The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

#651
#651
n_huffhines said:
It's funny cause that's why I reject government. People are mostly good, but the few bad seeds are dangerous and government puts those dangerous people in positions of power. So do businesses, but they don't have a monopoly on force and markets do a much better job of purging bad seeds than government does.
Click to expand...

Honestly the reason I've primarily stayed out of this thread is that I didn't see much hope of us reconciling this basic conflict; you have more faith in people being able to, by the millions and across huge swaths of property and resources (not to mention cultural, religious and ethnic differences) peacefully exist in the modern world under your ANCAP idea than I.
 
Last edited:
#652
#652
n_huffhines said:
If you think that, why do you oppose it? Funny that you would say it's the same and call the ancap equivalent of cops "thugs".

The voluntary choice is in the act of taking on the debt. With taxes I have no choice.
Click to expand...

Okay, so what kind of controls would An-Cap put on these security companies? And face the fact that any company that will enforce civil contracts with armed force can quickly get out of control. Especially when all I have to do is pay them more than you do.

So yes, the thug label works since they can (and likely will) be more susceptible to doing the bidding of who pays them the most. I like you Huff. But I've dealt with far too many people that won't act on good faith when they are motivated by greed.
 
#653
#653
Grand Vol said:
Okay, so what kind of controls would An-Cap put on these security companies? And face the fact that any company that will enforce civil contracts with armed force can quickly get out of control. Especially when all I have to do is pay them more than you do.

So yes, the thug label works since they can (and likely will) be more susceptible to doing the bidding of who pays them the most. I like you Huff. But I've dealt with far too many people that won't act on good faith when they are motivated by greed.
Click to expand...

When The Queen proclaims one King and the King's Hand proclaims another, whose peace do the Goldcloaks protect? Who do they follow? The man who pays them.
Click to expand...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHe7MzNWHTo
 
#654
#654
Grand Vol said:
Okay, so what kind of controls would An-Cap put on these security companies? And face the fact that any company that will enforce civil contracts with armed force can quickly get out of control. Especially when all I have to do is pay them more than you do.

So yes, the thug label works since they can (and likely will) be more susceptible to doing the bidding of who pays them the most. I like you Huff. But I've dealt with far too many people that won't act on good faith when they are motivated by greed.
Click to expand...

We can't have this conversation because we disagree on that point.
 
#655
#655
n_huffhines said:
The best argument against ancap is that it could devolve into government.

Honestly there is little use in arguing anything at this point. In theory, ancap works because security firms will not maximize profit if they show favoritism to the highest bidder. Almost every argument against Ancap made here is contingent on agencies showing favoritism.

You either accept that companies care about long term profitability and thus will behave or you reject it.
Click to expand...

Please name one business that doesn't show favoritism to their highest paying customers?
 
#656
#656
hog88 said:
Please name one business that doesn't show favoritism to their highest paying customers?
Click to expand...

Every business offers better service to people who pay more. What you are arguing is that they would show favoritism at the expense of another customer. If I have a first-class seat on a flight, and they boot me to coach because Warren Buffet offers them more than what I paid, I'm going to slaughter them on social media. Warren Buffet will get slaughtered too. They want good reputations, so they're not likely to do that.

When your whole business is contingent on protecting your customers, you really can't get away with showing favoritism at the expense of another.
 
#658
#658
n_huffhines said:
Every business offers better service to people who pay more. What you are arguing is that they would show favoritism at the expense of another customer. If I have a first-class seat on a flight, and they boot me to coach because Warren Buffet offers them more than what I paid, I'm going to slaughter them on social media. Warren Buffet will get slaughtered too. They want good reputations, so they're not likely to do that.

When your whole business is contingent on protecting your customers, you really can't get away with showing favoritism at the expense of another.
Click to expand...

Yes you can.

Plus if you think WB gives a flip what you say about him on social media, get out of the basement. Not to mention with no constitutional protection of free speech why wouldn't he just have his firm shut you up?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#662
#662
n_huffhines said:
Your protection agency is not going to risk their business for 1 customer.

Death is worse than breach of contract. It's also a made up scenario. We live in a reality where death is acceptable if someone sells loose cigarettes. What is So terrifying about a system where people actually pay their debts?
Click to expand...

