Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've actually been thinking that I want to learn more about this thing you and Rebeldor feel so strongly about.
From what little I know, it just seems like something that can never happen here.
What are some good sources to learn more from?
From what I understand, Libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are related to each other. I was recommended a book on anarcho-capitalism by an anarcho-capitalist on this website. It's called "The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to Radical Capitalism" by David Friedman. Friedman wants to make a nation that's sustained through charity and private enterprise rather than taxation.
I bought it. I've only read about a fifth of it. It's not particularly entertaining, but I think it's a good book. It's honest. I was concerned it was going to be propaganda...but it's not. It's just explanations of how an anarcho-capitalist nation might do things that modern governments do now. I recommend it to anyone who wants to learn about anarcho-capitalism. He does make some valid points and valid criticisms of big government and I learned some things.
I think you have to be very optimistic about human nature to be an anarcho-capitalist, and that optimism makes me want to see such governments succeed. I might envision a small group of ultra-patriotic people who are proud of their nation and of each other and are constantly thinking of the bigger picture.
I would never want an anacho-capitalist style nation for any large nation though. If I live in a small nation, I can buy from Jeb rather than Pete because I know Pete dumps toxic waste in the river, because Pete lives three blocks away. In a large nation though, everything becomes more faceless and I'm going to understand the mechanics of everything less, so my buying from the "good guys" will do less good, so I'm going to focus more on me rather than my nation. So, I would see large anarcho-capitalisms as probably becoming very greedy, social-Darwinism-driven places.
Libertarians used to be a workers movement that was against corporate and state rule over the individual. Sadly, the right wing capitalists turned into into another laissez-faire corporate run state that they call 'freedom'.
That's when the transition to 'religion' occurred, when the self-named 'disciples' of the Austrian economists, & of Ayn Rand, & Milton Friedman et al turned to worshipping their idols, self-made gods, et cetera:
The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits
By Milton Friedman The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970. Copyright @ 1970 by The New York Times Company.
Rose isn't very bright or he would have realized this is not a useful experiment because he was in the middle of it, observing, and people are always going to be on their "best behavior" because they think they are being measured against a moral or legal standard. Even when told they are not, its very hard for them to break conditioning.
Haven't you ever read Lord of the Flies? That's a more realistic outcome.
If Rose only saw cooperation its because there were no bad actors, or the experiment didn't run long enough for them to assess and weigh their opportunities. Which is what ALL people will rationally do. They will try to cooperate because they don't know if confrontation is advisable until they know more about the capabilities and resources of others, or how the "politics" or "allegiances" will shake out.
I hate reality TV as much as I can possibly detest any human invention, and yet, if you watch any of these format of shows (Big Brother, Survivor, Housemates etc), you will see exactly that same dynamic.
Once the bad actors feel comfortable, they will start to do what they always do.
Either it's many years since you read LotF or you've never read it. Firstly its fiction and a counterpoint to Ballantynes The Coral Island (where European and Christian values are shown as superior to fictionalized Polynesian values). They form a triumvirate government, Ralph is supreme ruler (elected without the votes if the choir led by Jack), Jack is subordinate and rules the choir who develop into the hunters and Simon is the third, who when not off hallucinating cares for the smaller boys. It's a centralized government, with a disenfranchised group (the choir), and passive populace (they are kids after all) reliant on being told what to do. It even has a lobbiest (Piggy) who is unfortunately killed (which being a lobbiest may be adequate punishment).
Reality shows have three issues. It's for a known finite period, there is a definitive winner, and the concept provokes conflict by various menial tasks with rewards for the one who achieves arbitrary conditions first. They're an object lesson in game theory, where initial conditions are critical to outcome, and the scenario is constrained to a limited outcome set.
While Rose social experiment could have been less invasive, the surprising thing is that when experiments have been conducted with appointed authorities invariably they have to terminate early because of abuse of authority by the appointees (like the Stanford University Experiment). So if you want to compare go right ahead, but remember if we compare statism to social experiments, we're looking at a couple of weeks before abuses lead to life threatening levels forcing the end of the experiment.
