Author Topic: Anarcho-Capitalism Pros-Cons | Split from "16 concerned scientists... "  (Read 3118 times)

ThinkAnarchy

  • Free of Childhood Neuroses
  • ***
  • Posts: 845
  • Gender: Male
Re: Libertarianism Pro and Con | Split from "16 concerned scientists... "
« Reply #30 on: February 05, 2012, 06:33:04 AM »
As much as I realize continuing this conversation will probably be an exercise in futility for me, I can't help but point out some of the arguments you made that I found particularly weak. You have this idealized fantasy about how the free market would just make everything work great, which is just that; a fantasy.
I usually can't help myself in that regard either.

I have some free time today, so I will try and respond to everyone who has posted here. If I don't get to you today, I apologize.

Perhaps you are correct, but that could be due to the fact people feel the government will protect them from foolish purchases. Perhaps that mentality would prevail if Big Brother wasn't there to "protect" us.
Quote
"Perhaps" means you're just guessing. And that's not what happened before the Pure Food and Drug Act or the FDA existed.
Yes, I can't know for sure how everything would play out under anarcho-capitalism and I never claimed I could.

Quote
I can't give any logical reasons whatsoever for most of the things I buy. I don't research and see who is partnered with who, what kind of certifications they have, where they are outsourcing, etc etc.
Quote
This is a valid concern. It is sometimes very difficult to track down the parent company of subsidiary. Perhaps there is a market for a site that streamlines it; making it easier for consumers to discover who is actually in control of a company.
Quote
And who exactly is going to pay for this? It doesn't sound like a very profitable market. How do you ensure a company that supposedly tests our food and drugs is not just paid off by the companies it's supposed to check, especially if it's not illegal to do so under your system of government?
I think you may have quoted the incorrect portion here. The website I mentioned in your quote would likely be funded by advertising revenue as review sites like UrbanSpoon currently are.

As for food and drug certification companies, they would likely be hired by the business. If they did not fairly evaluate products, they would lose their credibility with the consumer, making their certification program useless.

Quote
Another problem is that the business has to screw up before the market can decide to do something about it.
Quote
As it should be. How can something be fixed before a problem is discovered. With machinery you can usually spot a problem before someone looses an arm because of it. The economy is not the same kind of beast. Failure and mistakes are what send signals to the economy allowing it to repair itself.

Quote
You answer is incorrect. Food gets tested before it reaches our groceries to ensure it won't poison us. Drugs are tested on a trial basis to ensure they're safe for mass consumption before releasing them to the public.
The portions you quoted were not about food and drugs, but thats ok. There is no reason the private sector could not provide that service if people felt there were a need for it. The current system isn't that great as is, particularly in regards to testing drugs, as I've mention previously in this thread.

Quote
Cars undergo safety tests before being allowed onto the road. That's how you discover a problem before it's fixed; by testing beforehand, just like that machine.
My point was you can't compare the economy to piece of machinery. The market signals problems after they happen in order for them to be rectified. You can predict swings and the like, but you can't fix a problem before it arises. Typically when ever the government attempts to fix an economic problem they make things worse.

Quote
And I certainly don't have the means to hire a bunch of testers or the knowledge to know what to test for. You advocate that either I risk my life by just trying that product anyway and hoping for the best, or look for some company to do the testing. But again, how many companies are going to invest in something like that? What if there is no market? Or the companies do a crappy job of testing because they want to make a profit? Something like this should not be for-profit because consumer safety is not the priority there.

When your entire business is based around ensuring the safety of the consumer, consumer safety would be the top priority. You are also twisting what I have previously said. I said I take calculated risks on some products I haven't researched, meaning a $10 pair of headphones. If nothing else I've urged people to educate themselves prior to making a purchase...

Regardless, as I've said, the businesses with the product would hire the certification companies. If the certification companies to not effectively test the products and the consumer is not happy, their credibility will go down. Hence, it's no longer beneficial for other people to hire that certification company.