I'm independently wealthy. I can hire an exclusive group of guys to work for me that will answer to me, and me only. They don't give a rat's azz about your contract and whether or not it is just or fair. You are assuming that everyone will be law abiding under your little utopia, and human nature will not bear that out... ever. And you still didn't answer my question as to what would happen if I refused to work in your concentration camp.

And your comparisons to the idiot in Ferguson is a red herring.
 
#663
#663
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Yeah, you own yourself but you don't have a right to someone else's labor/property. If you make a contract with someone, that obligates you to pay. That's basic.
Click to expand...

It does "obligate" you to pay, but how you gonna make me in your little world?
 
#664
#664
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I particularly couldn't care less what you, or anyone else believes. But, the current system you advocate for is a system of violence that only knows one thing, force.
Click to expand...

Deflection from the question.
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I'll ask you a question,

Can someone delegate to someone else a right that he himself didn't have to begin with? Or, to put it another way, if someone does NOT have the moral right to commit a certain act, can he give someone ELSE the moral right to commit that act?
Click to expand...

First tell me if you stopped beating your wife.

But to play on, no you cannot. Therefore, your protection agencies have no right to place me in your debtors work camp.
 
#665
#665
Grand Vol said:
OT, but is that series worth watching?

I hear good things, but haven't ever started it.
Click to expand...

Eh, it's like most anything of that sort. If you "like" that kind of story telling then it's almost universally loved. One aspect is that it pretty much kicks the trend of knowing how things are going to work out with a character just because of their status on the show to the curb. The story rolls along and, as in the real world, nobody is safe.

And to keep it OT I really do think the "who pays you" part, and how to get more of same, is a very real issue of human nature that gets an awful lot of "best case scenario" love in ANCAP theory.
 
#666
#666
hndog609 said:
And to keep it OT I really do think the "who pays you" part, and how to get more of same, is a very real issue of human nature that gets an awful lot of "best case scenario" love in ANCAP theory.
Click to expand...

Most governments in the "best case scenario" are outstanding and tend to work. But when you factor in the human element everything goes to crap. Adding the seven deadly sins to the mix and you end up with a governmental system that will slip into tyranny as the motives will eventually take over the good graces of the people. The strong will get stronger and the weak will end up becoming oppressed. And if allowed to slip, especially with the addition of these security companies, it can turn feudal very quickly.

You have to remove the basic human nature in order for this to work. I'm not saying it won't work, but the human element cannot be ignored.
 
#667
#667
And I just noticed the post #

Interesting to be speaking of the seven deadly sins in that post lol
 
#671
#671
SpaceCoastVol said:
I'm independently wealthy. I can hire an exclusive group of guys to work for me that will answer to me, and me only. They don't give a rat's azz about your contract and whether or not it is just or fair. You are assuming that everyone will be law abiding under your little utopia, and human nature will not bear that out... ever. And you still didn't answer my question as to what would happen if I refused to work in your concentration camp.

And your comparisons to the idiot in Ferguson is a red herring.
Click to expand...

My protection agency can crush your small platoon. It's no contest. Nobody is rich enough to misbehave and then go head to head with a protection agency.
 
#672
#672
n_huffhines said:
My protection agency can crush your small platoon. It's no contest. Nobody is rich enough to misbehave and then go head to head with a protection agency.
Click to expand...

Then wouldn't that mean your protection agency is rich enough to misbehave?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#673
#673
n_huffhines said:
My protection agency can crush your small platoon. It's no contest. Nobody is rich enough to misbehave and then go head to head with a protection agency.
Click to expand...

so basically what you want to see is a return to feudalism. Where each property owner is a fief and each little fiefdom is protected by mercenaries.

Brilliant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#674
#674
hog88 said:
Then wouldn't that mean your protection agency is rich enough to misbehave?
Click to expand...

They aren't richer than all the other protection agencies. They all keep each other in line because of the idea of separation of powers.

The more the power is separated, the harder it is to consolidate.
 
#675
#675
MG1968 said:
so basically what you want to see is a return to feudalism. Where each property owner is a fief and each little fiefdom is protected by mercenaries.

Brilliant.
Click to expand...

It's vastly different because the system you are talking about is based on geography and subservience.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top