Anarcho-Capitalism Pros-Cons | Split from "16 concerned scientists... "

[ThinkAnarchy]

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.

Annnnd this is exactly why I'm not libertarian. It relies on the assumption that consumers are intelligent. I strongly, STRONGLY believe that consumers don't make accurate choices at all based on the ethics or "merit" of the company.

I believe in personal responsibility. Simply because a portion of the society is too apathetic, lazy, or stupid to do a bit of research before subscribing to something or purchasing something, is not justification for coercive government. I knew a girl who fell for those Nigerian e-mail scams on three separate occasions. Simply because there are other people like her does not mean we all need a parent figure.

In many cases, the more unethical companies win out.

Partly because of government. The state prevents many companies from failing as evidenced by the recent bailouts.

Consumers just flat out guess in 99% of all their purchases, or have unprecedented "loyalties."

Again, people have the option to do a bit of research. I used to be an impulse buyer, but after I got burned enough, I started looking into the products and companies I was purchasing.

The world is far too interconnected with too many intricacies going on to render this sort of "homo economicus" as a valuable index. There are millions upon millions of variables that determine what you will buy and when. Honestly think about the reason you buy products sometimes.

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.

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.

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.

My consumption decisions are spur of the moment and based on feel, not calculated logic.

This is about the third time you have said this and I would urge you to start working on your impulse buys. I'm sure most of us are guilty of it sometimes. If I see something reasonably priced I sometimes take a chance, but it is always a calculated risk. This argument seems similar to someone jumping off a ledge without first seeing how far the fall is. If said individual dies or breaks a few bones, it's their fault for not investigating prior to leaping.

Another problem is that the business has to screw up before the market can decide to do something about it.

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.

Let me give you this example:
During Hurricane Katrina, the Governor of Louisiana made an announcement that the state would come down hard on price gougers. Leading up to the Hurricane everyone was lined up at the pumps and there was at least an hour wait at any given station. Shortly after the storm passed, most of the gas stations were out. As demand increases and supplies fall, prices should go up. The prices spiking in a particular area signals to the market there is increased demand for gas in this area. Those elsewhere with gas see this opportunity and quickly begin transporting more product to the effective area, knowing the sooner they get it there, the more money that can be made.

Granted, those with the product knew the Gulf Coast needed gas, but with prices locked down, what is there incentive to spend extra money getting it here quicker, or rerouting other shipments to the effected area?

My point is, the market is capable of signaling problems which can be rectified by the market itself. Prices would have spiked for a while until supply and demand were back in balance.

People are generally too self-interested to care, and even if they did, bad things would be happening to good people before it got corrected.

I could turn that argument around and say that is why democracies fail. People are simply to stupid and self-interested to vote intelligently.

As an example of this, look at preventative health in USA vs. the rest of the world. It's absolutely terrible here. Doctors make more through crisis control moreso than preventative health, so which do you think gets pushed for more in the market?

I'm not going to argue there aren't problems with our health system, but I disagree regarding the reasons. The first problem is the current state of medical insurance and the fact it drives up prices. The second problem is regulation. Doctors have to go deep into debt in order to get licensed and tend to not start their careers until their late 20's - early 30's. 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.

This quote from one of the above blogs sums up the whole market recycling myth.

"If anyone knows that you’re selling a defective product. But in 1910, “Milk” was often chalk and water. You really, really, REALLY don’t want to know about sausage. Or about the amount of fecal matter in beef. Or the people who occasionally fell into the rendering pits for lard and got sold along with it. (OSHA? Government agency.)
But now, thanks to government laws passed by government officials who work for the government, there are watchdog groups. Like the FDA, the EPA, OSHA, CDC…I could go on."

First of all, there would still be courts in an An-cap society do litigate if someone got ill from the food they ate.

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.

Now you may think consumers are smarter now, with the internets and all (lol). But no, this is exactly what we would return to. It's a combination of apathy and time.

The FDA has failed to fix these problems, so we wouldn't be returning to anything. We would simply be maintaining the status-quo.

