...

[Matt C]

happy was in quotes. i'm not saying it's the role of government or ruling body to make someone happy. i'm saying that a ruling body must enact consequential actions when the people express dissatisfaction. we know this is a flawed system but it also enables people to be the little cogs in the machine, stay highly specialized without having to "worry" about other things that they're not specialized in. anyway, i'm thinkin' you're just going to say that any number of private entities can come together and cooperate and run the world run as it does now. concerns will just have to be addressed in a case by case basis... i imagine people in such a world just as confounded by the diffusion of "responsibilities" just as much as modern government today. i also think that such a cooporation of private entities is called government. the fact that they don't take money out of your paycheck is rather inconsequential since they'll end up taking it in some other way when they provide you with "services."

At least it will be my choice to give it to them or not.

see, you appreciate that it's almost an impossibility to organize and rule people perfectly. so why not advocate balance? why throw out the ruling system and replace it for yet another ruling system? humans find the flaws regardless, there'll always be detractors.

Why not?

in which way is it different than now? are you saying there would be better efficiency evaluation of which roads are used and which need repair more? the funding seems to be almost the same. then how do you address enforcement? and without the monopoly of force again, what does one do? what does a private sector entity do? in fact what gives a company the right to enforce? and if it's private property then what and where does it say it's private? i thought this was anarchy? take your deed and shove it? or is anarchistic capitalism different?

For reference: The free market uses resources more efficiently than any other system.


general research, the type that has not a necessarily profitable end goal but COULD possibly lead to breakthroughs that either have profitable end goals or revolutionize technological prospects.

Like say, all the things bell labs invented before the were regulated out of existence?

who, anyone. what if it's the enforcement body that is coerced? what if it's a gang member? then does it become whoever has more clout gets to have the private contractors remove their enemies, nuisances, etc. who investigates crime? what even gives them the authority to investigate. why would anyone ever need to cooporate with them? so they're given incentives by money... then how can you determine the truth? there's a lot of questions brought out by this line of thinking...

You seem a bit befuddled... Can you pin down your thought to one example?


you've evaded your initial point which was:


if anarchy is about the individual then how can you "manage" the individuals coming together and once you apply that to a large scale then even anarchy is no longer just about individuals. my initial point was that in light of anarchy being about individual and independant liberty, how can that be reconciled with the societal and collective nature of technology? which you'll probably just say, anything that can be done under government can be done under anarchy right?

Correct.


how is punishment enacted? also in such a system how do you guard intellectual property? how do you even ensure that the people who developed and put capital and time into a product are the ones who are rewarded. in an anarchist scenario, where would laws be? and as soon as there's laws would you not be encountering government?

Intelectual property is guarded by keeping things secret, the same way KFC has done it for 50 years.

i believe you're wrong here. people don't create because they want an advantage. people create because they have an inherent need to satisfy power cycles, accomplishment, goals, satisfaction etc. there are many cultures who have managed to do so WITHOUT embracing technology, WITHOUT "furthering" their civilization. it's a mistake and very western to assume all humans try to move forward with "technological advancement." as such the world does not revolve around money or even efficiency, it revolves around human social will.

I'm gonna say it pretty much revolves around money, but that's a whole other debate...

i'm not thinking that walmart will do anything i'm asking what happens when they do? the same for all my questions. you keep saying things will be the same as now but better (answers i don't necessarily find satisfying to my curiosity on this subject). you don't have to look in the past to see it does happen. look at gangs, organized crime, black markets, etc. yes no such thing as a black market in anarchy, but there's no such thing as white market either. only what humans can and eventually will do. how are you addressing these in your philosophy?

My point was simply that anarchism is a valid philosophy, debating it online is making my typing fingers hurt. If you really want to talk about it we should meet up sometime.

