NationStates Jolt Archive

Or a president or an illiberal majority...
First of all, no democratically elected president or majority has ever gone anywhere near totalitarianism. Why? Because the majority of people value their personal freedom, so when the majority rules, it is almost certain to defend those freedoms.

Second of all, why should you dictate your terms to the majority? If the majority doesn't want your laissez-faire capitalist system, who the fuck are you to force it down their throats?

I'm not right wing and I don't want a dictator. I'm a libertarian.
Bullshit. "Libertarianism" is a misnomer and you know it. A better name for your kind would be proprietarian. You don't care about liberty - you care about property, and you want to re-shape society to fit your whims.

However, that govt is best which governs least.
You mean like the government of Somalia?

Thus a libertarian dictator is better than an elected despot like Bush, Blair or Chiraque.
None of those 3 is a "despot", although Bush is certainly trying to become one.
And your "libertarian dictator" would allow the poor to starve to death or die of easily preventable diseases, which makes him putrid filth in my eyes. I would not hesitate to give my life to rid the world of such a dictator.

I hear rubbish like this all the time. That's like saying a rape victim that at they should be grateful because in South Africa they'd have been killed.
You're not being "raped" by anyone, you whiny little cry baby. This comparison is exaggerated beyond belief.

A totalitarian system is one where the state controls everything.
Yes, and you don't quite seem to grasp the concept of "everything".

When you are forced to endure 11+ years of indoctrination at a state school...
Funny, most people call that "education", and, since the stone age, education has generally been considered a good thing.

But perhaps you would have preferred not to learn how to read and write? I'm sure the state "indoctrinated" you will all sorts of evil propaganda, like mathematics...

...two fifths of your money is confiscated every year...
...in order to save lives, and make life better for everyone.

...and the govt regulates everything from the price of beer to the curvature of bananas...
Typical libertarian idiocy - things are wrong because the government does them. If someone else did them, it would be perfectly okay, but the big bad government is eeeeeevil... :rolleyes:

...I would say that qualifies.
Again, you don't quite seem to grasp the concept of "everything". Totalitarianism is when the state controls everything.

Democratic freedom is no freedom at all because it puts your freedom to a vote (in a contest it's rigged to lose).
Ah, the greatest libertarian fallacy of them all: The belief in some sort of absolute standard above the will of the people. You define "freedom" to suit your interests, and if anyone disagrees - even if the majority of the people disagree - you call them wrong. Who died and gave YOU the authority to make decisions that overrule the majority?

Answer me this, "libertarian": Why should YOU have more authority to determine "rights" and "freedoms" than the majority of the people?

Society will be more beneficial for us if we stop using the state to oppress and steal from each other.
First of all, capitalism oppresses and steals far more than your state ever did. Second of all, I agree, the state should be abolished (at some point in the future). And so should private property.

Private property and the state are the two things people use to oppress and exploit each other.

Are you claiming that "being social" is the same as using govt guns to force each other to do stuff? There was me thinking the essence of being social was VOLUNTARY association.
If you don't like your government, you're free to leave to another country. Your association with the rest of America is entirely voluntary, since you can terminate it any time you wish.

I am a capitalist because these things upset me. Where were the poor disease-infested slums, widespread starvation, misery and abject poverty - East or West Germany?
Neither of them, actually. East Germans had a lot less personal freedom, being under stalinism and all, but that's another story.

Oh, and by the way, did you know that West Germany had strong welfare provisions for any East German citizen who fled across the border? Now you know what attracted them so much.

All the improvements of the 20th century came in spite of, not because of, the welfare state.
Then why didn't we see even more improvements before the welfare state existed? If they were all "in spite of" the welfare state, how come they all came after the introduction of the welfare state and not before it?

Private charity and free enterprise would have done even better.
Bullshit! Fluffy capitalist dreams! Private charity has existed for 5000 years! What has it ever achieved? NOTHING!

I'd rather not risk the lives of millions of people on some charity money that may or may NOT come.

Private charity has an abysmal record. It never solved anything. Yet the dogmatic and ignorant capitalists still cling to it so they can hide from the inhumane implications of their own policies.

The welfare state has not achieved it's objectives anyway (and in fact has been antagonistic towards them), or had you not noticed the inner city slums?
And have you not noticed how much bigger (and far worse) those slums were in the 19th century, before the welfare state came along?

Neither is poverty something that can be made to go away through law.
Actually, yes it is, and Scandinavia is the proof.

The soviet govt used to provide food. Badly. Then they privatised agriculture. Did this mean no food? Of course not. It meant food was more plentiful.
Uh, what? Perhaps you've been living under a rock for the past 15 years, but the soviet government provided food a hell of a lot better than the dismal failure that is present-day Russian capitalism. The privatization of agriculture (like the privatization of everything else) was a complete and unmitigated disaster.

Tony Blair.
Heh, funny how Tony Blair is (at least nominally) the leader of a socialist party.

The govt is an institution outside of the free market. Democracy may indeed become rule by an oligarchy. It's yet another good argument for statelessness.
No, it's an argument for the fact that our "democracy" isn't very democratic at all.

Oligarchy != Democracy

Capitalism - the free market - is NOT rule by capitalists.
Yes it is. It's private property over the means of production, and those who own the means of production can control every aspect of your life.

I'm not your friend.
I know you're not. You're a filthy swine. But I was just trying to be nice.

There is no govt. Your rights are protected instead by yourself, voluntary associations or for-profit police companies. The advantage in this is that they protect you from violence and theft without using violence on you or stealing from you.


And that would be a good idea, but what happens when the police companies who protect you suddenly decide that they what what you have and proceed to take ot away. If they have the power to protect you, then they have the power to take everything you own too, and without a government with force to back it up, what's to stop them from doing it?

Your police company would protect you better and cheaper than the govt does(n't). What's to stop me using my police company as a private army to take others possessions? I'm paying their wages after all.

And that would be a good idea, but what happens when the police companies who protect you suddenly decide that they what what you have and proceed to take ot away. If they have the power to protect you, then they have the power to take everything you own too, and without a government with force to back it up, what's to stop them from doing it?
Read the link. It's short and explains all this.

...for-profit police companies.
They already exist. They're called Mafias. Or have you never heard of "protection money"?

I'd rather not live in a system where my protection was provided by several competing Mafia organizations, thank you very much. And I wouldn't enjoy their inevitable gang wars, either.

What's to stop me using my police company as a private army to take others possessions? I'm paying their wages after all.
Read the link. It's short and explains all this.

Cast off your will and embrace the totality. Take yourself up from illusion of freedom and provide us your identification, capital, characteristics, desires and needs and WE will provide you all what you need. WE will together reach the ultimate world for anyone, using wisdom of science and strength of the masses. WE are worth of your trust; WE are the state...

http://www.lcarscom.net/images/borg.jpg

First of all, no democratically elected president or majority has ever gone anywhere near totalitarianism. Why? Because the majority of people value their personal freedom, so when the majority rules, it is almost certain to defend those freedoms.

Second of all, why should you dictate your terms to the majority? If the majority doesn't want your laissez-faire capitalist system, who the fuck are you to force it down their throats?

I'm too busy right now to reply to all this but I couldn't resist this one. How do you force "laissez nous faire" (leave us alone) down somebody's throat? It's the diametric opposite of forcing anything down people's throat which is why I'm in favour of it. I'm sorry if you feel oppressed that I don't want you to use violence against me or steal my property!

I'm too busy right now to reply to all this but I couldn't resist this one. How do you force "laissez nous faire" (leave us alone) down somebody's throat? It's the diametric opposite of forcing anything down people's throat which is why I'm in favour of it. I'm sorry if you feel oppressed that I don't want you to use violence against me or steal my property!
What if I just take your property without violence? Let's say I take your car and drive it. No violence is involved. I have made a key that works with your car.

What if I just take your property without violence?
It's still stealing.

