of it is a significant financial cost. If this person isn't providing a commensurate value to his peers, how exactly is he financing this?

This is correct which is why money in and of itself is meaningless, next you use it to buy power and influence, meaning you purchase other people with no actual reason other than you simply can.

By the way Capitalism, like you are describing have exist here in the U.S and they didn't they were often lead by unscrupulous individuals that would and could own entire towns. They literally could and would just about print their own money. This doesn't work anymore than Communism and the ideas around it which is if everyone according to his need.

It didn't work out because ultimately when you add human beings to equation no matter how intelligent, greed and other vices make them stupid. It's in general why we learned just as governments, business shouldn't be left unchecked, and one person or person's are never good at being left to make those kinds decisions as the era I mentioned here in the U.S where business could literally decide a person life or death, even before they had even been born, or could make it that far.

.There's also the basic economic principle of supply and demand. Let's say I decide I want to guy buy every baseball card on the planet. I want to own all of them. Well, as I start accumulating a greater and greater share of them, and take them out of circulation, they become more rare and consequently more valuable.

I give you credit for thinking outside the box, but this isn't new, yes those who require more do have to hire those to help them sustain it, your automatic leap though is incorrect based on no data, it doesn't

.People who own the baseball cards I want can charge exorbitant prices to prevent me from achieving a true monopoly. They can also choose not to sell to me, if they don't trust my motives for whatever reason. That's for things which are (artificially) difficult to produce. Water literally rains from the sky, and food grows out of the Earth. How is anyone going to own all of it, through the free market? More importantly: Why would they seek to do so via such means?

Have you ever collected baseball cards, or for that matter coins or anything else, how about antiques, I hate to burst your bubble but that very thing you say wouldn't or doesn't happen does.

See the basic way it works or has worked is that very few if any auction houses aren't connected, and even after that they are even fewer networked who control in any one market how items are appraised, where they may or may not be located, and determine their value.

So unless you have a Reggie Jackson Rookie Baseball card even a baseball cards with an approximate worth of say 1,000,000, who ever owns that card isn't going to see that, they will see a maybe 35%, and that is your best case scenario, everyone else is going to want a cut, and that is baseball cards you used.

How about gold, I own gold I have gold like actual golds and bonds guess what, your average person can't move that shit either except for maybe a few places that are generally well connected.

SO, by the same measure you suggest that there would already be measures in places to keep a free market system in check, I am telling you no they wouldn't and if anything they would make it more dangerous, because stress and fear of losing profits would be literal life or death.

.Because I can what? I still don't understand what you're saying. Anyway, I'm still not seeing how an unchecked free-market society gets out of control. The "why" is important if I'm going to take your assertion seriously. Otherwise, Hitchens' Razor.

A single human being left to their own devices or even human beings can never be trusted in the way you are suggested, there will always be something of bias that will compromise their objectivity, and the problem aren't those with too much money and things, the problem is the entire economic environment being tilted over, because some rich morons just feel it can be, especially without consequences.

.I mean, yes. It does. What even is value, if not the things people prioritize in relation to other things? The whole point of free market exchanges is that you (usually) have to give something someone wants, in exchange for the thing you want. Ergo, the people who receive the most of the latter must therefore being doing more of the former.

Water, clean fresh water is valuable, without it you won't be too healthy for long and eventually will drop like a rock, how about food that is pretty valuable, land, and means to create a shelter and home that is valuable, being healthy being able to care for those you love, those are valuable.


Free Market is about a group of people trading and exchanging things, outside of what I just mentioned, and I am find with that, provided that it doesn't place the entire economic system in jeopardy, because then at that point, I no longer give a shit about anything else, and neither would you.

People have to have the things I mentioned, food, water, shelter etc, as a society we also need to progress and advance, meaning make our systems better so that they work in a balance. What you are proposing isn't a balance.


The world isn't big enough for everything that is in it

.

Yes, I am talking about ideas try to sustain this out of the box thinking you ventured upon here.

My meaning is that your ideas aren't going to work and neither are a lot of others, and there is no longer any room for compromise either, at some point some are going to take, others are going to have to give something up, or they are going to make it 100 times worse for themselves.