Bad actors exist in reality, how a group deals with those bad actors is the issue. State based governance has its means, stateless based governance has its own means. Bad actors are agnostic to the form of governance, so irrelevant to the discussion.
Rose isn't very bright or he would have realized this is not a useful experiment because he was in the middle of it, observing, and people are always going to be on their "best behavior" because they think they are being measured against a moral or legal standard. Even when told they are not, its very hard for them to break conditioning.
Haven't you ever read Lord of the Flies? That's a more realistic outcome.
If Rose only saw cooperation its because there were no bad actors, or the experiment didn't run long enough for them to assess and weigh their opportunities. Which is what ALL people will rationally do. They will try to cooperate because they don't know if confrontation is advisable until they know more about the capabilities and resources of others, or how the "politics" or "allegiances" will shake out.
I hate reality TV as much as I can possibly detest any human invention, and yet, if you watch any of these format of shows (Big Brother, Survivor, Housemates etc), you will see exactly that same dynamic.
Once the bad actors feel comfortable, they will start to do what they always do.
Larken Rose is best known for his 'when to shoot a cop' video ~ it's his own 'reality show' including the fanatical disciple audience members.
That's when the transition to 'religion' occurred, when the self-named 'disciples' of the Austrian economists, & of Ayn Rand, & Milton Friedman et al turned to worshipping their idols, self-made gods, et cetera:
The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits
By Milton Friedman The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970. Copyright @ 1970 by The New York Times Company.
Somewhere along the line they were convinced you need private control over capital in order to have freedom. Sadly such a system is only a formula for more slavery.
Larken Rose is best known for his 'when to shoot a cop' video ~ it's his own 'reality show' including the fanatical disciple audience members.
I think it illustrates the hypocrisy of the current state. People should know when the police are outside of their duties and acting exactly like those they're meant to protect us against. Don't you think that under certain circumstances there is a need to defend yourself against the police? Don't you think that people should be advised what that limit is? If not why not?
Or do you think that if the police break in at 3:00am without warrant or cause, rape your spouse and daughters, tie up and physically abuse the men, steal your valuables and leave, that you have no right to defend yourself? If you think you have a right to defend yourself then don't you think knowing the line is is a good thing? Or do you think the police are infallible and incorruptible? There's millions of articles on police corruption, crimes, and good old incompetence enough to prove they're neither infallible nor incorruptible and certainly not completely competent.
If you actually believe this, you know exactly nothing about libertarian thought whatsoever, and debating with you is a complete waste of effort on par with trying to teach trigonometry to my cats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
But while it's recognized that the right to discriminate (as does the constitution I'll add, right to free association) exists. It limits the impact by eliminating the tools to cause serious harm by that right. So your neighbor doesn't like your color, or religion, or whatever. There's no one to petition to drive you out of your property using various legal and political subterfuges.
Under minarchist/anarchist governance your neighbor can try to drive you out with a shotgun, and you'd be well within your rights to shoot him dead. He would be the one acting against the core principles, thus committing criminal acts if he causes harm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
Everyone has property rights by natural law. Property rights include the right to discriminate for any reason.
Libertarianism precludes discriminatory laws from being passed; since the State cannot own property it has no right to discriminate.
In today's modern society, with instantaneous social media coverage, any business that discriminates against certain people won't be in business long--the free market will ensure of that.
I think it is interesting that all of you overlooked the fact that the majority (i.e. the collective) historically discriminates en masse against the minority.
How is a minority to shoot dead someone when they are mobbed in an anarcho-libertarian society? They will be overwhelmed and killed.
Again, to me this is your naivete. We have historic reference for this here in America.
If you support the idea that people can be deemed subhuman, and a majority of people believe a minority are subhuman and should be discriminated against - because they reason that they are not included in the principle of non-aggression, then there is no way for that minority to do anything to right the wrongs committed against them.
Libertarianism in this manner is basically mob rule. T1030E actually alluded to a mob rule scenario in his/her response to my comments initially about the fact that you get together a group to "defend" what you see is your right. If you view your right to discriminate, humans will and have historically gotten others to go along with them, which has historically occurred in this country outside the confines of government - they are just be a mob out lynching people and not respecting their rights.