It's still stealing.So? What are you gonna do?
If you go by your laissez-faire philosophy, will you let me steal?

I'm too busy right now to reply to all this but I couldn't resist this one. How do you force "laissez nous faire" (leave us alone) down somebody's throat? It's the diametric opposite of forcing anything down people's throat which is why I'm in favour of it.
Wrong. "Laissez-faire" involves absolute property rights, and the protection of private property at any cost (no matter how many lives are lost because of it). This is what your are trying to force down our throats.

I'm sorry if you feel oppressed that I don't want you to use violence against me or steal my property!
I feel oppressed because you want to exploit me and use your capital to gain more property and/or money without working.

Besides, private property is an illegitimate concept anyway (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=346365&page=8&pp=15). We must use it only out of convenience, and there will come a time when it will no longer be necessary.

<sarcasm>Quick! Everyone! Deny all benevolence whatsoever! Do not strive towards more equitable systems because they've taken failed and oppressive incarnations prior! Do not innovate and try things which have not been done heretofore! As a matter of fact, just backtrack and let's all subscribe to ojbectivism. The beauty of the Randite police state is just great! Nobody owes anyone else a goddamned thing and capitalism can take its purest form. Imagine how great that'll be!</sarcasm>

Oh, and by the way, Libertovania, since you keep nagging people to go visit your links, here's my link to your worst nightmare - the web's largest website dedicated to refuting libertarian crap:

CRITIQUES OF LIBERTARIANISM (http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html)

Enjoy! :)

See also Cuba's treatment of the anarchist movement. It's not a 'mistake' as you suggest. It's policy.

Anarchists are scum who try to destabilize everything.
it used to be policy in America that Blacks had to be treated differantly from white people


The difference being that nobody is trying to claim that Iran is "communist"


It doesnt matter if its Communist or not my point is there are countries a hell of a lot worse than cuba. the internetional world should treat Cuba as a legal country like any other nation in the world.


.You support Castro. Castro is a Stalinist.
QE fucking D


You have no idea what goes on in Cuba go there sometime and get a clue.
Do you think America is really goin to release TRUE information like Castro is the best damn thing that happened to Cuba excluding Che Guevara

Oh, and by the way, Libertovania, since you keep nagging people to go visit your links, here's my link to your worst nightmare - the web's largest website dedicated to refuting libertarian crap:

CRITIQUES OF LIBERTARIANISM (http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html)

Enjoy! :)
And here (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/response_to_huben.html ) is a link refuting Huben's bullshit.

Enjoy.

Show me where I told you to "shut up." I did express the fact that I would quit the argument if you refused to offer anything substantial, or reply to my central argument... but I did it as an act of negotiating the point, not just to be rude.
Then I misunderstood.

Of course, while you broke up most of what I had to say to insert sarcastic non-answers,
On the contrary, I answered your questions.

you have still failed to address the issue of cooperative labor.
Except that I did address it.

Even if I were a hypocrite (which I am not), how would that affect my argument? If someone says murder is wrong, and then commits murder... He was still right when he said it was wrong.
That's not the point. The point is that you wouldn't practice what you preach.

That's an ad hominem, not a counter-argument.
No, it's not an ad hom, either.

And here (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/response_to_huben.html ) is a link refuting Huben's bullshit.

Enjoy.
Yes, and HERE (http://www.geocities.com/jonathanandreas/lib1.html) is a link counter-refuting Friedman's crappy "refutation".

Enjoy!

Thanks for your links all, but posting a link is not an argument.
I enjoyed reading all this though.

Then why do so many of them [Cubans] try to flee?
Because a continent-wide global superpower with access to all the resources of the world (namely the USA) is richer than a tiny island nation isolated through embargo (Cuba). Go figure.
But Cuba is a Worker's Paradise(tm). It's the land of Milk and Honey, right? No one should ever want to leave it, ever.

Notice something interesting, however: When was the last time you heard of Cubans fleeing to any of their neighboring Latin American countries? Are Cubans fleeing to Haiti? Are Cubans fleeing to Jamaica? Are Cubans fleeing to Mexico? No. And you know why? Because Cuba has higher standards of living than any of its Latin American neighbors.
Which isn't saying much.

Consider the following statistics, which I've compiled using no less an authority than the uber-capitalistic CIA World Factbook:
It's not capitalistic.

LIFE EXPECTANCY:

Cuba - 76.8 years
Chile - 76.35 years
Jamaica - 76.07 years
Uruguay - 75.87 years
Argentina - 75.48 years
Mexico - 74.94 years
Paraguay - 74.4 years
Venezuela - 73.81 years
Ecuador - 71.89 years
Colombia - 71.14 years
Brazil - 71.13 years
Peru - 70.88 years
Dom. Rep. - 67.63 years
Bolivia - 64.78 years
Haiti - 51.78 years

What was that about "starving Cubans", kiddo?
You mean the ones that you can see when you go to Cuba? They exist.

Looks to me like they're living longer than anybody else in Latin America.
...which isn't saying much.

LITERACY:

Uruguay - 98%
Argentina - 97.1%
Cuba - 97%
Chile - 96.2%
Paraguay - 94%
Venezuela - 93.4%
Ecuador - 92.5%
Colombia - 92.5%
Mexico - 92.2%
Peru - 90.9%
Jamaica - 87.9%
Bolivia - 87.2%
Brazil - 86.4%
Dom. Rep. - 84.7%
Haiti - 52.9%

Well, Cuba didn't get first place this time, but it comes a close third. And look: Cuba's state-run education still does a better job than your beloved uber-capitalistic Chile!
Chile isn't uber-capitalistic. Try again.
(And frankly, I wouldn't call 0.8% much of a difference, anyway).

Anyway, what precisely were the stats supposed to show?


The worst nightmare of statists/socialists/communists.
Worst nightmare?
Yep.


I'm a person who thinks and isn't swayed by their emotive pleas and fallacies.
Sorry, but I haven't seen any conclusive evidence of intelligent thought from you yet.
Funny. I think the same of you.

Oh, and I'm sure you're not swayed by "emotive pleas and fallacies", because, as we have seen, you're not swayed by reason and logic either.
I see. So the fact that you can't refute anything I post means that you just want to be a coward at this point. Great. No problem.

Guess nothing's going to sway you from your childish dogma.


In short: an anarcho-capitalist.
Oh, I see - you're an oxymoron.
No, those would be ansoc's and ancom's.


You think that anyone who does not think exactly as you do wants all poor people to rot.
No, I think poor people will rot in your twisted economic system, whether you want it or not.
And I think that people will only be poor and rotting in your sick, twisted system.

It is a FACT that poor people are poorer and more miserable in countries with more capitalism
No, it's not.

- and that they are better off in countries with more welfare and state intervention.
Not a fact, either. Try again when you learn the difference between an opinion and a fact.


Frankly, capitalism requires anarchy.
Hahahahahahahaha!!!!
The laughter of the insane.

You really think that the immense injustices of capitalism
Name them. Now.

could last more than 10 seconds if there wasn't a government to enforce them?
Yep.

Private property is a form of authority - it can only exist while it is protected by some authoritarian force
And if there was private property without a government? (Oh I'll just wait for you to deny it before I spring reality on you. Oh that will be fun).

(such as a government). Your "anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron, because you can't have capitalism unless you have some way to prevent the poor from rising up against the rich.
Ah, so you've confused communism with capitalism. I see.

What is your "anarcho-capitalism" going to do when the starving masses decide enough is enough and start up a revolution?
Why would there be starving masses? Prove your claim now.

Without government, how can you stop the poor majority from overthrowing the rich elite and taking what is rightfully theirs?
What rich elite? What would be "rightfully (theirs) the majority's"? Don't beg the question, moron.


Or I could read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
Yes, of course, you could base your entire world-view on the words of one Russian
And the words of the people like him. And all the bullshit that happened there.

... or you could actually try to listen to what other Russians and East Europeans have to say, too. Like the millions whose lives were ruined by capitalism.
So 0 = millions? Odd. How's that mathematically work?