Also, if there isn't a market for it, it isn't needed. Consumer's like buying products that are certified however, so I'm sure that market won't evaporate.

Quote
By the way, as far as your Hurricane Katrina example goes, that was an example of the federal government not doing enough to help. And the rescue and recovery effort was a failure thanks to that lack of action. Hundreds died needlessly because no one was in charge. What market/economy is going to save their lives? Contrast that with the recovery efforts after the tornadoes in Joplin, MO where the government stepped in immediately and saved lives.
Fire rescue, security, mercenary firms, etc would likely donate personel and other support. It would be good PR. I can't say for certain what will happen since it hasn't happened yet, but as you pointed out, I doubt they could do any worse the U.S. government during Katrina.

Quote
I see no reason why nurses or self educated people can't preform simple procedures, consultations, and check-ups. Would they be as qualified? No. Would their prices be much lower? Yes. Would there be a market for review sites like yelp in regard to these doctors? Most likely, yes. If not I would create one and likely make a bit of extra money.
Quote
Because I'd like to make sure my doctor actually knows what the hell he/she is doing before they draw blood from me. Even something as simple as that can cause infections, and if they re-use needles (which would be allowed under your system since there are no regulations) then I'm at risk for HIV/AIDS. No thank you.

We are adults and should be allowed to weigh the risks for ourselves. Also if a doctor were to transfer HIV through dirty needles or other means, there would still be private courts to handle that situation. We should also be responsible enough to check their certifications if that matters to us.  

Quote
Also, the FDA and the rest still aren't effective. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/02/01/mcdonalds-announces-end-to-pink-slime-in-burgers/
The state spends tax payer money on this and it still doesn't prevent gross and disturbing practices by some businesses.
Please explain when the FDA should receive more funding and what would be done differently once they do. If it's anything like public schooling, nothing will change. With schooling, their budgets have increased, yet they still underperform when compared to private schools.
Quote
Things were much, much worse before the FDA existed. Look up the Mascara Lash Lure or the diptheria toxin from a horse named Jim. These kinds of things do not happen nearly as much now thanks to the FDA and required testing. That's why increased testing is important. Read http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/opinion/29schlosser.html as well

Again, I'm simply arguing the private sector could do a better regard in this regard. People want to know there food is safe and would likely purchase food that has undergone safety inspections. If the company did not effectively do their job and someone got seriously ill, they would be sued. Good luck suing the FDA when something get's past them.
Quote
As for the low income, there would still be charity. There would likely be more of it since the productive portions of society were able to keep more of their income outright.
Quote
Oh really? Where's your proof of that? Who's going to pay for that? Doesn't seem like an ideal market for most companies.
People already give to charity. If they had more income, it seems logical they would donate more of their disposable income. I'm talking about individual charity here...

Quote
People do not have a "right" to purchase your goods or enter your property. Simply because you are offering a service or good, does not mean you should be required to offer that service to anyone...There is also not a this clear difference between business and home. Many individuals operate their business from their home. Assuming Whitney runs this site from her home office, am I automatically granted the right to barge into her home office to list any grievances I have? Does she have a right to bar me from her property because I'm a nuisance?

Quote
First off, that's a false equivalence, since this site is not a business. But let's say it is. You're still not making sense. No, you would not be allowed to barge into someone's office just because they offer you a service, but if they're offering a service to the public, they can't deny you that service based on their color, gender, etc.
Fair enough, but a business should still be allowed to deny service based on private property rights. You shouldn't be required to offer your services to anyone who wants them, seeing as you would only be making money off the customers you allow into your establishment.