One exercise I would be interested for anyone to do on their own, regardless of their beliefs is this:
Make a few poster boards and write down all of the things on it that you get aided with such as the above govt programs. Now assume these are all gone. You now have to inspect your own food or grow it yourself, put a ton of research into all the different markets to determine the best to do business with, etc. etc. If you don't fill up an entire 2-3 poster boards filled with a list of rudimentary tasks that you are now left to deal with as an individual, you did it wrong. The point is that there are just sooo many things out there, that no one could possibly be living the "sweet and simple" lifestyle idealized by Rand while working a 40 hour work week and doing so many trivial things that should be done by a public good. And even if you can manage, what kind of a life is that? We're talking absolutely zero free time. Alternately, you could just read this, which simulates a small portion of all the work you would have to find solutions to as an individual: http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=1

It would simply open up new markets for businesses to open into. Anything the government can do, the private sector can accomplish. The private sector can own and maintain roads (better than the government), certify food, cleanliness of restaurants, etc. Just as it already does with rating products and restaurants. It's obvious once these government owned sectors of the economy opened to entrepreneurs, they would enter it.

Another problem I have with markets is that low cost is the main point, at the expense of quality. Car manufacturers purposefully sell vehicles that will break down around when you get done paying them off. We easily have the technology to make perfect cars, but no one is going to sell that because it would put them out of business. Imagine a car that is reinforced and gets passed down from generation to generation, lol. Either it will be too cheap and it would ruin return customers, or it would (more likely) be so expensive no one would ever think about buying it.

And what has the state done to fight this. I'm not going to say it's not true, I've suspected the same thing with some products, like my Xbox 360. It literally broke a week after the warranty expired. But this is a problem we have with the government rearing it's ugly head, so I don't see any change if it were in an anarchist society.

The video game industry is another example. Look at the past 4-5 Call of Duty games, to just look at the FPS market. They are all basically the exact same game, copy-pasted into a new format with a few slight tweaks and additions. The same is true of most sport games like the UFC series and FIFA. Competition is clearly not pushing us into the future, it's only trying to push the status quo of its own bottom line to make sells. CoD companies release a new game every year, and they all suck and are filled with glitches and balance issues, which is why I left that series a long time ago. But where is this free market invisible hand that is supposed to punish them for stagnating us? Last I checked, most FPS consumers still swear by CoD's formula, even though they are trying to charge more and more for the same thing. If a benevolent game dev were to sit down and spend 3-4 years making a badass game to compete with it instead of rushing out more crap year after year, do you know what would happen? No, consumers won't get smart and jump on the new train. This very thing did happen with BF3. And it did rock the boat a little bit, but most consumers are just total retards who don't change their ways or do research on what is out there. People go with the popular choices, or they go with gut feeling.

That is a problem the consumer has to deal with themselves, and as a group. Again, the government has done nothing to fix this, nor should they. So there would likely be no change if we were in an archaist society. I can certainly understand where you are coming from since I myself am a gamer. If people truly weren't happy with a product, they would stop buying it, or would switch to a different franchise. In regards to the FPS genre, yes the tend to release the same game every year, but there is nobody forcing us to purchase them. By the consumer purchasing the same game every year, we are signaling to the market that their formula is working, which it is. As soon as the consumer base thinks they are essentially paying $60 for a few new maps, they can choose not to buy Black Ops 2 in 2012. If the sales plummet, it will send a message to Activation to attempt more drastic changes in the next iteration. It's not my fault if I sell you a bag of shit over and over again when you know your buying a bag of shit.

To take this further. I recently purchased Elder Scrolls V on the PS3 on launch night. It was on a weekend that I made sure I had no other responsibilities. By monday, I had put about 60 hours into the game only to have it become unplayable. Not only were there broken side quests, but the Frame rate dropped so low, it made the game unplayable. So, I shelved it and waited for the patch. The patch comes and all the major issues are still there and dragons start flying backwards. So I returned it to Gamestop and am waiting to rebuy it used if the 1.4 patch fixes the game breaking issues. They still will not see a penny from me, ever again, because this is unacceptable in my view. If other people don't realize we can affect business when respond en mass than they simply need to be educated.

The, "people are stupid" argument simply doesn't work though. You can't hope to have an effective democracy when most of the population or complete idiots.

Now that's not to say I hate the private sector; it does a great job and is the backbone of a society. The problem is that there are some issues that individuals cannot handle. Some things are not problems for individuals but are problems for groups.

You don't need a government to act as a group...

I'm drawing from that past blog again, but here are some examples. Any individual can choose  not to wear seat belts and it is no big deal on the micro level. But when you universalize that and look at statistics, this ramps up the hospital costs on the macro scale, which means people who are smart like me who wear their seat belt or bike helmet have to pay more to subsidize those who made dumb choices.

Again, I think people should be responsible for there own mistakes. Do you have a problem with stupid people, or the government subsidizing the stupids mistakes?