Which is the ultimate lesson that still hasn't been learned yet. Time is running out and doing nothing and talking until there is no time left isn't an option that anybody who realizes it is going to wait on.

[Anonymous1038853]

What exactly, prevents the businesses from fucking over everyone by destroying the nature for example, in the absence of state to regulate them?

Like they just go around burning stuff to the ground? Well, people who don't want that to happen would apply physical force to stop them. Or hire agencies to do so on their behalf. Basically state force, minus the extortionate financing.

[Deleted]

I think "extreme voluntarism" sounds pretty good, honestly.

Seriously, though: What does this even mean? Anyone can throw around buzzwords like "Yeah, but democracy will be taken to the extreme, and extremes are bad, so nyeah!" What does the extreme of a free-market look like?

What about eating, drinking and having a home, power, clean water is exactly voluntary? People need this, and if they have to pay whatever the seller wants to have for it then there is very little voluntary about it. Extreme isn't a "buzzword" extreme is a state that is always reached by humans because they are trying to find the limit of what they can achieve in their current set of rules.
What does an extreme free market look like, an oligarchy.

The free market does benefit everyone, though. It directly fosters improved means of accomplishing tasks. Industralization has done more to improve the quality of life in various societies in the past few centuries than the tens of thousands of years of civilization prior. For everyone. Including the truly poor and destitute.

No it doesn't. Industrialization has exactly nothing to do with capitalism, Industrialization is about innovation and maximization. Capitalism is merely private ownership and this leads to maximization of profit, nothing more nothing less.

How, exactly? It's one thing to assert this. It's another entirely to explain how this is significantly more likely, relative to a state-governed society.

Just like it is now wealth has a tendency to accumulate, you only need so much of it. When you have more then you need you can use that to get even more money. The state fixes this somewhat with taxes, thought this was very obvious.

Anarcho-capitalist societies don't have a state. That's what the "anarcho" part of the compound term signifies. What "voting power" are you talking about? 'Cause you seem to be referencing corporate lobbying as your basis for condemning the free market, even though the government isn't a free market. That's sort of the whole point.

Then read the other bit... you know, the part that you did not quote.....

In a world were there aren't any rules like those, throwing money at a problem you have will solve anything.

Even if you do not have a state you will still have rules, and those rules can be bought with money. Even more easily then it is to buy politicians now. Murdering people would not be a problem if you buy the right people, destroying land would not be a problem if you buy the right people. Nothing is a problem if you buy the right people.

Labour outsourcing is beneficial, though. It reduces the prices of manufactured goods, which in turn makes it more accessible to the public.

Yea but not for the people who used to make those things for an actual wage. ]\

What you want is survival of the fittest, and that is fine, but don't be angry when someone comes to find you with a shotgun.

- - - Updated - - -

Like they just go around burning stuff to the ground? Well, people who don't want that to happen would apply physical force to stop them. Or hire agencies to do so on their behalf. Basically state force, minus the extortionate financing.

In other words, when you buy of the right people, everything is fine

[Gestopft]

When someone can point me towards a successful and safe AnCap country, I'll take a real look. Until then, it's distilled ideological delusion with no basis in reality.

[Deleted]

For example community of people who are living next to coal plant that refuses to filter their exhaust in any way, and the people are reliant on the power generated by the plant.

How about water company that hires agency to poison all surface water in an area so that they can jack up their prising since they are now the sole entity capable of providing drinkable water?

That's all fine, as long as you pay off the right people of course..

[Anonymous1038853]

OK and where do you see this idea applied today

I don't really. I can only extrapolate from various bits, or contrast a spectrum of policies. I can't cite you a stateless society with a functioning free market. That said, I also can't cite you a society where murder and rape never occur. However, I still maintain that both of these societies are generally ideal. So, just because a thing hasn't been done yet doesn't make it either impossible, or comparatively poor. Especially considering that every single societal advancement, which we now agree is good in hindsight, meets that initial caveat.