Yes, and HERE (http://www.geocities.com/jonathanandreas/lib1.html) is a link counter-refuting Friedman's crappy "refutation".

Enjoy!

And here (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/rerebutal_re_huben.htm) is Friedman's response to Andreas' bull.

Enjoy!

(You'll notice that Friedman actually has it linked on the page for the response to Huben. But you'd never read it because you're quite stuck on your infantile dogma).

well maybe we should give Tribalism a shot :p

But Cuba is a Worker's Paradise(tm). It's the land of Milk and Honey, right? No one should ever want to leave it, ever.


Which isn't saying much.


It's not capitalistic.


You mean the ones that you can see when you go to Cuba? They exist.


...which isn't saying much.


Chile isn't uber-capitalistic. Try again.
(And frankly, I wouldn't call 0.8% much of a difference, anyway).

Anyway, what precisely were the stats supposed to show?



Yep.



Funny. I think the same of you.


I see. So the fact that you can't refute anything I post means that you just want to be a coward at this point. Great. No problem.

Guess nothing's going to sway you from your childish dogma.



No, those would be ansoc's and ancom's.



And I think that people will only be poor and rotting in your sick, twisted system.


No, it's not.


Not a fact, either. Try again when you learn the difference between an opinion and a fact.



The laughter of the insane.


Name them. Now.


Yep.


And if there was private property without a government? (Oh I'll just wait for you to deny it before I spring reality on you. Oh that will be fun).


Ah, so you've confused communism with capitalism. I see.


Why would there be starving masses? Prove your claim now.


What rich elite? What would be "rightfully (theirs) the majority's"? Don't beg the question, moron.



And the words of the people like him. And all the bullshit that happened there.


So 0 = millions? Odd. How's that mathematically work?If I may...
This is not an argument, just rethoric, denying, name calling and bad faith. This has no value.

Yes i know what Fascism is My grand Uncle is german. heres a few ww2 fascist states for you germany, italy, nationalist spain, and portugal.

And you still don't know what it is. How sad.
I am feeling you are the one who doesnt understan the plain wrongness of fascism.
And you still don't know what fascism is. How sad.

I do belive communism can help people and if you dont well thats tough for you. You ever lived under a communist goverment? I have. I didnt starve.

Intellectually.
What are you on about i didnt starve intellectually either when there i wasnt deprived of knowledge and books in case i discovered the (non-existant) secret evil of the goverment, in cuba there are libraries etc just like any nation.
You believed the propaganda.

I wasnt brain washed by the goverment the tv wasnt constantly playing lets hail our goverment crap.

Ah. So you think I support the US government? Boy, are you in for a fucking surprise.
emm i cant recall saying you did.
You certainly implied it.

i am glad you at least have the intellectual capacity to understand how US propaganda works but next time dont make up things that i have apparantly said just to feel like a big boy and say swear words
There's no such thing as swear words. Grow the fuck up.

You really dont know what you are talking about go live ina communist goverment then come talk to me.

Or I could read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
That is the opinion of one man who didnt gain anythng out of communism. and you may not belive this but reading a book and living through something are very differant
Didn't he live through it? YES!

Boy, don't you look stupid.

Except that I did address it.

Ok. Where? Or perhaps you could just reiterate, as will I. I say, along with the entire science of economics, that cooperative labor is more productive than purely individualized labor. You say no. Explain.


That's not the point. The point is that you wouldn't practice what you preach.


No, it's not an ad hom, either.

What does it matter to the argument if I don't practice what I preach? It may mean I'm not the sort of person you want to be friends with... but it says absolutely nothing about the argument. Thus, if it is your intention to discredit the argument by discrediting me as a supposed hypocrite, you are practicing an ad hominem tactic -- you attack the person rather than the claim.

It is clear that this discussion is devolving into a childish, "yes I did, no you didn't" game. I say again, prove that individualized labor is as productive as cooperative labor, or come up with some other reason that you should get what you did not earn.

Regardless of one's opinions on the morality of collectivist equality centered economic system like Communism, the most interesting thing to me is the problem of how to actually impliment said system. I do not pretend to be the final word, I know only a little. Maybe this post can spur more specific discussions about Communism. I classify myself as a libertarian, essentially on the opposite end of the spectrum from Communism. Objectively; however, I find it difficult to 'prove' one world view superior to the other.

With that. It seems like any transition to Communism neccasarily involved (national) socialism. The reason being that there must be some agent empowered to "set thing right" or distribute the means of production and establish the procedures and precedents under which the new system would operate, as can be seen in the 'dictorship of the proletariat' in Russia/Ussr. That's fine

The problem with the system begins here, because in my experience beuracracy (sp?) especially those with enourmous power and authority have a kind of monumental inertia in anything regarding their delegation of authority. Why would a state, once so empowered cede power as they 'should'? Time and time again this seems to be the downfall of any society attempting to 'convert' to Communism.

I dont know. What do you guys think?

And here (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/rerebutal_re_huben.htm) is Friedman's response to Andreas' bull.

Enjoy!

(You'll notice that Friedman actually has it linked on the page for the response to Huben. But you'd never read it because you're quite stuck on your infantile dogma).
Actually, I was waiting for you to post that, precisely because Andreas wrote a counter-counter-counter-refutation (http://www.geocities.com/jonathanandreas/lib2.html).

So I'm afraid the joke's on you, my ignorant capitalist friend. (I use the term "friend" purely for amusement)

Enjoy!

Oh, and since BAAWA's latest "argument" boils down to...

You're wrong, I'm right, nya nya nya...
...I think he's doing a better job of pointing out his own stupidity than I'll ever be able to, so if you don't mind, I'll take the rest of the day off.

Regardless of one's opinions on the morality of collectivist equality centered economic system like Communism, the most interesting thing to me is the problem of how to actually impliment said system. I do not pretend to be the final word, I know only a little. Maybe this post can spur more specific discussions about Communism. I classify myself as a libertarian, essentially on the opposite end of the spectrum from Communism. Objectively; however, I find it difficult to 'prove' one world view superior to the other.

With that. It seems like any transition to Communism neccasarily involved (national) socialism. The reason being that there must be some agent empowered to "set thing right" or distribute the means of production and establish the procedures and precedents under which the new system would operate, as can be seen in the 'dictorship of the proletariat' in Russia/Ussr. That's fine

The problem with the system begins here, because in my experience beuracracy (sp?) especially those with enourmous power and authority have a kind of monumental inertia in anything regarding their delegation of authority. Why would a state, once so empowered cede power as they 'should'? Time and time again this seems to be the downfall of any society attempting to 'convert' to Communism.

I dont know. What do you guys think?
Ideally, the people are empowered, not just the government. The government is supposed to represent the people and should be democratic. Let set it straight. Communism is a highly evolved system. A country can not go from feudalism to communism straight in 10 years. Democracy is a pre-requisite. Capitalism is a step in the evolution of the system as well. You find capitalism between feudalism and communism.

"Short answers to dumb questions:

Anyone can get rich if they work hard enough!

Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart, "worked hard" and "got rich". Then he died. His three kids are now worth over 12 billion dollars each!

How hard did they work, climbing out of their mama's birth canal and all?

The Walton family need never lift a finger again...their fortune will grow inevitably.

When her parents die, Bill and Melinda Gates' little girl is going to be one of the richest individuals on the planet...did she work really hard for that money?

There are now hundreds of members of the Rockefeller family...all of whom are wealthier than 99% of all Americans...did they work "really hard" for their inheritances?

Capitalism is a big casino; for every huge winner there are tens of millions of losers...and work (hard, easy, or non-existent) has very little to do with it.

Do you think it's fair for a doctor to be paid the same as a janitor?

Why not? If there were no janitors, housekeepers, sanitation workers, what would happen? You'd either have to do all that clean-up yourself or things would get filthy, germs would breed, you'd get sick and die.

