The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

#401
#401
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
"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."
Click to expand...

I read the article the first time.....it was just more of the same regurgitated stuff I have been reading on this thread....I don't agree with those ideas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#405
#405
Im pretty sure if we got rid of government we'd start speaking Russian within a month.
 
#406
#406
tim said:
Im pretty sure if we got rid of government we'd start speaking Russian within a month.
Click to expand...

My protection company has nukes (and so does yours). Russian ships are coming nowhere near this continent. Protection agencies are not governments. They fight effectively to defend their clients. Russia can't take out 25 different protection agencies with nukes, so they will STF home.
 
#408
#408
n_huffhines said:
My protection company has nukes (and so does yours). Russian ships are coming nowhere near this continent. Protection agencies are not governments. They fight effectively to defend their clients. Russia can't take out 25 different protection agencies with nukes, so they will STF home.
Click to expand...

lulz. They don't need ships. And they don't need to take out 25 "protection agencies". Just one or 2 major cities.
 
#409
#409
SpaceCoastVol said:
lulz. They don't need ships. And they don't need to take out 25 "protection agencies". Just one or 2 major cities.
Click to expand...

That's the thing....a protection agency in Seattle is still fighting when DC and NYC get taken out. We don't have a central government that would surrender after 2 cities fall. Russia does. Take out Moscow and St. Petersburg....are their people going to want to keep fighting? It's hard to rally their people against us in the first place, when the face of evil America, the government, isn't there to villainize.
 
#410
#410
n_huffhines said:
My protection company has nukes (and so does yours). Russian ships are coming nowhere near this continent. Protection agencies are not governments. They fight effectively to defend their clients. Russia can't take out 25 different protection agencies with nukes, so they will STF home.
Click to expand...

That is the crux of the difference between anarcho-capitalists and libertarians.
 
#412
#412
n_huffhines said:
My governmenthas nukes (and so does yours). Russian ships are coming nowhere near this continent. Protection agencies are quasi governments. They fight effectively to defend their subjects. Russia can't take out 25 different protection agencies with nukes, so they will STF home.
Click to expand...

fify

:banghead2:
 
#414
#414
n_huffhines said:
A customer is not a subject. If you think being a subject is bad, you are arguing for the wrong system. Don't be disingenuous.
Click to expand...

What happens and a customer doesn't pay? Is the Seattle "protection agency" going to fend off an outside force for all of Seattle EXCEPT for those that haven't paid?

What if I don't like the man in charge of the Seattle "protection agency" and would rather have another? Is the CEO of the Seattle group going to let the Chicago group defend me?
 
#415
#415
hog88 said:
What happens and a customer doesn't pay? Is the Seattle "protection agency" going to fend off an outside force for all of Seattle EXCEPT for those that haven't paid?
Click to expand...

If you don't pay you aren't protected (and whatever penalties your contract stipulates). In our current system, if you don't pay you go to jail.

What if I don't like the man in charge of the Seattle "protection agency" and would rather have another? Is the CEO of the Seattle group going to let the Chicago group defend me?
Click to expand...

There is no one Seattle protection agency. There are hundreds. Go to the one you like the most.
 
#416
#416
Obsessed said:
A little of topic but, what is your thoughts on objectivism?

Mainly ayn rands philosophy on it...
Click to expand...

I actually just read her introduction to objectivism (with the added published discussions) a week ago.

I thought her epistemology of concept formation to be pretty lucid and probably correct.

However, the book and the printed discussion did very little to actually address the topic of objectivism verse subjectivism. She starts off the introduction by declaring that we must trust the senses due to the stolen concept fallacy. Her exploration of the topic was unbelievably scant. Literally, only like a sentence in the entire book. Very disappointing.
 
#417
#417
n_huffhines said:
If you don't pay you aren't protected (and whatever penalties your contract stipulates). In our current system, if you don't pay you go to jail.



There is no one Seattle protection agency. There are hundreds. Go to the one you like the most.
Click to expand...

There are hundreds of "protection agencies" with nukes? Yep, can't see anything going wrong there. The ones without nukes in VA better kowtow to the ones in Seattle that do!

Can't see any of these "protection agencies" fighting over territory. Forcing "customers" to pay. Dictating "customers" activities and movements to promote efficient "protection".
How could you as a customer be assured that they would work together to fend of a Russia or China attack or an attack from a bigger agency?
Just how in the hell wouldn't this model turn into a free for all strongest/richest survive scenario?
 
#418
#418
hog88 said:
There are hundreds of "protection agencies" with nukes? Yep, can't see anything going wrong there. The ones without nukes in VA better kowtow to the ones in Seattle that do!

Can't see any of these "protection agencies" fighting over territory. Forcing "customers" to pay. Dictating "customers" activities and movements to promote efficient "protection".
How could you as a customer be assured that they would work together to fend of a Russia or China attack or an attack from a bigger agency?
Just how in the hell wouldn't this model turn into a free for all strongest/richest survive scenario?
Click to expand...

Mutually assured destruction. It's the same incentive our governments are faced with, except businesses bear the true cost of the destruction, whereas a government does not. This improvement in incentives is what creates a society with less large-scale violence.
 
#419
#419
hog88 said:
There are hundreds of "protection agencies" with nukes? Yep, can't see anything going wrong there. The ones without nukes in VA better kowtow to the ones in Seattle that do!
Click to expand...

Nothing at all could go wrong with hundreds of private businesses owning nuclear weapons with the US.

Unless you consider the rise of a dictatorship to be "wrong".
 
#420
#420
hog88 said:
There are hundreds of "protection agencies" with nukes? Yep, can't see anything going wrong there. The ones without nukes in VA better kowtow to the ones in Seattle that do!

Can't see any of these "protection agencies" fighting over territory. Forcing "customers" to pay. Dictating "customers" activities and movements to promote efficient "protection".
How could you as a customer be assured that they would work together to fend of a Russia or China attack or an attack from a bigger agency?
Just how in the hell wouldn't this model turn into a free for all strongest/richest survive scenario?
Click to expand...

Yeah and no chance at all for one of the smaller Seattle companies to sell out to the highest bidder overseas.
 
#421
#421
What nobody seems to understand is that if you act out of turn, everybody will come after you. If the US acts out of turn, nobody is big enough to stand up to them. If company A acts out of turn, companies B-Z go after them.
 
#424
#424
PKT_VOL said:
I actually just read her introduction to objectivism (with the added published discussions) a week ago.

I thought her epistemology of concept formation to be pretty lucid and probably correct.

However, the book and the printed discussion did very little to actually address the topic of objectivism verse subjectivism. She starts off the introduction by declaring that we must trust the senses due to the stolen concept fallacy. Her exploration of the topic was unbelievably scant. Literally, only like a sentence in the entire book. Very disappointing.
Click to expand...


Interesting.

I have begun to find myself drawn to different philosophies. I've been reading and watching a lot of philosophy movies.

I watched the doc on atlas shrugged the other day. It put her philosophy more in to perspective for me.

Objectivism vs altruism.

I enjoy learning. Even ifs wrong. Lol.
 
#425
#425
Vol8188 said:
And then a foreign government owns our nuclear arsenal. Not good.
Click to expand...

They already do. Mutually assured destruction is a good thing. It leads to peace. Why do you think we only invade countries without nukes?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top