This is correct which is why money in and of itself is meaningless, next you use it to buy power and influence, meaning you purchase other people with no actual reason other than you simply can.

Money is just a stand-in for goods and services. It's a substitute for making transactions easier. If that's what you mean by "meaningless" then sure, I guess you're right. I suspect that's not what you mean, though. I'm also not sure what you mean by buying power, influence, or people?

By the way Capitalism, like you are describing have exist here in the U.S.

No it didn't. The United States was never a free-market anarchist society. It was a monarchy until the civil war, and then it was a secular democratic republic thereafter. This claim is simply incorrect.

It didn't work out because ultimately when you add human beings to equation no matter how intelligent, greed and other vices make them stupid.

Even if I shared this misanthropic view, how does this actually explain anything?

You can apply this reasoning to literally any other system. "___________? Well when you add human beings to the equation, no matter how intelligent, greed and other vices make them stupid." See how that works? If your criticism applies to literally every other societal model in equal measure, then you haven't actually criticized a given model.

Water, clean fresh water is valuable, without it you won't be too healthy for long and eventually will drop like a rock, how about food that is pretty valuable, land, and means to create a shelter and home that is valuable, being healthy being able to care for those you love, those are valuable.

I didn't say they're not valuable. I said they're difficult to monopolize. Because they are. Even the U.S. government wouldn't be able to do it, and it's arguably the most powerful organization on Earth.
On what grounds do you assert that smaller groups would be able to achieve this? How would they accomplish this monumental task? Additionally, what possible motivation could they have to do so, that folks in government couldn't just as easily share?

My meaning is that your ideas aren't going to work and neither are a lot of others

"You're wrong. I can't actually explain why at all, but you totally are."

Good argument, fam.

[Knolan]

Ancaps and communists are the opposite sides of the same coin.

They are both delusional and are certain that things will work as they say when they achieve their utopia, but it obviously won't.

[Deleted]

It's as if ancap society would need an entity that people pay to in order to have it enforce rules upon businesses to protect the common people from being completely fucked over by businesses who's only goal is to maximise profits.

Who would have guessed!?

[Anonymous1038853]

No it doesn't. Industrialization has exactly nothing to do with capitalism, Industrialization is about innovation and maximization. Capitalism is merely private ownership and this leads to maximization of profit, nothing more nothing less.

Time for some economics 101: In a free market, you maximize profits by providing the best possible service. You provide the best service by innovating. Industralization is precisely that: Advancements in technology which make tasks easier to accomplish. Profit provides a clear and direct incentive to that end. Pretty simple stuff.

Just like it is now wealth has a tendency to accumulate, you only need so much of it. When you have more then you need you can use that to get even more money. The state fixes this somewhat with taxes, thought this was very obvious.

Oh no. People getting money. The horror. The terror.



I think I missed the part where this was a bad thing which needed to be reconciled. Additionally, the only way money facilitates the accumulation of more money in a free market, is if you use that money to fulfill other people's values. That seems like a pretty good situation.

Then read the other bit... you know, the part that you did not quote.....

I mean, I did read the entire response. I quote portions for brevity, since I'm already talking to like four other people who aren't debating each-other. Still not understanding what you mean by "voting power" in the context of a stateless society. I mean, you cite government corruption as though this is somehow a point against the absence of a government. I find that rather absurd. "Look at all the bad things the church does. Now imagine how much WORSE it would be if the pope DIDN'T rule over all of us!"

Even if you do not have a state you will still have rules, and those rules can be bought with money. Even more easily then it is to buy politicians now. Murdering people would not be a problem if you buy the right people, destroying land would not be a problem if you buy the right people. Nothing is a problem if you buy the right people.

I mean, yes. What you seem to be missing here is that it's easier to purchase power in an anarcho-capitalist society because the person you're purchasing from has less power to give. Lesser product means lower price. Under ideal situations the government is supposed to police itself, through compartmentalized authority. So instead, how about we have actual compartmentalized authority, in a free market? I mean, you guys seem to understand the issues that monopolies can result in, except when it applies to the state. Why is that, exactly?

Yea but not for the people who used to make those things for an actual wage.