As a matter of fact, death rates started to decline in the second half of the 19th century...when medicine was still mostly quackery. Why? Because major European cities started building sewer systems and people stopped living in their own shit.

Every person who makes a genuine contribution to society deserves a living wage...an income sufficient to live with dignity.

We should have the freedom to get as rich as we want to.

Where do you think riches come from? Do they fall out of the sky?

You cannot create wealth out of thin air. The wealth that society as a whole produces is finite...a dollar in your pocket means a dollar less in someone else's pocket. Behind every rich person stand hundreds or thousands or even millions of poor people...losers in the capitalist casino.

So you are in the same ethical position as the old Confederate slave-owner...who thought he should have the "freedom" to buy as many slaves as he wanted to.

Are you willing to fight, kill, and even give up your own life for that "freedom"?

Communism is dead!

So why are you talking to me? If communism were really dead, you wouldn't waste a second of your time talking to a total nutball.

What you're really saying is that you hope that communism will "stay dead".

We'll see.

If communism and socialism are so great, then why are all socialist countries living in dire poverty?

They were even worse off before they had socialism. Places like Russia and China were shitholes still living in the middle ages before their revolutions; socialism created their modern economies out of nothing.

There's really only one semi-socialist country left -- Cuba -- and if you want to compare it with some place, compare it to Jamaica or the Dominican Republic or even Costa Rica...places where many (most?) people still live like it was 1850!

It's true that capitalism has been restored in Russia and China -- which is where that "communism is dead" stuff comes from. But that didn't happen because people wanted it to...there were objective material conditions that caused that to happen.

It's a complicated question; but the short version is that communism can only come into existence after a capitalist economy has developed as far as it can. Thus the people in Russia, China, etc. never had communism even though the ruling parties called themselves "communists". What they really had in those places was something they called "socialism"...but which was actually a kind of capitalism without capitalists. Eventually, the party bosses donated their red flags and membership cards to a museum and became openly capitalist themselves.

In the real world, things are not always what they seem.



The Redstar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas"

Oh, and by the way, in the Andreas vs. Friedman debate, I'd like to point out that Andreas got the final word (http://www.geocities.com/jonathanandreas/lib2.html).

Check and mate, capitalist fool.

They already exist. They're called Mafias. Or have you never heard of "protection money"?
Let's say that you pay to have your house cleaned. Is the cleaning service demanding that you pay or else?

What a fucking load!

Dumbshit, if you contract with someone voluntarily, it's not extortion. When you don't contract voluntarily, it's called "government".

As for the not-inevitable "gang wars"...you may wish to tone down the Hollywood bullshit. It's not going to impress anyone but your fellow oxymorons.

Oh, and by the way, in the Andreas vs. Friedman debate, I'd like to point out that Andreas got the final word (http://www.geocities.com/jonathanandreas/lib2.html).

Check and mate, capitalist fool.
Prove it, oxymoron fool.

whine whine whine
Try refuting what's been posted, coward.

And you still don't know what fascism is. How sad.


Fine then what is Fascism then give me a full description so i can understand.


You believed the propaganda.


The point is there was no propaganda
When i left Cuba i didnt want to worship Castro or go blow up an american
But when people leave america they leave with this feeling of "oh my god those nasty cubans doin nothing to us we have to wreck their stabile way of life " That is where the propaganda is coming from Not Cuba.



You certainly implied it.


When exactly did i do that?


There's no such thing as swear words. Grow the fuck up.


"the university english dictionry"
Written end edited by Henry Wyld

Swear-word, noun 1. a profane outh of loyalty
OR 2. a word which the majority would take offence
ie blasphemy, rascism.

There we go again it is pitiful how you cant provide a convincing arguement so just make sarcastic comments and swear.


Didn't he live through it? YES!

Boy, don't you look stupid.

nope just you my point is YOU havnt lived through a communist goverment.
so have no idea.
and look at all your counter arguments they are all made up of cutting up my answers in to little bits leaving out the eveidnece then making childish comments . you really can't have a debate can you? put in some evidence in your answers rather than
"no its not"
"shut the hell up"
" im right an your wrong fuck off"

Oh, and since BAAWA's latest "argument" boils down to...


...I think he's doing a better job of pointing out his own stupidity than I'll ever be able to, so if you don't mind, I'll take the rest of the day off.
I don't think he is stupid. You must understand how hard it is to change religion. This individual must be born in a capitalist country and has learned to hate the communist philosophy from the cold war. Any writting about communism has been labeled unholy and dangerous for decades. If social education had been banned in your country, you would probably be as indoctrined as he is.

BAAWA is an individual and we gain nothing by judging him. The fact is that he is symptomatic of a wider problem. this problem is fundamentalism.

Ok. Where? Or perhaps you could just reiterate, as will I. I say, along with the entire science of economics, that cooperative labor is more productive than purely individualized labor. You say no.
I never said that, liar.

What does it matter to the argument if I don't practice what I preach?
Never said it did, but it makes you look bad.

It is clear that this discussion is devolving into a childish, "yes I did, no you didn't" game. I say again, prove that individualized labor is as productive as cooperative labor, or come up with some other reason that you should get what you did not earn.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!

Fallacy of the complex question and begging the question.

Separate the concepts, and prove that it is gaining what was not earned. Then we can talk.

I don't think he is stupid. You must understand how hard it is to change religion. This individual must be born in a capitalist country and has learned to hate the communist philosophy from the cold war.
*laughs*

*laughs and laughs and laughs*

Oh that's rich.

Now try something that has some sort of validity.

(Y'know, that argument can be turned around on the communists, so it's best to not use it, m'kay?. Try again.)

Let's say that you pay to have your house cleaned. Is the cleaning service demanding that you pay or else?
If they've got guns and there's no one to stop them, yes.

Dumbshit, if you contract with someone voluntarily, it's not extortion. When you don't contract voluntarily, it's called "government".
Right, so Al Capone was a member of government?

And when you have the choice between accepting a contract or dying, it is NOT voluntary - no matter what the cause of your death would be. "Do what we say or starve" is not a "free agreement".

Let's say that you pay to have your house cleaned. Is the cleaning service demanding that you pay or else?
If they've got guns and there's no one to stop them, yes.
Why would they have guns? Prove your claim.


Dumbshit, if you contract with someone voluntarily, it's not extortion. When you don't contract voluntarily, it's called "government".
Right, so Al Capone was a member of government?
In a way. But you still didn't address anything relevant.

And when you have the choice between accepting a contract or dying, it is NOT voluntary - no matter what the cause of your death would be. "Do what we say or starve" is not a "free agreement".
And that happens only in socialist/communist countries.

Try again.

*laughs*

*laughs and laughs and laughs*

Oh that's rich.

Now try something that has some sort of validity.

(Y'know, that argument can be turned around on the communists, so it's best to not use it, m'kay?. Try again.)
I was arguing with Constantinopolis, not you.
Arguing with you is not possible because you don't know the rules of an argumentation. This is the pre-requisite of an argument.
I was just arguing with Constantinopolis that you were probably a clever guy but that social education had been denied to you.

And you still don't know what fascism is. How sad.
Fine then what is Fascism then give me a full description so i can understand.
"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"


You believed the propaganda.
The point is there was no propaganda
Except for all the propaganda that everyone is welcome in Cuba (except for anyone deemed "politically dangerous" or "undesirable", like homosexuals) and that Cuba is a paradise.

When i left Cuba i didnt want to worship Castro or go blow up an american
But when people leave america they leave with this feeling of "oh my god those nasty cubans doin nothing to us we have to wreck their stabile way of life " That is where the propaganda is coming from Not Cuba.
Oh I agree that the sanctions should be lifted, but don't kid yourself and think that Cuba doesn't do its share of propagandist crap. That's naïve.