[trinydex]

At least it will be my choice to give it to them or not.

you've really only muddled the debate further to include the very subjective and historically confounding concept of "choice." my argument is you rarely get to "choose" to do anything. choice is unrelated to government, it's a problem of basic existence and will never be solved by any government architecture. what is it you actually think you're choosing? do you choose to own a car? or can you just choose to not own one. operate in this world without one, operate in this world without a computer, cell phone... i guess. but problems arise when you want polarly opposite things, like technology/capitalism plus anarchy which fundamentally seeks to undermine both (at least the anarchistic purist/primitivist type).

Why not?

because in the wake of the "revolution," we'll lose some gdp which is fundamentally uncapitalistic... oh wait... we won't be using the term gdp anymore because well, there's no such thing as the united states is there? or i mean what is a united states with no government? how the hell do we sovereignly interract wtih the rest of the people on this small blue ball?

For reference:
Quote:
Anarcho-capitalism (or "free market anarchism")[82] is "based on a belief in the freedom to own private property, a rejection of any form of governmental authority or intervention, and the upholding of the competitive free market as the main mechanism for social interaction."[83] Because of the historically anti-capitalist nature of much of anarchist thought, the status of anarcho-capitalism within anarchism is disputed particularly by communist anarchists.[84] Anarcho-capitalists distinguish between free market capitalism – peaceful voluntary exchange[85] – from "state capitalism" which Murray Rothbard defined as a collusive partnership between big business and government that uses coercion to subvert the free market.[86] Whether in its natural rights-based or utilitarian formulations, anarcho-capitalism has a theory of legitimacy that supports private property as long as it was obtained by labor, trade, or gift.[87] In an anarcho-capitalist society, its proponents hold, voluntary market processes would result in the provision of social institutions such as law enforcement, defence and infrastructure by competing for-profit firms, charities or voluntary associations rather than the state.[88] In Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, law (the non-aggression principle) is enforced by the market but not created by it, while according to David D. Friedman's utilitarian version, the law itself is produced by the market.

The free market uses resources more efficiently than any other system.

and like communism this theoretically idealized architecture has no provisions for enforcement. if communism knew it's own enforcement it would know not to call itself communism. et toi?

Like say, all the things bell labs invented before the were regulated out of existence?

i suppose bell labs was just all magical private money?

You seem a bit befuddled... Can you pin down your thought to one example?

those were all questions. i'd like examples of how you can address all of them.

who has authority in the anarchocapitalist society? when a crime is performed, who punishes? who investigates?

the example i gave at hte onset was pursuing the assumption that some private company rents out their contractors to gun, investigate and whatever else. but what gives them authority? who would ever cooperate with them?

Intelectual property is guarded by keeping things secret, the same way KFC has done it for 50 years.

i'll just keep music a secret. i'll keep movies a secret. i'll keep my new machined hunk of metal a secret too... don't needa sell any of these things to recoup capital invested.

My point was simply that anarchism is a valid philosophy, debating it online is making my typing fingers hurt. If you really want to talk about it we should meet up sometime.

i won't disagree it's a valid philosophy, just like communism. it's the fundamental opposite of another architecture, exactly right for debating nad teasing out the nuances and caveats of a system. i don't think it can be implemented with any success.

[bruss01]

A self-described "anarchist" ( hey, political viewpoint, everybody has one) gets pulled over driving a vehicle with no plates (maybe legal but sure to attract attention) gets pulled over, has WARRANTS (even though you're against the system, you still have to live within it until such time as reality falls in line with your political philosophy) gets put in the squad car, cops find an ILLEGALLY LOADED rifle in the trunk of the unplated car, and the guy wonders WTF happened? I'd have been amazed if any other outcome could have prevailed. Sure, I think a loaded gun in your trunk should be fine. Sure, probably what the guy did that resulted in the warrants shouldn't have been illegal. But that's wishing and this is reality. Sure it bites but learn to deal. Follow a few rules and stay out of trouble. Unless, that is, you've decided to go all "revolutionary" . In which case, we wish you a lot of luck with that. Let us know how it goes.