Quote
Ah yes, I'm not empathetic because I think the government should stop handing out stolen money to the unproductive and uneducated portions of society. When in all actuality I have quite a bit of empathy. I feel sorry for inner-city minorities because their future is tied up in a government controlled school system that doesn't care if they can read, do simple arithmetic, or tell the difference between a square and a circle.
Quote
Doesn't this argue for increased funding and oversight of public education to ensure those "inner-city minorities" get a good education? By the way, I love how you imply everyone who lives in the inner city is an uneducated minority. I also have never seen proof that private schools provide a better education than public schools. Post some statistics if you disagree.
No it does not argue for increased funding, it calls for the elimination of public schooling. Also, I did not imply everyone in the innercity is a minority, but I said that because we were on the subject of the civil rights act. Nice try though.

Quote
Anyway...feel free to respond if you wish, but I'm not going to post anymore on this, because I don't think it will go anywhere. You essentially admitted "not everything" would get better under anarchy and never showed me a real example of where your philosophy actually works, which was the point; there is none. You've also answered that you do indeed feel it's fine for business to discriminate and to leave everything to the free market. I think that's wrong. At this point, it's obvious we're never going to agree.
My philosophy is in its infancy still. Simply because it has not been allowed to be implemented in no way disproves it's effectiveness. I have also said my ideal system would not be a Utopia. If that is what you need, you're never going to find it. I have also already provided one example of an autonomous community functioning, but to find something inline with my philosophy is impossible. But again, that does not mean anarcho-capitalism wouldn't work.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2012, 06:36:21 AM by ThinkAnarchy »
"He that displays too often his wife and his wallet is in danger of having both of them borrowed." -Ben Franklin

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -credited to Franklin, but not sure.

Recusant

  • Miscreant Erendrake
  • Administrator
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 5635
  • Gender: Male
  • infidel barbarian
Re: Anarcho-Capitalism Pros-Cons | Split from "16 concerned scientists... "
« Reply #31 on: February 05, 2012, 11:48:01 AM »
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post, ThinkAnarchy. I have no interest right now in discussing your imaginary future in which the world or any particular country is directly controlled by corporations, however. Things are bad enough as they are but I think that your ideas, if implemented, would result in a very ugly dystopia. Rather than Orwell's "boot stomping a human face," I think that your vision would result in "many, many boots stomping a human face." Corporations are interested in only one type of liberty: the liberty to make ever greater profits. The world seems to be heading in that direction, and you may live long enough to see parts of your vision realized.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2012, 11:56:38 AM by Recusant »
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


ThinkAnarchy

  • Free of Childhood Neuroses
  • ***
  • Posts: 845
  • Gender: Male
Re: Anarcho-Capitalism Pros-Cons | Split from "16 concerned scientists... "
« Reply #32 on: February 06, 2012, 01:11:03 AM »
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post, ThinkAnarchy. I have no interest right now in discussing your imaginary future in which the world or any particular country is directly controlled by corporations, however. Things are bad enough as they are but I think that your ideas, if implemented, would result in a very ugly dystopia. Rather than Orwell's "boot stomping a human face," I think that your vision would result in "many, many boots stomping a human face." Corporations are interested in only one type of liberty: the liberty to make ever greater profits. The world seems to be heading in that direction, and you may live long enough to see parts of your vision realized.

No problem, I will simply end with this. Corporations are primarily driven by making a profit, but that isn't a bad thing. If we had business without government, they would actually be accountable to the consumer. Today they can lose millions and screw up royally, only to get bailed out by their friends in Washington.
"He that displays too often his wife and his wallet is in danger of having both of them borrowed." -Ben Franklin

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -credited to Franklin, but not sure.

NatsuTerran

  • Made of Star Stuff
  • *
  • Posts: 72
  • Gender: Male
Re: Anarcho-Capitalism Pros-Cons | Split from "16 concerned scientists... "
« Reply #33 on: February 07, 2012, 09:46:51 PM »
Oh wow, I had no idea this turned into its own thread. Anyways, I've been busy with things (like spending hours on end researching to see if my burrito would poison me), and I thought I'd give a final word. I have no intent to respond to Anarchy's points in regard to my mammoth post. In short, because I've heard it all before. It's all stuff that would have come straight out of my dad's mouth. Heck, I could have probably done a point-by-point rebuttal of my own post beforehand and it wouldn't be far off from Anarchy's. I really am not going to check up on this again, I just like to get the last word. And besides, Anarchy has no doubts about his position (I see that as a sign of weakness).

