The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

#377
#377
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
What is wrong with someone being rich? Think of all the people he/she could employ. I don't really believe dictators would spring up, although it might, never say never.

Funny fact, you say we don't take into account human nature into our equation? Who is government made up of? People
Click to expand...

Nothing at all, but it would open the door for 2 or 3 of the richest controlling everything and creating their own government. Who could stop them? They'd own everything.
 
#378
#378
tim said:
Nothing at all, but it would open the door for 2 or 3 of the richest controlling everything and creating their own government. Who could stop them? They'd own everything.
Click to expand...

Maybe, who knows. I doubt the market would put up with one or two producers very long. To much competition would be around.
 
#379
#379
To me, it'd start out as a fun game of monopoly then before you knew it you were landing on Park Place and Board walk then praying your next time around the board you make it without havng to fold. By the end of the game one person is sitting there with everything.
 
#380
#380
tim said:
To me, it'd start out as a fun game of monopoly then before you knew it you were landing on Park Place and Board walk then praying your next time around the board you make it without havng to fold. By the end of the game one person is sitting there with everything.
Click to expand...

Lol kinda what we have now huh?
 
#381
#381
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
How on earth did we ever travel with out government planning?
Click to expand...

Well, not very efficiently. They certainly didn't have Interstates or even serviceable highways.

I guess we would get by for a few years until the current highway systems fell into disrepair. Then we could go back to navigating coast-to-coast through a series of local collector roads that were privately funded. You might be able to get to Florida in under a week for your summer vacation.

You could create toll roads for all the long-distance highways. That might work, although it would be cumbersome. You would need a universal toll processing system like SunPass, etc. But then what about arterials and collectors? You can't make every road controlled access. It isn't feasible.
 
#382
#382
tim said:
Nothing drives business more than money. We would end up being under the control of 2-3 extremely wealthy dictators. Anarchists fail to put humans and human nature into the equation.
Click to expand...

Don't they.
 
#383
#383
Thrasher865 said:
Well, not very efficiently. They certainly didn't have Interstates or even serviceable highways.

I guess we would get by for a few years until the current highway systems fell into disrepair. Then we could go back to navigating coast-to-coast through a series of local collector roads that were privately funded. You might be able to get to Florida in under a week for your summer vacation.
Click to expand...

interesting reading here.

But Who Will Build The Roads? - Ludwig von Mises Institute Canada
 
#389
#389
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Tim said


"No idea what you do or where you live. However, I know you know peaceful/voluntary interactions requires at least two parties agreeing, so unless you live where everyone agrees all the time it's kind of moot."

Tim, don't you realize we already have this today in our society? We are only advocating taking the state out of the equation.
There would still be courts, laws, all kinds of stuff that we enjoy today. Anarchists want all those things as well.
Click to expand...

You state you want to get rid of "the state" then immediately list aspects of the state.

The sooner you anarcho-capitalists realize that you don't want to eliminate the state, but rather merely want to decentralize the state, the better off your cause will be.
 
#392
#392
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Didn't you advocate a king in another thread?
Click to expand...

Plato's philosopher king is ideal, if we are living in ideal realms. That was a thread in which we were discussing Plato's influence on political thought.

As far as pragmatic political philosophy, I have been in favor of a flexible oligarchy for awhile.
 
#393
#393
n_huffhines said:
OK. I'm not sure really what the point is. I never really thought that it was practical to consider private property as a monopoly problem. You put a pool in your yard that nobody can use...you have a monopoly. You put a Panama Canal in your yard...you have a monopoly. Sure.

I was talking more about manufacturing, services, software, etc.

If somebody buys up the area of the Panama Canal, and builds the Panama Canal, then of course they have a monopoly. But we are better off for it. We have an option that didn't exist before. We can do whatever we did before the canal, or we can pay to borrow their property for a bit. I don't see this as relevant, because it's not a monopoly "problem".
Click to expand...

Does this mean you oppose all patents as well? Since a patent can easily create a monopoly?

But I've got to say that even without government interference I still believe monopolies could form
 
#394
#394
PKT_VOL said:
Plato's philosopher king is ideal, if we are living in ideal realms. That was a thread in which we were discussing Plato's influence on political thought.

As far as pragmatic political philosophy, I have been in favor of a flexible oligarchy for awhile.
Click to expand...

Seems most oligarchies throughout history have had trouble with the word flexible.
 
#396
#396
Vol8188 said:
Does this mean you oppose all patents as well? Since a patent can easily create a monopoly?

But I've got to say that even without government interference I still believe monopolies could form
Click to expand...

Yes I oppose patent laws. In my experience, most people that support patent law have not fairly evaluated the costs and benefits of patents. I'm not saying I'm for sure right, but if you think patents are a no-brainer, you probably aren't aware of the opposing arguments.
 
#397
#397
n_huffhines said:
Yes I oppose patent laws. In my experience, most people that support patent law have not fairly evaluated the costs and benefits of patents. I'm not saying I'm for sure right, but if you think patents are a no-brainer, you probably aren't aware of the opposing arguments.
Click to expand...

I do take issue with frivolous patents, and I do think far too many patents are issued on products that truly lack the uniqueness to qualify.

But what intellectual property rights?
 
#400
#400
volbeast33 said:
Don't the guy that wrote this article say that he didn't have a clue how that would work but was sure it would just work it's way out.
Click to expand...

"When asked, “who will build the roads?” I’m often inclined to say, “I don’t know.” This usually creates a sense of triumph in the opposing party, that the admission of “I don’t know” confirms their suspicion that the market is inferior to state coercion. But “I don’t know” isn’t an admission of defeat, but rather, an admission that I can’t predict the market process. I was eight years old when my family got our first computer; I remember it clearly but in no way could I have predicted what the future of computers would hold. The same is true for roads and other infrastructure thought only to be capable by a territorial monopoly. I can’t predict what roads would look like or how they would function without the government’s monotonous slabs of pavement. And even if I could, that would be a case for state planning, for if I could envision the future, why not a council of bureaucrats with allocated funds extracted from the populace?

Again, Hayek perfectly describes the dilemma at hand,

If man is not to do more harm than good in his efforts to improve the social order, he will have to learn that in this, as in all other fields where essential complexity of an organized kind prevails, he cannot acquire the full knowledge which would make mastery of the events possible. He will therefore have to use what knowledge he can achieve, not to shape the results as the craftsman shapes his handiwork, but rather to cultivate a growth by providing the appropriate environment, in the manner in which the gardener does this for his plants. … The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men’s fatal striving to control society — a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals."
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top