Uh. Yes. For those people as well. The price is reduced for everyone. That person needs to find another job, sure. It's worth noting that point about there being more higher paying jobs due to business expansion, of course. If that individual can provide the same economic value as before, however, he or she will actually be able to obtain more for the effort. If he can't, then he can rely on charity (or welfare) which will be more effective because of the reduced cost of goods.

[Ahovv]

Anarchist response to every possible criticism: "Yeah, but you see...it will be a global revolution. Everyone will agree on things and your problems won't exist!"

[Doctor Amadeus]

I don't really. I can only extrapolate from various bits, or contrast a spectrum of policies. I can't cite you a stateless society with a functioning free market. That said, I also can't cite you a society where murder and rape never occur. However, I still maintain that both of these societies are generally ideal. So, just because it hasn't been done yet neither makes it impossible, nor comparatively poor. Especially considering that every single societal advancement, which we now agree is good in hindsight, meets that initial caveat.

Well at least you are being honest, I can respect that, and My question wasn't intended to be loaded, just because no modern day examples can be found doesn't mean your argument isn't valid. Hell even my examples of the past could be dismissed if the point to ask you about modern day was to facilitate me saying "I Gotcha". I respect you just stated your case.

And no I don't believe every bad thing that ever happened under any specific government can be ruled as the cause for said idea for any government, but I do believe the end results of then vs now is telling.

I mean there are always the contemporary arguments, maybe one set of ideas didn't work because society as a whole haven't left their training wheels certain lessons obviously had to be learned, the problem with that though is that isn't even true either, because humans have been plugging away thousands and thousands of years and while some systems don't all seem exactly the same because they aren't there are striking similarities. So much so there have been societies that have failed so badly, that certain advancements some areas over others were lost for a long time.


My point is people don't really learn, now maybe because we live in a time where there is much more recorded I don't know, but considering the HUGE amount of garbage that exist I think more information has often relegated all information as the same in terms of importance.

Human beings are bound by certain realities, and our environments change constantly, as do social structures where ideologies exist, but the economic ideas you are talking about unchecked, aren't in my view any better than someone say, but, but, but if not for _________, would have worked.

Saying nothing else, what is true is that whatever doesn't exist now here is for a reason, and that reason IMO is that it didn't work or we still over all haven't gotten things all right.

Money is just a stand-in for goods and services. It's a substitute for making transactions easier. If that's what you mean by "meaningless" then sure, I guess you're right. I suspect that's not what you mean, though. I'm also not sure what you mean by buying power, influence, or people?

Money is that and a whole lot more and for many of the reasons you touched on, I own land right, but says who? The Deeds I say from a bank and evidence I made the Purchase, how exactly am I going to back that up by myself without the rule of law or government.

Just like the Gold Own, what do you think I have a chest full of that shit? In some kind of economy where gold is king, who exactly am I going to have secure what is mine, and if you think the average wage for risking life and limb is going to be cheap, you would be mistaken.

Especially when people rely on the very livelihood of someone else. The Truth is Money is Slavery and Freedom but more importantly just a means to an end. What it is backed by is at the heart of the issue.

So the idea's about gold standards and free markets are exactly that ideas, and horrific nightmares for everybody if come to pass, people were murdered often for what they owned, and more importantly what they couldn't protect, and if you didn't have certain disciplines and securities in place, if you think you seen the worst of nature crack open some of that history on some of those mobs backs in the day, not mafia, MOBS!

Groups of people not tweeting shit, people that had about as much perception as your average bear or way less

No it didn't. The United States was never a free-market anarchist society. It was a monarchy until the civil war, and then it was a secular republic democracy thereafter. This claim is simply incorrect.

I want to make sure I understand you do mean "The Civil War" not "Revolutionary" correct, not that I disagree with you but we would both be technically wrong. But I do actually agree if that is the claim you are making, I think the idea the founding fathers sent the Red Coats packing had a shit load more to do with greed than anything else, and most of everything else they wrote was marketing to get everyone else to stick their necks out.

But be that as it maybe what I think, the fact is that isn't how it got recorded or much of the evidence clearly defines.