The last thing I'd like to respond to is the "dependence" on government and the peoples' apathy to work in either system of government.
First, I strongly disbelieve that people are lazy and don't look after themselves and aren't self-sufficient *because* the government has somehow shaped our culture to depend on them. That gets thrown around by my dad a lot too and I facepalm every time. The parenting and social climate is what shapes culture to me, not govt. Countries like Japan have insane amounts of compliance with any and all authority, and they aren't a bunch of welfare queens. Now I don't know how or why I somehow adopted a Japanese, obedient, collectivist outlook on life when I was born to two libertarians in the heart of Texas, but life is a pretty cruel guy I guess.

And my second point is that I think democracy, while you can maybe hold a magnifying glass to it and see all sorts of flaws, has infinitely more chance of working better than a downsized govt to me. The reason is that, while the community is still dumb and lazy, they only have to really do one (1) thing in order for democracy to work, and that's become educated and vote. In order for a free market to work each individual has to work in cohoots with a majority of the rest in order to make sure that everyone takes care of the myriad of variables of modern life. I guess the gist of it is I see far too many variables interplaying in people's lives for an individual or even a strong family to handle. I don't think life in this day and age is even possible when left to the individual. I believe in the modesty of knowing when to listen to others, because we can't know what's best for ourselves every step of the way. There's just so much information out there, and a free economy with no safety net seems to encourage excess risk-avoidance. One illness, or job loss, or accident etc will result in a slippery slope that won't let you bounce back. Who cares if like 2% of the population uses that safety net as a hammock? That's a cultural issue that can only be shaped by a closer-knit environment. I think our best chance as a species is as an interconnected group of specialists, and I also think that bad things for those lesser fortunate is a bad thing for you as an individual. Every failure on someone else's behalf creates ripples that hit everyone else.

It's a good thing that we have public education (and I've been to 3 private schools and 2 high schools; public schools are WAAAAAYY more intelligent. It's just that parents here don't care as much as other countries' parents) . For example, good luck running your mega-corporation that requires trained specialists with degrees in a country like Mexico. Education and social nets are the backbone of society.

But yeah, I'm busy again so I won't respond to this thread anymore. Thanks for being respectful Anarchy.



ThinkAnarchy

  • Free of Childhood Neuroses
  • ***
  • Posts: 845
  • Gender: Male
Re: Anarcho-Capitalism Pros-Cons | Split from "16 concerned scientists... "
« Reply #34 on: February 08, 2012, 06:20:26 PM »
Oh wow, I had no idea this turned into its own thread. Anyways, I've been busy with things (like spending hours on end researching to see if my burrito would poison me),
That was a waste of time.
Quote
and I thought I'd give a final word. I have no intent to respond to Anarchy's points in regard to my mammoth post.

If you're not going to respond to any of my points there is no point in my reading the rest of your post.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2012, 05:19:13 AM by ThinkAnarchy »
"He that displays too often his wife and his wallet is in danger of having both of them borrowed." -Ben Franklin

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -credited to Franklin, but not sure.

Whitney

  • Global Moderator
  • Don't Pray in My School, and I Won't Think in Your Church
  • *****
  • Posts: 7358
  • Gender: Female
  • Mysteriously Absent - Like God
    • http://fellowshipoffreethought.org
Re: Anarcho-Capitalism Pros-Cons | Split from "16 concerned scientists... "
« Reply #35 on: February 08, 2012, 08:32:46 PM »
I really am not going to check up on this again, I just like to get the last word. And besides, Anarchy has no doubts about his position (I see that as a sign of weakness).

I find the above quote ironic.
If you aren't planning on participating in discussions then don't post.