I think often that many Libertarians view the role of government outside the influence of human.
Government/state is not a living, breathing beast - it is made up of the people who create it and who work within it to get what they want.
A free market system is the same - it is made up of the people who create it and who work within it to get what they want.
People are the key, which is why I stated that you are overlooking human nature. "Government/state" by itself does nothing to no one because it is not a living, breathing, thing. It is a concept, an idea, and a process put in place by us living, breathing beings.
All people have discriminatory views BTW. I only speak of this nation because I am more aware of this nation's history than others. However the Rwanda genocide also comes to mind in that there were two tribes - Tutsis and Hutus. Their government did not tell them to go out and kill each other. They did because of their discriminatory views and because of the influence of media. The Hutus got a group together to defend what they felt was their rights to their country and they ended up causing nearly half a million people to be killed. This is human nature to an extreme, but it is human nature and these things occur because, as I noted, people are not apt to think all the time. They hear some spiel and 1/16th of that spiel sounds good so they go along with it and they have the potential to wreck havoc on their society and government is usually not involved nor does it sanction or make these people go out and wreck their havoc.
As someone who is descended from people who were historically oppressed for no reason other than the majority deciding that they were subhuman, and then said majority creating a government to codify their beliefs - I know for a fact that government doesn't make people discriminate. It is the fact that all people have discriminatory views. I can accept that they do, but I cannot accept them having a "right" to discriminate against other people based on an arbitrary reason because those actions can cause a loss of life and property.
In regards to "shooting dead" someone who tries to take your property. You'd be hard pressed to survive when a mob of people come to take your property and there is little old you with a shot gun. You'd be dead and they'd have your property and your surviving friends/family members would have no recourse. Note this sort of scenario has been repeated multiple times in our own country's history in regards to the black population.
In regards to "shooting dead" someone who tries to take your property. You'd be hard pressed to survive when a mob of people come to take your property and there is little old you with a shot gun. You'd be dead and they'd have your property and your surviving friends/family members would have no recourse. Note this sort of scenario has been repeated multiple times in our own country's history in regards to the black population.
Will further note on the last paragraph of my post above, that you all may say "but government let them."
Government did not tell people to go lynch blacks in this country. Government officials (the people) overlooked it because they felt that people had a "right" to their discriminatory views and actions when the those people felt that a "wrong" had been committed against them.
The wrong was usually some fabricated crime. It was also often that blacks were not "staying in their place" of poverty and desperation. If they created a successful business they were often lynched and their property stolen by the mob because the whites felt it was only their "right" to be successful.
Government has nothing to do with this sort of thing. However, government as a process can be used to right the wrongs of discrimination. It is not a beast, as noted, it is a set or processes and procedures. The civil rights movement of the late 19th through the 20th century was a movement by blacks and allies to give all citizens access to government. During that time period government only protected white people and not blacks. Blacks lived in your anarcho-libertarian fantasy and so were under the whim of people who felt it was their "right" to discriminate against them. Even when they murdered black people, they were not jailed or punished in most cases prior to 1970 and murder was actually against the law. However, black people were not seen as people equal to whites. Government in the 20th century did not state a difference between murder victims based on perpetrators of homicide, yet people decided outside the confines of the government, that black lives (not to be cliche) were not as valuable as white lives. Will note that this is still a pervasive idea in our society. The fact that this very forum has a multitude of threads right now that allude to the views that people have of all black people being worse than other people. Threads are often started here about the idea that there are different "races" and breeds of people in an effort to rationalize discrimination based on means and averages of various subjects (crime, wealth, intelligence, etc.). I can agree people have a right to discriminatory views; however I do not believe they have a right to discriminatory actions and that there must be a method of stopping people from actively discriminating against others because it does cause a harm to the focus of the discrimination. I think most of you have no understanding of this fact or you do but you attempt to reason away the fact that people act on their discriminatory views and that a majority of a population usually shares the same discriminatory views as their peers. The collective that you denigrate is usually people like yourself who hold your same views/ideas in regards to discrimination and you will protect their ideas and actions over a minority because of this (you will join the mob).