Even if I shared this misanthropic view, how does this actually explain anything? You can apply this reasoning to literally any other system. "___________? Well when you add human beings to the equation, no matter how intelligent, greed and other vices make them stupid." See how that works? If your criticism applies to literally every other societal model in equal measure, then you haven't actually criticized a given model.

I am going simply by the tried and and applied methods, theory is alright it's the practice that it meets it becomes another matter. People look to mechanisms to make their lives easier, most will want to do the work but they also want assurances, and men despite their aims, become greedy, either because they understand the price of the burden of carrying everyones hopes and fears and daily lives, the fact is in many ways, most are right to go mad too.

The point is that in my opinion like with the U.S society works best when people are free do do what they like as long as there are checks and balances, and as long as they understand where and why the rule of law works the way it does.

We had that back in the 1950's albeit not for EVERYONE, but it worked, as long as you never asked why it worked and what was behind it. It worked because while there was government, PEOPLE were required to do their parts too "Ask not what your country could do for you..."

People had a duty to their friends, their neighborhoods their communities. You did the right thing because you wanted to, and it felt good to do that. Sure people broke the rules and didn't always like them, but there was a balance.

Keep in mind what I just said is a bit of fiction but it's every bit as real if it could be realized for all, as it could be for all.

I didn't say they're not valuable. I said they're difficult to monopolize. Because they are. Even the U.S. government wouldn't be able to do it, and it's arguably the most powerful organization on Earth. On what grounds do you assert that smaller groups would be able to achieve this? How would they accomplish this monumental task? Additionally, what possible motivation could they have to do so, that the folks in government couldn't just as easily share?

Research the 1920s and 30s during prohibition in Chicago, and how that worked out, the Syndicate ran very much like how you describe free market. It did not work out for everyone, and those were some very bloody and nasty times

"You're wrong. I can't actually explain why at all, but you totally are."

Good argument, fam.

I can be wrong about anything, but I like to know for sure why I am, and why you are right. Thanks for the conversation

[Anonymous1038853]

For example community of people who are living next to coal plant that refuses to filter their exhaust in any way, and the people are reliant on the power generated by the plant.

Someone could create a competing enterprise which doesn't present the same environmental issue. If that doesn't fix it, because the community has overwhelmingly decided that whatever benefit that coal plant provides over more environmentally-friendly options is preferrable to living smog-free, then I don't really see what the issue is?

How about water company that hires agency to poison all surface water in an area so that they can jack up their prising since they are now the sole entity capable of providing drinkable water?

The community would hire a protection agency to prevent someone from poisoning the water. Kind of like they already do, only with competititon and a direct financing model.

_______________

When someone can point me towards a successful and safe AnCap country, I'll take a real look. Until then, it's distilled ideological delusion with no basis in reality.

Right so prior to the polio vaccine, vaccinating polio was just a "distilled ideological delusion with no basis in reality." Right? Or is there actually some clear fault you can outline with the model, rather than appealing to its current non-existence as grounds for impossibility?

_______________

Anarchist response to every possible criticism: "Yeah, but you see...it will be a global revolution. Everyone will agree on things and your problems won't exist!"

At no point have I presented rhetoric even remotely similar to this. Cool looking strawman, though. Will be good when Halloween rolls around.

[Deleted]

Time for some economics 101: In a free market, you maximize profits by providing the best possible service. You provide the best service by innovating. Industralization is precisely that: Advancements in technology which make tasks easier to accomplish. Profit provides a clear and direct incentive to that end. Pretty simple stuff.

Yea no, in a free market you maximize profits by not paying your staff a fair wage, destroy things as nature doing everything as cheaply as possible while at the same time not giving a shit about anything else.
FYI the USSR was the best industrialist there ever was, so again, industrialization has exactly nothing to do with capitalism.

some stupid rambling with a childish meme that was not a counter to anything ivé said.

Wealth accumulates..