Bad choices rarely ever impact just the individual who made them. Same thing with cars and smog/pollution. Everyone has the freedom to drive their car. But if everyone decides to exercise this freedom at the exact same time, we all die. In Japan, cars would be pushed into the ocean. Anywhere else, exhaust would choke the life out of everyone.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Show me the study that says everyone would die if we all decided to start our cars at the same time.

See how that works?

No, please elaborate.

Some freedoms that the individual can exercise only become devastating problems when many individuals do them. I'm an objective thinker because I recognize things like this. I don't simply look at my own experience and think for myself, it's important to think of everyone's situation as a group. A group is not just a collection of individuals, an entirely new entity with unique traits is formed when people are together . The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Humans are specialist pack animals and cannot be expected to think for themselves in all aspects of life. We need to listen to experts in their own fields instead of being stubborn and thinking we know it all.

I agree with the second part of that statement. I would argue the individual is greater than the group however. I own my body and my property, just as you do. No one should be allowed to say what I can and can't do with my body and property UNLESS it infringes on their property or self. Many of the things you are referring to could likely be litigated in a private court as a result of negatively affecting another's property.

No offense to you anarchy, and I understand if you still disagree. It's just something to think about.

None taken, and I don't mean any to you or anyone else in this thread.

[ThinkAnarchy]

I don't see what this article proves. A life expectancy of 50 years, and lower access to safe water than even 1991, are exactly the kinds of things an organized government are for. Yes, they've managed to set up a bit of economy and cell phone services despite the lack of a central government. What does that prove? It's not like most of the other 190 countries are having a hard time doing that. People are not moving to Somalia for their supposedly booming economy.

People did not want to move to Somalia prior to the government falling, nor were they in a good position prior to the government falling, from what I understand. You're also either missing or blissfully ignoring that the life expectancy has increased since the fall of the government by an average of 4 years. No one is arguing that the decrease in safe water is not a problem or concern. You can't however, ignore the improvements while simply focusing on the negatives. Where did I or the author, suggest their economy is booming. According to the article they have had massive growth in some areas of the economy. However, there GDP has allegedly increased, so it would seem they have a stronger economy than they had with a centralized state. The literacy rate has also increased according to the article. I never claimed "everything" would improve under anarchy. Nor did I claim it would improve drastically right away.

Also this line makes no sense:

"What is particularly amusing is the complaint that businesses currently must pay private security firms to guard their goods. Well, a government police and court system won't work for tips — they too will need to be financed, but through involuntary taxation."

Personally, I'd prefer the police and a court system that's accountable to the people to unregulated private security firms fighting each other. And I'll gladly pay taxes for that. And so would most people. I don't see much of a movement in the US to dismantle our police and courts and move to private security firms instead. That would be considered insane, and rightfully so, as I'll point out again later.

I wouldn't. I could provide a list of news articles about police brutality and DA bullshit that would likely overload you're servers.

Yes, Communism sounds great on paper. But it has never worked in practice on a large scale, because it's impossible to form that kind of "community"  on such a large scale; someone needs to be in charge, and without any opportunity to move up, it removes initiative. Anyway, that's a bit of a tangent to your argument.

I agree communism can't work on a large scale as history clearly shows. However, under a larger an-cap system, communists would be free to set up their small peaceful communes assuming a member owned land or they homesteaded unused land.

Actually, Lincoln did consider just such a plan, and the Southern states rejected it. And I am aware of what Lincoln said before he was President. Whether he believed those lines or not is hard to say considering he was a politician trying to win an election, but what matters is his ultimate actions, which were to push through the Emancipation Proclamation and 13th Amendment.

I'm unsure if Lincoln did actually consider such a plan, so I can't really respond. However Lincoln was also responsible for the deaths of Americans and in love with Grant who ordered the rapes of southern women and the burning of towns. That isn't exactly the markings of a good or just man.

Maybe that's true now, but it was not 60 years ago. Back then, it was considered bad business in some places to allow black people in, or allow them to live in white communities.

A government exists it should not sanction racism, however, an individual has a right to be racist. I view racism as morally reprehensible, but that doesn't mean an individual should be forbidden to hold racist inclinations. So long as they do not infringe on another persons inherent rights (personal property) than I don't see the problem. You can't murder, rape, steal, etc due to a right to property. Simply because you own your body should not mean you can enter any privately owned establishment. Just as private property owners can ban unsupervised children, they should be able to ban whoever they view as undesirables. Regardless of if their motives are just, they should have that right based on private property. Women only, black only, male only, white only, white male only, white female only, black female only, etc establishments should be allowed to exist. If certain groups of people choose to limit their private property to certain group of people, I see no problem with that.

You're missing the point of my question, which is for you to try and relate to what the black community was enduring back then.

I can't relate to what they endured because I'm not black and I didn't live in the 60's or 1800's; nor did I live in a time where white catholics were used as slaves and lion meat. So, no I can't truly relate.

We're not talking about you!

It doesn't matter, you are talking to me! I can't live in other peoples shoes. I know my life from a personal perspective. You can't ask someone to jump into the shoes of someone else on an imaginary level and expect for things to be like they actually were. Atheist persecution is the closest thing I can equate to the plight of blacks and other groups in the past. It it's the only personal persecution I have to relate it too. Deal with it.

We're talking about a minority being discriminated against simply because of their skin color, and how that was considered acceptable back then. Whether it matters to you personally is irrelevant; it matters to our country and society as a whole. You're displaying a lack of empathy that is all too common to libertarians.

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.

It were the states' that sanctioned slavery for centuries, along with other forms of segregation in the 1960's. So I'm really not sure how this is an argument in your favor. Not to mention the U.S. governments solution to the problem of slavery, that they previously sanctioned, was to rape southern women, murder southern men, and burn southern towns. I'm not exactly sure how this supports your view that governments are good...

My point about denying atheists service was that someone may someday decide that we're evil, or left-handed people are cursed, or some other subjective feature is suddenly "bad". The US was founded on the idea that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have not been perfect in that regard, sadly, but we have moved ever closer to that goal, and it's the kind of society that I choose to live in.

Many people have already decided we are evil. We atheists in America live in a much more tolerable environment than many modern atheists in other nations. Atheists are currently persecuted, sometimes with death, in some Middle Eastern countries. Are those simply some of the examples the governments you don't support?

I can't help but think about the atheist line, "You're an atheist when it comes to all the gods but you're own."

If we specifically allow anyone of any race, gender, creed, sexual identity, etc to open a business that serves the public, how can we possibly turn around and then say that business has the right to not allow another race, gender, etc use its services?

Private property rights. If a muslim entrepreneur wants to limit his business to other Muslims he should be allowed that privilege based upon the right of private property. It would most likely be a death blow to his business, but if it weren't, I don't see any problem with his choosing who is worthy of entering his/her establishment.

You are all about "freedom", but then you say it's ok to deny people the freedom to walk into any restaurant they want without being kicked out.

I do not accept negative freedoms, which is what you are using as an example. I have a right to not have my private property rights infringed upon. In other words, I have a right to not be raped (a violation of self ownership), and have a right to not have my property stolen or trespassed upon. If as a business owner, I decide to not let pregnant women in my restaurant because it's ruins the other customers appetite, that should be my prerogative. Nobody has a right to force themselves or to be accepted onto another persons private property.

That is not how freedom works. Let's take it a step further: should the police be allowed to not answer a home invasion call because the family is gay? No, they should have the freedom to avail themselves of the same public protections that the everyone else in society takes for granted. That's why private security firms as a replacement for the police are a joke.

This argument is a bit of a joke. The state police should not be allowed to because they are funded through tax payer money and are responsible for protecting the community as a whole. However, as I've already mentioned, the police are terrible when it comes to protecting low income families in poor and crime ridden areas.

The way private security firms would likely function in a civilized area of the world is as follows:

Much like with private security firms today a business would hire a company to protect the businesses assets as well as the customers. Most likely, if there were a bunch of different businesses in an immediate area they would get together and hire one security firm. Or in the case of one individual owning the property and a bunch of businesses leasing from him, the owner would likely higher a firm to patrol and deal with incidents surrounding his area.

With neighborhoods, homeowners associations (which are simply a form of voluntary government) would likely hire a security firm to protect the homeowners. If the security firm failed in their mission they would likely be fired for a new one.

Now, back to your actual point. One of these security firms would and should be allowed to deny service to people. It wouldn't be good for their business, especially if they are trying to set up business in San Fran, but they should be allowed.

And if a security firm who was under contract with an HOA failed to protect a home they were under contract to protect due to something like homosexuality or the race of the couple, they would be liable for breaching the contract. Their status as a business would also be severely hindered if not completely destroyed.

[ThinkAnarchy]

Stuff like this is what really confuses me about the libertarian stance.  Lincoln should have paid off the slave owners?  Where would he have gotten the money, except from taxes?  And what if the people he was taxing didn't really want the government to take their money to give it to slave owners. I wouldn't want my money to go to pay off people to stop doing something they shouldn't be doing in the first place. Wouldn't people being taxed for something they don't want to pay for go against libertarian beliefs?

In a sense yes it would go against libertarian principles. On the other hand I would rather have money already being stolen go towards something that might prevent a large number of deaths. It is not as if we are proposing the government should have started stealing money from the citizenry in order to buy out slave owners. It is simply the less violent of the two options.

And seriously, Ayn Rand?  

Yes, Rand. I disagree with her on some things, mainly Objectivisim, but she was a fantastic philosopher non-the-less. Unless you have read the book I directed someone to, I would avoid asking questions like that. I find a good portion of people who say similar things to the above have never read much of what she wrote. It's typically, "I tried reading Atlas Shrugged and couldn't believe what I was reading, so I stopped."

[ThinkAnarchy]

I don't get the appeal of libertarianism either, and I don't understand how a purely libertarian society could function in the real world.

How is an individual supposed to determine whether the medication he bought works and is safe if there's no public regulatory agency? Same with the food supply.

The same way we do now. There would be websites like Yelp to help us make decisions in these regards. Not to mention the FDA and other regulatory agencies have a terrible tract record.

Just look at all the class action lawsuit advertisements regarding drugs (mainly birth control and anti-depressants) that cause birth defects, anal leakage, kidney failure, sudden death, etc. These drugs all got through the regulatory requirements and still had serious side effects in some that seemingly went unnoticed.

How is an individual supposed to prevent a company from, or hold it accountable for, polluting the environment?

By buying a competing companies products who shows they are taking steps to preserve the environment.

And we can't all be entrepreneurs. Someone's always going to be someone else's employee. I rather like all those pesky work laws that hamper business but ensure workers aren't exploited. I have no desire to go back to the early days of the Industrial Revolution labor-laws-wise.

These laws hurt the business as well as the employee. Minimum wage laws simply mean that fewer individuals will have jobs and those with little to no experience will have a harder time getting an entry level position. If someone is dirt broke, they should be allowed to work for what every amount they are willing. If an individual has a family to support, they should not be hindered by the government in finding a job. Perhaps they are willing to work for less money because it's better than the alternative of not working. Many families would also benefit from the children being able to hold a job. We like to think we are protecting children by not allowing them to work, but when they are starving, we aren't doing them a service.

I'm also grateful for the decent public education I got. A society where only those with money can ensure their kids get an education sounds like the Third World to me (because it is).

I'm glad you received a decent public education, but most don't. I'm also not sure what country you are from, but I know here in America a majority of the public school system is a joke. They don't educate and it's why Americans are dumber than their peers. Public schooling also instills a mindless obedience to authority which is detrimental as history has illustrated.

[ThinkAnarchy]

I think I responded to everyone. If I skipped over something just let me know and I will respond to your post.
 
Also, I would appreciate if a moderater would change the title to Anarcho-Capitalism Pros-Cons since I'm not technically arguing from a libertarian perspective. It's similar, but libertarians support a small state whereas I don't want a small government ruling over me at all.

[ThinkAnarchy]

I think I left your comments out of my responses, Recusant.

I consider the positions of Rand Paul and his father in regard to the Civil Rights Act to be asinine.

The public pays for roads and other infrastructure which a business needs in order to survive; the business benefits from the contributions of all of the public, not just one particular sector.

Within our current system you are correct. However, within my argument I'm calling for no centralized government, which would in turn make your point moot seeing as the roads would be a business under my philosophy. Within our current system you argument holds a lot of merit, but under the system I support it would hold none. I hope that makes sense.

The public is not just white people, nor is it any other notionally preferred sector of the population. If a business is profiting from the public, then it should not be permitted to discriminate against a portion of the public on the basis of race.

Again, under my system business would not profit from the public. Instead they would gain profit solely from their customers.

If the business is not profiting from the public, it can be (and is, in the case of private clubs) argued that the business is free to define which people are allowed to have access, and to exclude those it will. It really comes down to that, in my opinion.

My above response deals with this issue.

I will elaborate in regard to the "arbitrary line": There is a basic difference between a private home and a business. You are not offering a service or goods to the public in your home (if you are, then it is also a place of business and no longer entirely a private home).

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. Under our current system, due to the fact these businesses receive tax payer money and are reliant on tax funded infrastructure, somewhat justifies the practices in the current state. However, the objections you raise are based around our centralized system of government. Without a centralized government providing these services, you're arguments would be moot.

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?

A private home is just that, while a place of business which is making a profit from inviting the public onto its premises (legally described as a public accommodation) is by definition not in the same category as a private house.

You are basing this on the current federal statutes which makes these discussions rather difficult. I'm well aware of the current statutory position, but that in and of itself does not justify the state. You are clearly thinking about this from a statist perspective, and I really don't have the time or energy to deconstruct it in that much detail. If you are open minded to this discussion I need for those I'm discussing this with to stop relying so heavily on the status-quo.

We are discussing a political philosophy that is relatively new and has not had time to be truly tested yet. Simply citing the current statutes means nothing in this debate seeing as that statute would not carry over into my ideal society.

As it stands now, in our present society this whole point is a grey area for me. Based upon the current statutes, the civil rights act is both just and unjust. In a decentralized society, it wouldn't be however. I hope that is clear, but I doubt it. It is a bit difficult to argue your ideal form of government within the confines of the current form of government.

After this post however, I will try and sum up many of my positions and how and An-cap state would exist.

The public includes all of the population, and denying somebody entry on the basis of the color of their skin means that the business is arrogating to itself the power to define who is and who is not a legitimate member of the public.

No, they are simply saying who they want to allow onto their private property.

If there is a right to be racist (I would not argue against such a right, by the way), there is also a right to be treated as a legitimate member of the public, no matter what color your skin is. In my opinion, the latter trumps the former. The Pauls apparently think otherwise.

And within our current system all members of a society should be included. However, without taxes, public property, and the rest they shouldn't. This also seems to create an opening for another question. Who is entitled to these public goods? Clearly those paying taxes are entitled to the services they are forced to pay for, but what of those who don't contribute? Are they full members of the society?

[Anne D.]

I don't get the appeal of libertarianism either, and I don't understand how a purely libertarian society could function in the real world.

How is an individual supposed to determine whether the medication he bought works and is safe if there's no public regulatory agency? Same with the food supply.

The same way we do now. There would be websites like Yelp to help us make decisions in these regards. Not to mention the FDA and other regulatory agencies have a terrible tract record.

Just look at all the class action lawsuit advertisements regarding drugs (mainly birth control and anti-depressants) that cause birth defects, anal leakage, kidney failure, sudden death, etc. These drugs all got through the regulatory requirements and still had serious side effects in some that seemingly went unnoticed.

Because a regulatory agency cannot 100 percent ensure the safety of the public is not an argument for eliminating that agency. That drugs that can cause serious harmful side effects to a significant percentage of users still make it to market is an argument for more government regulation, not less. An individual cannot force a company to perform safety and efficacy studies before marketing drugs. A strong, well-funded government regulatory agency can. (Sadly, the FDA does not have nearly the teeth or funding it should.)

[ThinkAnarchy]

Read before responding. A basic premise for my philosophy!

Anarcho-Capitalism is based upon the Non-Agression Principle.
-This means that no individual or group of individuals, has a right to aggress upon another individual or group of individuals private property.

Private property includes the right to self ownership.
       -This means we, the individual own our bodies. We should be allowed to choose what we do with them (Pro-choice), what we put      into them (anti drug laws), how we decorate them (tattoos & piercing), etc.
       -We also have private property rights regarding our bodies.
            -This means, we have a right to not to have foreign objects inserted into us against our will (rape), being negligently or willfully
              broken (battery), being enslaved (kidnapping), etc.

Governments violate the above principles daily. We have alternatives to everything the government provides. Our philosophy in action would not provide a utopia, that is not being debated here. It would however put the power more firmly in hands of the people. The reason individuals feel like they can't combate business is due to the moderately fascist state of the world. Government and business are in bed with each other and will be as long as both are allowed to exist, at least in their current state. That is not going to change. As long as the government is allowed to take our money, they will continue to reroute it to businesses for favors, votes, and campaign financing.

What I'm proposing

Imagine the government where you're living under collapsed. It shouldn't be difficult since throughout history governments have continuously failed. If anarcho-capitalist principles were the norm at the collapse of said government, this is likely what you could expect:

Let's take the United States as an example. Many areas of the territory would begin setting up governments immediately. Some may be monarchies, some democracies, dictatorships, communist, anarcho-communist, anarcho-capitalist, etc. All those competing governments would be free to exist under the anarcho-capitalist philosophy. As long as they are completely voluntary, they have not violated the non-aggression principle.

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. Granted, much of it would go to paying for services they are already paying for, but there is no clear way to determine if they would spend less, the same, or more paying for those services separately.

Within our current system of government you're also left with the conundrum of theft being justified if it's for the "greater good." I see no true justification for theft. Sure, if your children are starving and you simply stole food, it's not equivalent to stealing a tv, but even that is not sanctioned within our current system. Yet its justified for the state to steal wealth and redistribute it to the same individual they would place in jail if the person had stolen a tv to resell, in order to feed his children.