So for me, I don't understand how you would all address the fact that a majority of a society WILL discriminate. That is always the case. And if that majority has a right to discriminate in a society devoid of defined codes and a means to seek redress for all people, then how is a minority to defend themselves. It was hard enough for blacks to do it in a place with laws and codes. Without them, it would be impossible for a minority to do.
Again, I think you all have a view of this from a position not based in reality or the history of humanity. You think people will just work it out or they will all agree on non-aggression, on what a "human" is on the idea that all humans are the same. You think that when people are discriminated against by a business that the business will cease to operate or fold (which is an hilarious idea to me considering how many businesses to this day get overwhelming support when they discriminate against people - I actually know a restaurant in GA that posts racist billboards every week and they have been in business over 30 years and have an intense customer base).
Everyone doesn't look down on discriminating against people or people being racist. Many people like it when the people they don't like are discriminated against and they actively encourage other people to discriminate against them and they all support each other to the detriment of those who are their victims a lot of the time and especially in the not too distant past.
Last edited by residinghere2007; 04-18-2018 at 07:36 AM..
Larken Rose is best known for his 'when to shoot a cop' video ~ it's his own 'reality show' including the fanatical disciple audience members.
Actually he's known more for presenting a clear and concise case in his defense against the Feds after being charged with tax evasion. He used what is known as the "861 argument" in regards to paying federal income taxes. Basically he argued that you only have to pay fed income tax on income earned from foreign sources as spelled out in the Constitution. Income earned domestically is not taxable. And he's right...you know...if you want to play along with the State's little game.
Rose knew he would lose and go to prison but if you study his case, and I know you have , it's the perfect example of the following:
No matter how much you are in the right, no matter how well you use the State's logic and rules in defense against it the State will act in its own interests and use its monopoly of force to deal with you...PERIOD
This wasn't a case of Rose believing in those rules, laws or the Constitution. He's an anarchist. He doesn't believe in such fiction. He only wanted to demonstrate how the State will simply bend, break, change its own rules when you have crossed it.
Will further note on the last paragraph of my post above, that you all may say "but government let them."
Government did not tell people to go lynch blacks in this country. Government officials (the people) overlooked it because they felt that people had a "right" to their discriminatory views and actions when the those people felt that a "wrong" had been committed against them.
The wrong was usually some fabricated crime. It was also often that blacks were not "staying in their place" of poverty and desperation. If they created a successful business they were often lynched and their property stolen by the mob because the whites felt it was only their "right" to be successful.
Government has nothing to do with this sort of thing. However, government as a process can be used to right the wrongs of discrimination. It is not a beast, as noted, it is a set or processes and procedures. The civil rights movement of the late 19th through the 20th century was a movement by blacks and allies to give all citizens access to government,
So for me, I don't understand how you would all address the fact that a majority of a society WILL discriminate. That is always the case. And if that majority has a right to discriminate in a society devoid of defined codes and a means to seek redress for all people, then how is a minority to defend themselves. It was hard enough for blacks to do it in a place with laws and codes. Without them, it would be impossible for a minority to do.
Again, I think you all have a view of this from a position not based in reality or the history of humanity. You think people will just work it out or they will all agree on non-aggression, on what a "human" is on the idea that all humans are the same. You think that when people are discriminated against by a business that the business will cease to operate or fold (which is an hilarious idea to me considering how many businesses to this day get overwhelming support when they discriminate against people - I actually know a restaurant in GA that posts racist billboards every week and they have been in business over 30 years and have an intense customer base).
Everyone doesn't look down on discriminating against people or people being racist. Many people like it when the people they don't like are discriminated against and they actively encourage other people to discriminate against them and they all support each other to the detriment of those who are their victims a lot of the time and especially in the not too distant past.
You're actually wrong. White people have no natural desire to lynch black people. The government and private industries fostered an environment where it could happen; racism was a great deterrent for them against an anti-capitalist movement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, it's the perfect example of the following:
