Capitalism vs. Statism

[BTGBullseye]

(if the movie Black Hawk Down is any accurate representation of an Anarchy)

Anarchy has not ever been shown accurately by any media controlled corporation.

[Michael Archer]

BTGBullseye, I'm interested to see how this society would work. Would you care to discribe an average day in the life of a person living in Anarchy?

[BTGBullseye]

BTGBullseye, I'm interested to see how this society would work. Would you care to discribe an average day in the life of a person living in Anarchy?

Depending on tech level of course...

 

1. Wake up.
   
2. Do whatever. (maybe go get food)
   
3. Eat breakfast. (stored food probly)
   
4. Do whatever. (maybe go get more food)
   
5. Eat lunch. (stored food probly)
   
6. Do whatever. (maybe go get more food)
   
7. Eat dinner. (stored food probly)
   
8. Do whatever. (maybe go get more food)
   
9. Go to bed.

 

Usual method of gathering food would be hunting, farming, or trading stuff for food.

[ProHypster]

BTGBullseye, I'm interested to see how this society would work. Would you care to discribe an average day in the life of a person living in Anarchy?

Depending on tech level of course...

 

1. Wake up.
   
2. Do whatever. (maybe go get food)
   
3. Eat breakfast. (stored food probly)
   
4. Do whatever. (maybe go get more food)
   
5. Eat lunch. (stored food probly)
   
6. Do whatever. (maybe go get more food)
   
7. Eat dinner. (stored food probly)
   
8. Do whatever. (maybe go get more food)
   
9. Go to bed.

 

Usual method of gathering food would be hunting, farming, or trading stuff for food.

 

I like it . The only downfall would be, who the hell would manufacture/invent advanced/improved technology then (Like the PC) .

 

I've thought about it after a tennis match.

 

It seems to me this life will actually be achieved when we create robots that can manufacture things for us themselves. At first we will still need a bunch of people for supervision/repairs/maintenance but after we create robots for these jobs too, that will probably the farthest the human ever went.

At that point we won't need governments/money. Then the only purpose of humans will be creating art... the only purpose I need. Of course, hopefully by that time humans develop a system against any madmen's attempts to take over the world with robots by having world defence robots.

 

In theory, this means humans will survive as long as the planet earth's climate will.

 

A problem is that if other science advancements in biology for example will be invented first, then it might be too late to practice this system as those advancements may change human life forever in a negative way.

[Michael Archer]

Depending on tech level of course...

 

1. Wake up.
   
2. Do whatever. (maybe go get food)
   
3. Eat breakfast. (stored food probly)
   
4. Do whatever. (maybe go get more food)
   
5. Eat lunch. (stored food probly)
   
6. Do whatever. (maybe go get more food)
   
7. Eat dinner. (stored food probly)
   
8. Do whatever. (maybe go get more food)
   
9. Go to bed.

 

Usual method of gathering food would be hunting, farming, or trading stuff for food.

 

Sounds good, but let's look at the implications.

 

1. No problem yet.

2. Assuming you're not initiating force, what's to stop others using force to stop you from stopping you from doing whatever?

3. Assuming you earned your food (you hunted for it, worked for it etc), what's to stop others from forcibly taking it from you?

4. Same as 2.

5. Same as 3.

6. Same as 2.

7. Same as 3.

8. Same as 2.

9. What's to stop others from taking your bed or holding you in slavery?

 

In hindsight, your response would probably be something like "private security corporations"; I would respond "you mean competing gangs." A corporation's goal is to make money; this isn't inherently a bad thing (as I've said many times) but what determines the success of the corporation is how much force they can use. The Mafia called themselves private security corporations, would extort money from stores, and would blow up the store should the store owner default on the payments; how are they any different?

 

In capitalism, the ruling principle is justice and objectivity; in anarchy, it's force. In capitalism, men peacefully compete with dollars; in anarchy, they compete with guns. A society where the only rule of law are competing security corporations means a society where force rules--and in that society:

 

When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket.

 

The thief wins over the pickpocket, the robber wins over the pickpocket, and the murderer wins over the robber.

[BTGBullseye]

Sounds good, but let's look at the implications.

 

1. No problem yet.

2. Assuming you're not initiating force, what's to stop others using force to stop you from stopping you from doing whatever?

3. Assuming you earned your food (you hunted for it, worked for it etc), what's to stop others from forcibly taking it from you?

4. Same as 2.

5. Same as 3.

6. Same as 2.

7. Same as 3.

8. Same as 2.

9. What's to stop others from taking your bed or holding you in slavery?

 

In hindsight, your response would probably be something like "private security corporations"; I would respond "you mean competing gangs." A corporation's goal is to make money; this isn't inherently a bad thing (as I've said many times) but what determines the success of the corporation is how much force they can use. The Mafia called themselves private security corporations, would extort money from stores, and would blow up the store should the store owner default on the payments; how are they any different?