There's no such thing as swear words. Grow the fuck up.
"the university english dictionry"
Written end edited by Henry Wyld

Swear-word, noun 1. a profane outh of loyalty
OR 2. a word which the majority would take offence
ie blasphemy, rascism.
Still no such thing. There are only words. What you provided was archaic mystical nonsense.

There we go again it is pitiful how you cant provide a convincing arguement so just make sarcastic comments and swear.
You provide me with no real material to comment on. You just give me bullshit propaganda. How am I supposed to work with that?


Didn't he live through it? YES!

Boy, don't you look stupid.
nope just you my point is YOU havnt lived through a communist goverment.
Irrelevant.

Now I advise you to take your own advice about putting in an argument, because you certainly haven't been. When I get nothing to work with, I treat you the way I have been, get it?

Why would they have guns? Prove your claim.
We were using the "cleaners" as a metaphor for "private police under a no-government situation".

If you have such bad memory problems, perhaps a little professional help would do you some good.

And that happens only in socialist/communist countries.

Try again.
Tsk tsk... I'm afraid Psylos was wrong. You are stupid. Here, let me spell it out for you:

John Smith lives in your uber-capitalistic la-la land. John Smith has no job, and he's about to starve to death (or get sliced by thugs because he can't afford to pay the private police for his protection - whichever comes first). John Smith has one job opportunity at a huge corporation. The corporation tells him: "Do what we say or starve"

The same thing can happen in any capitalist country with no welfare state. The poor are given a choice between obeying their capitalist masters or starving to death.

This is such a simple concept that even someone like you (http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html) should be able to grasp it, BAAWA.

I was arguing with Constantinopolis, not you.
So what?

Arguing with you is not possible because you don't know the rules of an argumentation.
On the contrary, it is my opponents who do not. They feel that emotive pleas and propaganda are valid argumentation styles! When I am given those to work with, I treat the people as I have been.

Get it?

Now, if you don't mind, I meant what I said before. Arguing with stone walls is counter-productive (although sometimes amusing), so I'll take the rest of the day off.

Have a cookie.

So what?


On the contrary, it is my opponents who do not. They feel that emotive pleas and propaganda are valid argumentation styles! When I am given those to work with, I treat the people as I have been.

Get it?Ok I'm starting to understand.
Let's see if I got that thing right :
You are using this argumentation "tactic" of name-calling and stuff because you feel that the opposing side had been using it in the first place and you think it is the best way to show them how dumb this tactic is.
Is that correct?

Why would they have guns? Prove your claim.
We were using the "cleaners" as a metaphor for "private police under a no-government situation".
No, "we" weren't.


And that happens only in socialist/communist countries.

Try again.
Tsk tsk... I'm afraid Psylos was wrong. You are stupid. Here, let me spell it out for you:

John Smith lives in your uber-capitalistic la-la land. John Smith has no job, and he's about to starve to death
Why is this about to happen? Prove your claim.

(or get sliced by thugs because he can't afford to pay the private police for his protection - whichever comes first).
Why can't he? Prove your claim.

John Smith has one job opportunity at a huge corporation.
Why would this happen? Prove your claim.

You beg too many questions. Keep trying.

Ok I'm starting to understand.
Let's see if I got that thing right :
You are using this argumentation "tactic" of name-calling and stuff because you feel that the opposing side had been using it in the first place and you think it is the best way to show them how dumb this tactic is.
Is that correct?
No. I'm saying that I've been given no material to work with, so why should I bother giving them something to work with? If they want a real debate, then they should try as well. Until then, I'll just phone it in. I've got other people I can really debate, rather than waste mental energy on the whining socialists here. So I choose to not waste my mental energy and instead slap them around.

No. I'm saying that I've been given no material to work with, so why should I bother giving them something to work with? If they want a real debate, then they should try as well. Until then, I'll just phone it in. I've got other people I can really debate, rather than waste mental energy on the whining socialists here. So I choose to not waste my mental energy and instead slap them around.The problem is that your opponent will react exactly as you do. They will slap you around and the thread will get out of hand.

I'm too busy right now to reply to all this but I couldn't resist this one. How do you force "laissez nous faire" (leave us alone) down somebody's throat? It's the diametric opposite of forcing anything down people's throat which is why I'm in favour of it.
Wrong. "Laissez-faire" involves absolute property rights, and the protection of private property at any cost (no matter how many lives are lost because of it).
Wouldn't you defend your life? Isn't your life your property?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPS!

Moron.

This is what your are trying to force down our throats.
No, no one's forcing it. You're free to reject it if you like. But don't try to force anyone else to not respect property rights.


I'm sorry if you feel oppressed that I don't want you to use violence against me or steal my property!
I feel oppressed because you want to exploit me and use your capital to gain more property and/or money without working.
I feel sorry for you that you have to use refuted ideas and think they are valid, especially that "exploitation" nonsense and the idea that "capitalists don't work". What a fucking load!

Besides, private property is an illegitimate concept anyway.
So someone can kill you and nothing can ever come of it? How sick!

Your life is your property. Your body is your property. If your body is not your private property, then slavery is ok. So are murder and rape. Going to go down that road, moron?

Anarchists are scum who try to destabilize everything.For someone that claims not to be a Stalinist you sure talk like one. Substantiate or fuck off. (For the record I'm not actually an anarchist. Unlike you I'm a genuine Marxist.
it used to be policy in America that Blacks had to be treated differantly from white peopleAnd that was deplorable, unjust and entirely fucking irrelevent to this discussion.



It doesnt matter if its Communist or not my point is there are countries a hell of a lot worse than cuba. the internetional world should treat Cuba as a legal country like any other nation in the world.The internetional world does. It's merely America that doesen't. (And where did I say I support sanctions. I'm merely saying that Cuba isn't the great socialist paradise you're (incompetently) trying to paint it as).


You have no idea what goes on in Cuba go there sometime and get a clue.
Do you think America is really goin to release TRUE information like Castro is the best damn thing that happened to Cuba excluding Che GuevaraAnd what American propaganda have I regurgitated precisely? My views that Castro is Stalinist is based mostly on his writing and his praise of Stalin. You still haven't answered my other question. Which group did you go to Cuba with. (And I find your willingness to write off the torture of gays by your "best damn thing" to be highly morally reprehensible).

The problem is that your opponent will react exactly as you do. They will slap you around and the thread will get out of hand.
Then maybe they should have realized in the first place that they need a real argument, rather than emotive pleas and refuted crap. I'm not going to wet-nurse them.

"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"


Which i belive is what i said i belive is wrong earlier.


Except for all the propaganda that everyone is welcome in Cuba (except for anyone deemed "politically dangerous" or "undesirable", like homosexuals) and that Cuba is a paradise.


politically dangerous people are arrested in all countries
In britain there was a muslim cleric deemed "politacally dangerous" because he was talkng about how he thought the american and british goverments where evil and told people to rise up against it (sorry i cant remember his name ill look it up later) its the same in Cuba. Cuba is no differant than the Uk in that perspective
asylum seekers in britain and mexicans in the USA are often thrown out because they are "undesirable" its the same i cuba undesirables are exiled


Oh I agree that the sanctions should be lifted, but don't kid yourself and think that Cuba doesn't do its share of propagandist crap. That's naïve.


i agree all nations including cuba use propaganda my point is Cuban prop is no worse than American.


Still no such thing. There are only words. What you provided was archaic mystical nonsense.


The dictionary is mystical? interesting you just go and call a black guy ****** (apologies to any black people) and see if he thinks its ok its just mystical


You provide me with no real material to comment on. You just give me bullshit propaganda. How am I supposed to work with that?


i have given you material how about the stuff i quoted from Constantinopolis about how cuba has life expectany and literacy rates nearly as good as the US if Castros killing so many people where did the Cia get those results from (and dont just give me the "they only count the rich people crap because do you think the cia couldnt find some poor people in Cuba)


Irrelevant.

no its very relevant you lived in a communist goverment so you can not pass judgement for all you know the author was talking crap.


Now I advise you to take your own advice about putting in an argument, because you certainly haven't been. When I get nothing to work with, I treat you the way I have been, get it?

i do give you stuff but all you do is cut it up into little bits and make little childish sarcastic comments about some bits and put the rest in the bin

Then maybe they should have realized in the first place that they need a real argument, rather than emotive pleas and refuted crap. I'm not going to wet-nurse them.
Fair enough.
I think they have understood now. That'll teach them how to argue.

what's wrong with Communism was neatly summerized by Marx: "From each according to his ability to each according to his need." possibly the most disgusting concept ever generated in human social interaction.
Disgusting? This was the premise on which the early Christian Church based itself. "The whole group of believers was united, heart and soul; no one claimed for his own use anything that he had, as everything they owned was held in common...None of their members was ever in want, as all those who owned land or houses would sell them, and bring the money from them, to present it to the apostles; it was then distributed to any members who might be in need." (Acts 4:32-35, Jerusalem Bible) A marvelous ideal, but not practical for very long as disputes arose over property, distribution of food to widows, etc. On a small scale this is still practiced in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox monastic and religious orders with a vow of poverty, and by some Protestant communal groups (Hutterites, the Bruderhof). On the scale of a larger society, however, it becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible, to implement except by an enforced standard of equality, and those doing the enforcing inevitably become, in the words of Orwell, "more equal than others". (Even the religiously based groups need some authority to ensure the right working of the system.)
The great mistake of Marx was the assumption that by changing social structures, human nature would be changed. The experience of the Soviet
Union, especially in its early years when egalitarian/utopian experiments met with disastrous results, refutes this clearly.

Living in Cuba isn't better than living in the USA or Canada, but it's better than living anywhere else in the Western Hemisphere.

I think you've made an excellent point, except several things:

A) Cuba is a small nation requiring, effectively, very little capitol to maintain its base infrastructure. To which, it was also heavily supported by other former communist nations as well.

B) I think it is highly debatable on how much Cubans want freedom. We don't honestly know what goes on in there - someone who speaks out for freedom could mysteriously "disappear", and thus those who may -want- greater civil rights simply keep quiet so that they can continue enjoying life.

When you lack the true ability to express your real opinion for fear of being imprisoned, fined, tortured and killed, then any opinion you do come up with is suspect.

The best way to determine if Cuba wants to keep it's communist government is to give it the ability to elect its new leader(s). If they continually elect a communist government, then you're right, that is what the Cubans want and democracy has proven it. But that's not the case now, is it?

For someone that claims not to be a Stalinist you sure talk like one. Substantiate or fuck off. (For the record I'm not actually an anarchist. Unlike you I'm a genuine Marxist.And that was deplorable, unjust and entirely fucking irrelevent to this discussion.

You are a marxist? you could have fooled me. ( dont flatter your self no one is a true marxist they have all got it wrong) and i feel anarchist are scum because i feel in a goverment free world chaos would rule and people would get hurt therfore i belive anyone who supports that is scum. ( i am a supporter of marx theories and not a leninist nor stalinist or any over type of lefty traitor and i suport cuba because it is the closest thing to real communism there is and it is alone in the world standing up for itself. i do not think its any way near close to perfect but its taking a stab at it if it had more support from the international communisty it might be better . For example US funding might help it become na better place for its people but no the US hates it because they feel they are the rightful owners of Cuba and hate lefties.


The internetional world does. It's merely America that doesen't. (And where did I say I support sanctions. I'm merely saying that Cuba isn't the great socialist paradise you're (incompetently) trying to paint it as).

America is the strongest nation in the internetional world so has a lot of influence i did not say it was a paradise or workers utopia.


And what American propaganda have I regurgitated precisely? My views that Castro is Stalinist is based mostly on his writing and his praise of Stalin. You still haven't answered my other question. Which group did you go to Cuba with. (And I find your willingness to write off the torture of gays by your "best damn thing" to be highly morally reprehensible).

i do not think Castro is perfect but having seen the man myself (not personally but pretty damn close) i think he is a great leader. he praised stalin initially as a way to get maximum reaction out of the USA in the cold war but has lost sight of marxism which is a shame and its also a sahme he thinks homosexuality is wrong but so do many people in the world (mainly religious world)
i do not agree with it (gay torturing) but still support the goverment.
I didnt go to Cuba with any group i was born there and my parents are from Chile not that is you business

So then, why do you have poor farmers and fishermen risking their lives to go to Florida with nothing but the clothes on their back? When doctors, lawyers, and engineers fled Castro, that might be expected that the upper classes would flee a popular revolution, but when the poor started to flee--well, I don't see any poor people from Miami getting into boats to go to Cuba. And Miami has plenty of poor people.

So then, why do you have poor farmers and fishermen risking their lives to go to Florida with nothing but the clothes on their back? When doctors, lawyers, and engineers fled Castro, that might be expected that the upper classes would flee a popular revolution, but when the poor started to flee--well, I don't see any poor people from Miami getting into boats to go to Cuba. And Miami has plenty of poor people.

America is of course a very rich country so a lot of people want to go there. People from every country of the world try to go to America so of course some cubans do

http://www.cubacentral.com/todaysnewsdetail.cfm?ID=406

might be of some interest.

Disgusting? This was the premise on which the early Christian Church based itself. "The whole group of believers was united, heart and soul; no one claimed for his own use anything that he had, as everything they owned was held in common...None of their members was ever in want, as all those who owned land or houses would sell them, and bring the money from them, to present it to the apostles; it was then distributed to any members who might be in need." (Acts 4:32-35, Jerusalem Bible) A marvelous ideal, but not practical for very long as disputes arose over property, distribution of food to widows, etc. On a small scale this is still practiced in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox monastic and religious orders with a vow of poverty, and by some Protestant communal groups (Hutterites, the Bruderhof). On the scale of a larger society, however, it becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible, to implement except by an enforced standard of equality, and those doing the enforcing inevitably become, in the words of Orwell, "more equal than others". (Even the religiously based groups need some authority to ensure the right working of the system.)
The great mistake of Marx was the assumption that by changing social structures, human nature would be changed. The experience of the Soviet
Union, especially in its early years when egalitarian/utopian experiments met with disastrous results, refutes this clearly.
I don't know if this will really be an effective argument since communists and...well...at least the libertarians around here are generally nonreligious.
Saying "the Christians did it" isn't gonna make anyone say "OH, then communism is good"

http://www.cubacentral.com/todaysnewsdetail.cfm?ID=406

might be of some interest.
This is interesting it shows just how the Americans are interfering in Cuba and its just plain wrong. And those poor med studants what had they done.
But they were quite snobby about the conditions OH NO NO AIR CONDITIONING

This is interesting it shows just how the Americans are interfering in Cuba and its just plain wrong. And those poor med studants what had they done.
But they were quite snobby about the conditions OH NO NO AIR CONDITIONING

I sure as hell hope I never get treated by someone trained in Cuba

"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"
Which i belive is what i said i belive is wrong earlier.
No, you didn't actually say anything about such. You just said my ideas promoted it. How that is I don't know.


Except for all the propaganda that everyone is welcome in Cuba (except for anyone deemed "politically dangerous" or "undesirable", like homosexuals) and that Cuba is a paradise.
politically dangerous people are arrested in all countries
Oh no, you made it quite clear that all are equal in Cuba and that everyone is welcome--that there are no problems with tolerance or anything like that. Don't backpedal.


Oh I agree that the sanctions should be lifted, but don't kid yourself and think that Cuba doesn't do its share of propagandist crap. That's naïve.
i agree all nations including cuba use propaganda my point is Cuban prop is no worse than American.
Then you shouldn't have averred that Cuba doesn't use propaganda.


Still no such thing. There are only words. What you provided was archaic mystical nonsense.
The dictionary is mystical?
The definition is in this case.


You provide me with no real material to comment on. You just give me bullshit propaganda. How am I supposed to work with that?
i have given you material how about the stuff i quoted from Constantinopolis about how cuba has life expectany and literacy rates nearly as good as the US if Castros killing so many people where did the Cia get those results from (and dont just give me the "they only count the rich people crap because do you think the cia couldnt find some poor people in Cuba)
From the Cuban government propaganda.


Irrelevant.
no its very relevant you lived in a communist goverment so you can not pass judgement for all you know the author was talking crap.
The Nobel prize winning non-fiction book is just myth? Oh please. Don't give me that crap.
http://www.britannica.com/nobel/micro/733_51.html

I doubt that you even know what The Gulag Archipelago was about.


Now I advise you to take your own advice about putting in an argument, because you certainly haven't been. When I get nothing to work with, I treat you the way I have been, get it?
i do give you stuff
No, you don't. All you give me is "I think people who don't agree with me are sick and want poor people to rot".

but all you do is cut it up into little bits and make little childish sarcastic comments about some bits and put the rest in the bin
You give me nothing to work with.

I am personally anti-Communist. The people in my country, (USA), that are part of the Communist party sicken me. They should move to a country that really is communist and stay there instead of being in a country that dislikes their idealogy. Communism appeals to the poor. If your nation was being raped by Western corporations while the people got poorer, what would your reaction be?

I am personally anti-Communist. The people in my country, (USA), that are part of the Communist party sicken me. They should move to a country that really is communist and stay there instead of being in a country that dislikes their idealogy.

In that case The USA should stay out of all the countries that reject their ideology instead of invading just because they dont like the American goverment and do things differantly

I am personally anti-Communist. The people in my country, (USA), that are part of the Communist party sicken me. They should move to a country that really is communist and stay there instead of being in a country that dislikes their idealogy.
Oh, I was under the impression that the USA was supposed to be a "free country", rather than a conservative totalitarianism.

Sorry. My mistake.

I sure as hell hope I never get treated by someone trained in Cuba
Why? You don't want a good life expectancy?

John Smith lives in your uber-capitalistic la-la land. John Smith has no job, and he's about to starve to death (or get sliced by thugs because he can't afford to pay the private police for his protection - whichever comes first).
Why is this about to happen? Prove your claim.
Why can't he? Prove your claim.
Right, so let me get this straight: In your uber-capitalistic la-la land, ALL people would have ALL the money they need ALL the time?

Funny - that sounds more like communism to me.

Do you support social programs - by the state or by an anarcho-communist commune - to eliminate poverty? I was under the impression that you don't. And, in that case, I've got news for you: In capitalism, some people are RICH and others are POOR. Wow, amazing news, isn't it? :rolleyes:

Now answer my question: What happens in your uber-capitalist system to a man who doesn't have enough money to buy food? Or how about a man who doesn't have enough money to pay the private police for protection? Let me guess - he dies.

If you claim this will never happen, then tell me WHY it won't. What's to stop people from starving to death? Or, without private police protection, who will defend their rights?

Keep in mind that, since the police is a private for-profit organization, only the rich have their human rights protected. If you can't afford the police, no one will protect your rights, because there's no government, is there? So the poor are free game for murderers, rapists, and robbers.

Perhaps you may want to live in such a twisted world, but us normal human beings have a different idea of how things should be run.

John Smith has one job opportunity at a huge corporation. The corporation tells him: "Do what we say or starve"

The same thing can happen in any capitalist country with no welfare state. The poor are given a choice between obeying their capitalist masters or starving to death.
Why would this happen? Prove your claim.

You beg too many questions. Keep trying.
And you try to weasel your way out of far too many tight spots. This ends NOW.

I have made the following statement: In the absence of any welfare and social programs, unemployment equals starvation and death. Therefore, the "free contracts" between individuals and corporations are reduced to "do what we say or you're unemployed", which means "do what we say or you starve".

Which part of this argumentation do you have trouble comprehending?

i have given you material how about the stuff i quoted from Constantinopolis about how cuba has life expectany and literacy rates nearly as good as the US if Castros killing so many people where did the Cia get those results from (and dont just give me the "they only count the rich people crap because do you think the cia couldnt find some poor people in Cuba)

From the Cuban government propaganda.
The CIA distributes Cuban government propaganda??? Have you been living under a rock for the past 50 years, or are you really just hopelessly dumb? The CIA tried to kill Castro dozens of times, for God's sake!

When the rabid capitalist starts dismissing all the facts you show him - even those provided by other rabid capitalists - as "evil commie propaganda", then you know you've won the argument.

So I'm sorry, BAAWA, but we're living in reality, not your imaginary fantasy world. No amount of wishful thinking and whining can wash away the facts.

You give me nothing to work with.
Oh, right, I see - you can only "work with" facts and arguments that support your twisted world-view. When you start losing the argument and can no longer hide your abysmal stupidity, you cry like a baby about the big bad commies who won't give you anything to work with.

If you can't stand the heat, crawl back into your hole, little capitalist.

Wrong. "Laissez-faire" involves absolute property rights, and the protection of private property at any cost (no matter how many lives are lost because of it). This is what your are trying to force down our throats.

I feel oppressed because you want to exploit me and use your capital to gain more property and/or money without working.

Besides, private property is an illegitimate concept anyway (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=346365&page=8&pp=15). We must use it only out of convenience, and there will come a time when it will no longer be necessary.
Laissez faire capitalism also involves prohibition of rape and murder. Does this mean that it isn't "really" laissez faire? The evil oppressors are clearly preventing you from having sex and if we only got rid of that pesky law you could have all the sex you want!

Wouldn't you defend your life? Isn't your life your property?
No, it isn't. Human beings are not property. I am NO ONE's property. Not my own, nor anybody else's.

The idea that human beings are property - which you support - is the foundation of slavery. After all, if people "own" lives, then they can buy and sell lives, can't they? Hey, there should be a "free market" of human lives, right?

I'm sorry for you if you can't even take your own immoral ideology to its logical conclusion.

No, no one's forcing it. You're free to reject it if you like. But don't try to force anyone else to not respect property rights.
Property rights are illegitimate. I will not have illegitimate laws forced down upon me.

I've already given you an explanation regarding the illegitimacy of private property:

How is property created? By working to change previously-existing property in some way. Eventually, if we trace back the source of any object, we come to natural resources and the work that was used to transform those natural resources into that object.

Now, we can all agree that a person is entitled to "own" his work, but what about natural resources? Natural resources come from land. Thus, property over natural resources comes down to property over land. And if we go back in time to follow the history of ownership of land, we eventually come down to theft. How was private property over land first created? A guy with a big stick pointed to a patch of land, said "this land is mine", and proceeded to beat the crap out of anyone who tried to use "his" land.

So, to put it in capitalist-speak: All property was created through the illegitimate use of force. That is why private property is illegitimate.

I feel sorry for you that you have to use refuted ideas and think they are valid, especially that "exploitation" nonsense and the idea that "capitalists don't work". What a fucking load!
I feel sorry for you that you have to constantly reassure yourself that you have "refuted" an argument that you've always ignored. Let me explain once again, for the third time in this topic, how capitalist exploitation works:

Every employee works using means of production which are the property of his employer. The product of his work also becomes the property of his employer. In exchange for this, the employee receives a salary. But this salary has no connection with the actual value of the product that the employee produces, or with the work he puts into it.

Wages are only influenced by the labour market. You see, labour acts like any other commodity which can be bought and sold. The employee sells his labour, and the price he gets in return is his wage. And like any other price, it is regulated by supply and demand. Thus, an employee's wage depends only on how many people there are who are willing to take his job, and the amount of money they are willing to work for. Essentially, his wage depends almost entirely on what other people do.

As a matter of fact, in order to make a profit, the employer must always pay his employees LESS than the actual value of the products they make. Profit comes from the difference between what the worker rightfully earns and the salary he gets. This is how capitalism exploits the worker.

So someone can kill you and nothing can ever come of it? How sick!