I mean, I did read the entire response. I quote portions for brevity, since I'm already talking to like four other people who aren't debating each-other. Still not understanding what you mean by "voting power" in the context of a stateless society. I mean, you cite government corruption as though this is somehow a point against the absence of a government. I find that rather absurd. "Look at all the bad things the church does. Now imagine how much WORSE it would be if the pope DIDN'T rule over all of us!"

They are not discussing with each other because your idea is absolutely idiotic. "voting power" is how much power your voice has in that society. It isn't a real vote, but, when you have all the means that other people need, those other people will have to do what ever you want if they want access to those means. This means we just exchanged a government that we all chose the rules for with a dictator ship.
If you really think that a government is easily corrupted then imagine how easy it is for a single person with means to corrupt a single person.
And anyway, what i've pointed out isn't corruption, because in your anarchist world such a thing doesn't exist, remember??? Your comparison is also stupid, im stating that it is already bad with rules, and then you want to get rid of all rules. Not that an entity is responsible for those bad things, and that is what you seem to think. It is not the governments fault that businesses want to maximize profits at any cost, that is the fault of capitalism.

I mean, yes. What you seem to be missing here is that it's easier to purchase power in an anarcho-capitalist society because the person you're purchasing from has less power to give. Lesser product means lower price. Under ideal situations the government is supposed to police itself, through compartmentalized authority. So instead, how about we have actual compartmentalized authority, in a free market? I mean, you guys seem to understand the issues that monopolies can result in, except when it applies to the state. Why is that, exactly?

Nonsense, he has all the power he needs to completely state the rules as he is the one selling something that he can miss to someone who needs it.
A monopoly is bad when it is used solely to get more profits, a monopoly isn't bad when it is used solely in order to get a better living environment for everyone.
And who exactly is in charge of this "compartmentalized authority"? If you have enough means to buy of said authority, in other words, if it is more profitable for the authority to not help the people then they won't help the people.
Again this comes down to "who is the strongest", while the normal people get less say in the matter.

Uh. Yes. For those people as well. The price is reduced for everyone. That person needs to find another job, sure. It's worth noting that point about there being more higher paying jobs due to business expansion, of course. If they can provide the same economic value as before, however, he or she will actually be able to obtain more for the effort. If they can't, then they can rely on charity (or welfare) which will be more effective because of the reduced cost of goods.

And how will those people buy those products? With the money they no longer make? What job should they get? The job that just went outside the country they cant have, and its not like those higher paying jobs do not need additional schooling, who is going to pay for that? And its not like these business expansions come to your town, because, you know, the business left to another country. And even if, and that is a big if, these business expansions happen to be in your neighborhood then they will not have the same amount of jobs as a manufacturing plant has.

For some people this would work out fine, the problem lies with the rest of the people.

- - - Updated - - -

Someone could create a competing enterprise which doesn't present the same environmental issue. If that doesn't fix it, because the community has overwhelmingly decided that whatever benefit that coal plant provides over more environmentally-friendly options is preferrable to living smog-free, then I don't really see what the issue is?

Really?? You do not see an issue with that?? You really do not have any problem with a company purposefully poisoning the water supply because the people who buy this companies product cant do without it?

The community hasn't decided here, they didn't have a real choice in this matter. They can choose between having said product and get sick from the factory, or not having said product and still live in poor conditions and get sick from said factory. These people do not have the means to setup a competing enterprise, they are way to busy trying to pay the local mob for "protection money".

[Anonymous1038853]

What about when the water company or the electricity company have jacked up the prices for their services so high that the people living near can't afford the equipment for creating a competing service

I mean, it's turtles all the way down. Let's say this electricity company somehow manages to get a second regional monopoly on the machinery and equipment needed to generate electricity, & they jack up the prices preventing anyone from being able to start an energy company. Sounds like a pretty good business opportunity for a competing equipment manufacturer. There's an economic demand, and they can undercut the competition. The first variable is necessarily true because otherwise the surrounding public wouldn't be dealing with this company, and they'd suffer economic losses. The second variable is necessarily true because in the hypothetical, the first company is overcharging.

or when the water/electricity company can hire bigger and more heavily armed goons than the people?

What do you mean? They hire goons to do what, exactly?