 

In capitalism, the ruling principle is justice and objectivity; in anarchy, it's force. In capitalism, men peacefully compete with dollars; in anarchy, they compete with guns. A society where the only rule of law are competing security corporations means a society where force rules--and in that society:

 

When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket.

 

The thief wins over the pickpocket, the robber wins over the pickpocket, and the murderer wins over the robber.

You still seem to think of Anarchy in a way that it isn't defined. It is defined only in the fact that there is no governing system. That aforementioned 'typical day' is what I do every day here and now. Nothing significant really changes when there is no government, except that there is greater leeway for certain types of psychotic individuals.

[Michael Archer]

Nothing significant really changes when there is no government, except that there is greater leeway for certain types of psychotic individuals.

 

Wrong. In capitalism, the government is body with a monopoly on the use of force; citizens delegated their right to self-defense to the government so that they can live more peacefully. The government is bound by a constitution (very important for any government) and its ruling principles are objectivity and justice.

 

When you do those actions you described, you're protected by the government (the police). Let's say you're eating food that rightfully belongs to you and while you're doing that, some guy grabs the plate from right under your nose and takes off; a government recognizes your right to that food and makes sure the thief is punished according to objective rules and how much damage he caused you. That's justice.

 

If that were to happen in Anarchy, you would go to one of these "private defense corporations." Another problem with this is that people might make up shit. They'll say, "Hey, this guy stole my stuff! I don't have any evidence it was him, but I'll pay you $10,000 to chase after him."

 

They might investigate your case, they might not, but one thing's for sure; they will make sure that the guy that stole your food in punished swiftly and brutally. They don't care if their punishment wasn't just; they're a corporation and they made money and they made you happy. If the thief knows you're after him, he'll hire your corporation's competitor; then *bam*: you have gang warfare.

 

Anarchy is the rule of the jungle and the man who has the most force wins.

[BTGBullseye]

Wrong. In capitalism, the government is body with a monopoly on the use of force; citizens delegated their right to self-defense to the government so that they can live more peacefully. The government is bound by a constitution (very important for any government) and its ruling principles are objectivity and justice.

 

When you do those actions you described, you're protected by the government (the police). Let's say you're eating food that rightfully belongs to you and while you're doing that, some guy grabs the plate from right under your nose and takes off; a government recognizes your right to that food and makes sure the thief is punished according to objective rules and how much damage he caused you. That's justice.

 

If that were to happen in Anarchy, you would go to one of these "private defense corporations." Another problem with this is that people might make up shit. They'll say, "Hey, this guy stole my stuff! I don't have any evidence it was him, but I'll pay you $10,000 to chase after him."

 

They might investigate your case, they might not, but one thing's for sure; they will make sure that the guy that stole your food in punished swiftly and brutally. They don't care if their punishment wasn't just; they're a corporation and they made money and they made you happy. If the thief knows you're after him, he'll hire your corporation's competitor; then *bam*: you have gang warfare.

 

Anarchy is the rule of the jungle and the man who has the most force wins.

You seem to think that everyone is an asshole in waiting... Those kind of individuals are rare beyond belief in reality.

 

Besides, it's amazingly rare for a halfway intelligent crook to get caught for any crime at all in any existing governmental system.

[Michael Archer]

I agree that most people aren't assholes in waiting, but is it possible you're confusing correlation with causation? In other words, is it possible that the reason most people aren't assholes is that in our current system, is that the government subordinated society to moral law; and by corollary, "might" (force) is subordinated to "right" (justice)?

 

I think it's that we more-or-less live in a society of competition with dollars rather than a society of competition with guns, that there aren't those assholes.

 

On another note, I don't consider evil to be quantitative e.g. I don't think a murderer is morally superior to someone who commits mass genocide. Even though there are few, there are certainly at least of couple of "assholes"; to let their crimes go unpunished by any proper objective legal system is an injustice and therefore, unacceptable. Whenever there's an injustice (no matter how small) that goes uncorrected or there's not even an attempt to correct it, innocent people suffer for the crimes--and that's certainly what would happen in anarchy.

 

For your assertion that it's hard to catch a half-intellegent crook, I would argue that's a problem with the current infrastructure and tactics of the law enforcers--not the government itself. Besides, just because a system isn't perfect doesn't mean you scrap the whole thing; I believe that argument is called the Nirvana Fallacy.

[BTGBullseye]

Whenever there's an injustice (no matter how small) that goes uncorrected or there's not even an attempt to correct it, innocent people suffer for the crimes--and that's certainly what would happen in anarchy.