It simply doesn't make sense to me. Not to mention the state misallocates most of the money they steal. I would honestly prefer being robbed by a transient who at least bought a warm meal, rather than the state.

This is a very, very brief basis for my philosophical belief. If anyone is interested in learning more, I will be happy to initiate a link storm.




 

  

[ThinkAnarchy]

Because a regulatory agency cannot 100 percent ensure the safety of the public is not an argument for eliminating that agency. That drugs that can cause serious harmful side effects to a significant percentage of users still make it to market is an argument for more government regulation, not less. An individual cannot force a company to perform safety and efficacy studies before marketing drugs. A strong, well-funded government regulatory agency can. (Sadly, the FDA does not have nearly the teeth or funding it should.)

First of all, read the above post before responding further. I posted it after this response, but I'm simply trying to make sure people I'm discussing this with have a basic understanding of my philosophy. I'm sure you all do, but I would rather make sure now.

In regards to your point, yes it does. The system we currently have has proven it's ineffectiveness. I also love how when a government program underperforms it's always due to underfunding. In the private sector and without government bailouts, and business like the FDA would disappear from existence. With government programs on the other hand, when they fail to properly do their job, it's simply because they need more funding.

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. Yet people still argue the public school system is underfunded. How much money does the government need to effectively run it's own programs? Not to mention if the government did need to truly reallocate funding, why not close down the hundreds of foriegn bases and end these useless wars?

The government regulatory agencies set up to deal with these issues have failed. It's not an issue of funding, China has made sure of that.

[Ali]

And seriously, Ayn Rand?  

Yes, Rand. I disagree with her on some things, mainly Objectivisim, but she was a fantastic philosopher non-the-less. Unless you have read the book I directed someone to, I would avoid asking questions like that. I find a good portion of people who say similar things to the above have never read much of what she wrote. It's typically, "I tried reading Atlas Shrugged and couldn't believe what I was reading, so I stopped."

Actually, I've read all of Atlas Shrugged and The Virtue of Selfishness, and the only thing I can't believe is that people think that Ayn Rand is either an awesome writer or an awesome philosopher.  

But since you're making rules about when people can post on this thread, I think I'll bow out now.

[Anne D.]

And we can't all be entrepreneurs. Someone's always going to be someone else's employee. I rather like all those pesky work laws that hamper business but ensure workers aren't exploited. I have no desire to go back to the early days of the Industrial Revolution labor-laws-wise.

These laws hurt the business as well as the employee. Minimum wage laws simply mean that fewer individuals will have jobs and those with little to no experience will have a harder time getting an entry level position. If someone is dirt broke, they should be allowed to work for what every amount they are willing. If an individual has a family to support, they should not be hindered by the government in finding a job. Perhaps they are willing to work for less money because it's better than the alternative of not working. Many families would also benefit from the children being able to hold a job. We like to think we are protecting children by not allowing them to work, but when they are starving, we aren't doing them a service.

Wow--I guess I'm still not seeing the appeal of living in this society devoid of government and government regulation. Sounds like most of us and our kids would be working for slave wages for a handful of wealthy industrialists. Doesn't give us much time to do all that research on Yelp that we'll need to do to make sure that the drugs and food we're ingesting aren't toxic.

I'm also grateful for the decent public education I got. A society where only those with money can ensure their kids get an education sounds like the Third World to me (because it is).

I'm glad you received a decent public education, but most don't. I'm also not sure what country you are from, but I know here in America a majority of the public school system is a joke. They don't educate and it's why Americans are dumber than their peers. Public schooling also instills a mindless obedience to authority which is detrimental as history has illustrated.

This statement does not support an argument against public education. The countries whose kids score better than U.S. kids on standardized tests have public, government-funded education as well. But again, in the kind of society you're advocating for, it sounds like most kids would be working anyway, and education would be reserved for the children of the wealthy.

[ThinkAnarchy]

Wow--I guess I'm still not seeing the appeal of living in this society devoid of government and government regulation. Sounds like most of us and our kids would be working for slave wages for a handful of wealthy industrialists. Doesn't give us much time to do all that research on Yelp that we'll need to do to make sure that the drugs and food we're ingesting aren't toxic.

I suppose you don't. Slaves don't receive payment however, nor is it voluntary. An individual should be free to sell their services for whatever price they are willing, despite that wage being below or above the average.

I'm glad you received a decent public education, but most don't. I'm also not sure what country you are from, but I know here in America a majority of the public school system is a joke. They don't educate and it's why Americans are dumber than their peers. Public schooling also instills a mindless obedience to authority which is detrimental as history has illustrated.