The problem is, it happens the same amount in all existing forms of government as it would in any form of anarchy.

 

For your assertion that it's hard to catch a half-intellegent crook, I would argue that's a problem with the current infrastructure and tactics of the law enforcers--not the government itself. Besides, just because a system isn't perfect doesn't mean you scrap the whole thing; I believe that argument is called the Nirvana Fallacy.

How about this... The only way to stop an intelligent crook is to make him become an idiot. Doesn't matter what form of government you're in.

[Michael Archer]

Because there's no objective body to administer justice, "justice" would be administered based on what is popular or profitable. The key difference between anarchy/competing police forces and capitalism/single government is that the latter holds a monopoly on the use of physical force, is strictly bound by a constitution and its key principle is justice. The mafia is not bound by any measures; they do what is profitable, even if it means hurting others.

 

In capitalism, the only body that can use force is the government. In anarchy, anyone can use force; I fail to see how anarchy would not lead to gang warfare.

[BTGBullseye]

Because there's no objective body to administer justice, "justice" would be administered based on what is popular or profitable. The key difference between anarchy/competing police forces and capitalism/single government is that the latter holds a monopoly on the use of physical force, is strictly bound by a constitution and its key principle is justice. The mafia is not bound by any measures; they do what is profitable, even if it means hurting others.

 

In capitalism, the only body that can use force is the government. In anarchy, anyone can use force; I fail to see how anarchy would not lead to gang warfare.

So you're saying that because there is a government, nobody else besides the government can use force?

 

Look, all of your negatives regarding Anarchy are already in-play with all governments... How is that supporting you stance that governments are better?

[Michael Archer]

With a government, no one else is legally allowed to use force with some really extreme exceptions e.g. self-defense. Even with self-defense laws, they're extremely strict (rightfully so) and a lot of people use them improperly. Even with the government, the initiation of force by anyone is illegal; this means that the government may only use retaliatory force against those who initiate it.

 

With Anarchy, the initiation of force is legal--and arguably, expected. In capitalism, it's banned from all relationships. Governments are (well...they should be and under capitalism, they certainly would be) bound by a very strong constitution and are not allowed to initiate force. Any other kind of force agency (such as anarchy's private defense agencies) are not bound by anything and are allowed to do anything they want.

[BTGBullseye]

With a government, no one else is legally allowed to use force with some really extreme exceptions e.g. self-defense. Even with self-defense laws, they're extremely strict (rightfully so) and a lot of people use them improperly. Even with the government, the initiation of force by anyone is illegal; this means that the government may only use retaliatory force against those who initiate it.

 

With Anarchy, the initiation of force is legal--and arguably, expected. In capitalism, it's banned from all relationships. Governments are (well...they should be and under capitalism, they certainly would be) bound by a very strong constitution and are not allowed to initiate force. Any other kind of force agency (such as anarchy's private defense agencies) are not bound by anything and are allowed to do anything they want.

You're looking at the ideal of a government, and the worst case scenario of Anarchy, then comparing...

[Michael Archer]

Yes: I am talking about a capitalist government, which is the ideal government. In anarchy, what I described is permissible, given that the majority or person who uses the most amount of force agrees. In capitalism, that's never justifiable under any circumstances.

 

I never actually mentioned any kind of scenario in my last post; I just said the initiation of force is permissible in anarchy. Because I think initiating force is immoral under any circumstances, my view is not compatible with anarchy. In capitalism, the initiation of force is never allowed; it goes hand-in-hand with my belief system.

[Lux Arbuckle]

With Anarchy, the initiation of force is legal--and arguably, expected.

 

This sentence alone tells me you have no idea what you're talking about, so I'm just going to skip this entire debate and do something else.

[Michael Archer]

Were you confused by my use of the word "legal"? Sorry, I meant to say that since there are no laws, anyone can initiate force.

[BTGBullseye]

Were you confused by my use of the word "legal"? Sorry, I meant to say that since there are no laws, anyone can initiate force.

Who ever said anything about no laws? There is merely no government. Government =/= Law.

[Michael Archer]

Alright, I'll bite: who makes the laws?

 

I would think the laws in anarchy would be the whims of whoever could use the most force. Are you saying that the ruling principle of anarchy is not force? If there's no government (i.e. and body that only uses objective, retaliatory force), anyone can initiate force whenever they please. Force is the opposite of reason, so your assertion that you're a "Rational Anarchist" is a contradiction; the mind cannot operate under the barrel of a gun.

[BTGBullseye]

As you say, people don't operate outside of reason, but reason differs between different people.

 

As for who makes the laws in an anarchy, the people do. It's called social order.