This statement does not support an argument against public education. The countries whose kids score better than U.S. kids on standardized tests have public, government-funded education as well. But again, in the kind of society you're advocating for, it sounds like most kids would be working anyway, and education would be reserved for the children of the wealthy.

I'm comparing the numbers scored by privately educated children compared to their state educated peers in the United States. That is in addition to U.S. public education compared to public ed in the rest of the world. Also, I fail to see why children can't receive an education while being employed. I've worked while learning.

The job market would determine wages. It's as simple as that. There are currently people who work 60 hour weeks or more, I see nothing wrong with that. Once you prove to the business you're an asset, you tend to get more vacations and fewer tasks, but ones that focus on your assets. If the company you're working for doesn't recognize you and your skills, you're free to search for employment with a business that will notice and value your work.

I see nothing wrong with that. It seems preferable to "everyone is equal in the workforce," since we clearly aren't. Some are better suited and better educated for a certain position. Those who aren't would have opportunities to work for low wages in a field they want to learn in order to move up on the hierarchical ladder. My position allows uneducated or unqualified individuals to learn the position. The statist position prevents these individuals from even getting their foot in the door.

[ThinkAnarchy]

And seriously, Ayn Rand?  

Yes, Rand. I disagree with her on some things, mainly Objectivisim, but she was a fantastic philosopher non-the-less. Unless you have read the book I directed someone to, I would avoid asking questions like that. I find a good portion of people who say similar things to the above have never read much of what she wrote. It's typically, "I tried reading Atlas Shrugged and couldn't believe what I was reading, so I stopped."

Actually, I've read all of Atlas Shrugged and The Virtue of Selfishness, and the only thing I can't believe is that people think that Ayn Rand is either an awesome writer or an awesome philosopher.  

But since you're making rules about when people can post on this thread, I think I'll bow out now.

No need to bow out. You simply have to understand that I need to have an understanding of where people are coming from, and their level of education on these subjects.

These ideas are not easy to grasp since they go against everything we have been taught. I need an idea of what people have read other than their state sponsored reading list.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask people to read the post that makes a basic outline of my positon prior to responding further. I want those interested in this conversation to at least understand the basis for my philosophy. Perhaps, you and the others in this thread are already well versed on the subject of Anarcho-Capitalism, but others or not.

So all I can really say is deal with it. It's not as if Whitney is going to ban you for ignoring the post I want people to read before responding further, nor should she. It simply makes it easier for me if I know people have that knowledge when entering into this discussion.

If you can't get past that, I don't particularly care.

[ThinkAnarchy]

I'll just say that my dad is a staunch libertarian, and i have really went out and reached to learn about the position, reading Ayn Rand etc. The position makes absolutely zero sense to me and is the epitome of ignorance all around.

That is good, now I have a basic idea of your level of education on this subject.

I'd rather marry a Christian than an anarcho-capitalist, the former is infinitely less faith-based in my opinion. Sorry if I made you angry, but it makes me angry as well. And I stand by my last sentiment 100%. It's not the most ignorant thing ever, it's the most true thing ever.

That is your propagative. I suppose I would prefer to marry a non-religious individual who is an anarchist; as I have. I think your previous point was lost in this thread. Since it's been split I'm not exactly sure what point you're referring to there.

I've spoken with you people and you always seem to think groups are a product of individuals, and not the other way around.

"You people," really? You intolerant fuck. I'm only kidding in this regard.

Groups are the product of individuals. You can't have a bundle of oranges with out individual oranges. Groups are the product of individuals choosing to join or be affiliated with like minded people. We at HAF are not an atheistic group that makes individuals. We are individual atheists who make up this group... So yes, groups are a product of individuals. You can have individuals without a group, but it's impossible to have a group without individuals.  

Whatever, let's just not even get into it, I've been down this road way too many times and it's damn annoying. I've actually had nightmares where I mount and beat the life out of my dad all because of his ridiculous beliefs. Yes, I hate low government type people that much.

Not to be rude, but that doesn't seem normal. I'm going to accredit that to an exaggeration in order to get your point across.

However, since you're done with this conversation I will not adress any of the points you make below. If you are willing to rejoin this discussion in the future, I will continue to respond. I will however respect your wish to be done with this conversation.

[Firebird]

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 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.

"Perhaps" means you're just guessing. And that's not what happened before the Pure Food and Drug Act or the FDA existed.

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.

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.

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?

Another problem is that the business has to screw up before the market can decide to do something about it.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.