Your life is your property. Your body is your property. If your body is not your private property, then slavery is ok. So are murder and rape. Going to go down that road, moron?
LOL, talk about a blundering hypocrite! Tell me, what is "slavery", you fool? Oh, that's right, PRIVATE PROPERTY over someone else's body. Private property. Slaves can be bought and sold, because they are property.

If you can own lives and bodies, then you can buy and sell them, too. The result? A "free market" in slavery. And you've already gone far down that road, I'm afraid.

Laissez faire capitalism also involves prohibition of rape and murder.
Does it? And what if a rich capitalist walks up to a poor street girl saying "you can have sex with me or you can starve"?

Does this mean that it isn't "really" laissez faire? The evil oppressors are clearly preventing you from having sex and if we only got rid of that pesky law you could have all the sex you want!
I explained how private property is illegitimate. That has nothing to do with rape and murder. You've just attacked a strawman.

Laissez faire capitalism also involves prohibition of rape and murder. Does this mean that it isn't "really" laissez faire? The evil oppressors are clearly preventing you from having sex and if we only got rid of that pesky law you could have all the sex you want!"Laissez-faire" is propaganda, there is no more laissez-faire in libertarianism than in socialism.

Communism; at the end of the day; is a fantastic idea until you bring humans into the equation (or, to be more accurate, a certain type of human being).

It operates on the fine principles of fairness, trust, logic, responsibility and respect.

It's doomed to failure for several thousand years, by my reckoning.

One day, I have no doubt whatsoever that we'll all be the shining examples of humanity we now pretend to be. On that day, communism will work.

Until then libertarianism is a good pair of training pants. Freedom tempered with personal responsibility.

I'm very happy with how this thread is progressing. It's good to know that there are so many people out there who hate communism and communists. I'd also like to thank all the commies who have been kind enough to join the fun and flap about for our entertainment. It's very sporting of you to trot out your comical "arguments" at great length to make us laugh. "Employment is explotation", "Property is theft", "The rich, the poor, the workers: oh me oh my, the humanity". The self parodies are truly hilarious. Cheers guys.

Communism; at the end of the day; is a fantastic idea

Ha ha. Inspired comedy. I love it.

until you bring humans into the equation (or, to be more accurate, a certain type of human being).
Leave it for the ants.

It operates on the fine principles of fairness
Hilarious.

trust
Ha ha.

logic
Logic! That might just be the funniest thing I ever heard.

responsibility and respect
Funny stuff.

It's doomed to failure for several thousand years, by my reckoning.

One day, I have no doubt whatsoever that we'll all be the shining examples of humanity we now pretend to be. On that day, communism will work.

We will some day be ants?

I'm very happy with how this thread is progressing. It's good to know that there are so many people out there who hate communism and communists. I'd also like to thank all the commies who have been kind enough to join the fun and flap about for our entertainment. It's very sporting of you to trot out your comical "arguments" at great length to make us laugh. "Employment is explotation", "Property is theft", "The rich, the poor, the workers: oh me oh my, the humanity". The self parodies are truly hilarious. Cheers guys.
You make a good point. I'm now convinced libertarianism is the only way.

Ha ha. Inspired comedy. I love it.

Leave it for the ants.

Hilarious.

Ha ha.

Logic! That might just be the funniest thing I ever heard.

Funny stuff.


We will some day be ants?
All Marx philosophy debunked with deep thinking.

Oh look, dear old Libertovania decided to lower himself to BAAWA's level of absolute idiocy. He gave up even trying to answer our arguments, and instead amuses himself with the equivalent of "nya nya nya, I can't hear you".

When the opponent gives up rational argument and gets desperate to re-assure himself, that is the sign of his defeat.

As for the ants... well, they just happen to be the most successful insects on the face of the Earth. And human beings, last time I checked, were intelligent creatures capable of making their own decisions - not slaves to a mystical "human nature".

All Marx philosophy debunked with deep thinking.
I'd like to thank you in particular. Throughout this debate you have been one of the best sources of comedy. Please stick around and entertain me some more.

I'd like to thank you in particular. Throughout this debate you have been one of the best sources of comedy. Please stick around and entertain me some more.
Don't worry, I'm not planning to go away any time soon.

Oh look, dear old Libertovania decided to lower himself to BAAWA's level of absolute idiocy. He gave up even trying to answer our arguments, and instead amuses himself with the equivalent of "nya nya nya, I can't hear you".

When the opponent gives up rational argument and gets desperate to re-assure himself, that is the sign of his defeat.

As for the ants... well, they just happen to be the most successful insects on the face of the Earth. And human beings, last time I checked, were intelligent creatures capable of making their own decisions - not slaves to a mystical "human nature".
You however really take the biscuit. Your repeated and lengthy self parodies are some of the most side splittingly funny pieces of writing I've ever read. I particularly like how you reiterate points which have been debunked for decades without ever letting the act slip, even accusing us of not being able to respond when we tire of repeatedly refuting the same old nonsense!

Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains. And your home. And your car. And your food and healthcare and your liberty. Death to the evil capitalist pig dogs! Together we shall crush them comrade citizen.

Now, there is one more point I need to bring up: A few pages back, poor BAAWA was having trouble understanding the significance of the CIA statistics showing Cuba to have some of the highest standards of living in Latin America. He said this wasn't such a great achievement, since the rest of Latin America is quite poor - but what he failed to understand is that the poverty of the other Latin American countries was exactly the point I was trying to make. You see, they are all highly capitalist countries, shaped by the IMF and the World Bank in their own ultra-capitalist image. Most of them don't even have welfare states. And they are dirt poor and miserable. This holds particularly true for Cuba's closest neighbors in the Carribean: Jamaica, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, etc. Their economic situation is catastrophic, and their standards of living are far, far below Cuba's. Yet they share almost the same history as Cuba, the same culture, the same natural resources, the same climate... so what could be the source of this great difference between them and Cuba? How about the economic system?

Now, there is one more point I need to bring up: A few pages back, poor BAAWA was having trouble understanding the significance of the CIA statistics showing Cuba to have some of the highest standards of living in Latin America. He said this wasn't such a great achievement, since the rest of Latin America is quite poor - but what he failed to understand is that the poverty of the other Latin American countries was exactly the point I was trying to make. You see, they are all highly capitalist countries, shaped by the IMF and the World Bank in their own ultra-capitalist image.

Ooooooh. New material. Latin America capitalist? The IMF? That's funny stuff.

Most of them don't even have welfare states. And they are dirt poor and miserable. This holds particularly true for Cuba's closest neighbors in the Carribean: Jamaica, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, etc. Their economic situation is catastrophic, and their standards of living are far, far below Cuba's. Yet they share almost the same history as Cuba, the same culture, the same natural resources, the same climate... so what could be the source of this great difference between them and Cuba? How about the economic system?
Vote communist. Slavery makes you rich. It's so good they had to build a wall around Berlin to keep the oppressed capitalist citizens from sneaking in!

Now, there is one more point I need to bring up: A few pages back, poor BAAWA was having trouble understanding the significance of the CIA statistics showing Cuba to have some of the highest standards of living in Latin America. He said this wasn't such a great achievement, since the rest of Latin America is quite poor - but what he failed to understand is that the poverty of the other Latin American countries was exactly the point I was trying to make. You see, they are all highly capitalist countries, shaped by the IMF and the World Bank in their own ultra-capitalist image. Most of them don't even have welfare states. And they are dirt poor and miserable. This holds particularly true for Cuba's closest neighbors in the Carribean: Jamaica, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, etc. Their economic situation is catastrophic, and their standards of living are far, far below Cuba's. Yet they share almost the same history as Cuba, the same culture, the same natural resources, the same climate... so what could be the source of this great difference between them and Cuba? How about the economic system?Poor stupid commie. We all know that Jamaica is poor because of the USSR and the socialists dictators.
Oh and communism is gay and sick.
Long live to the libertarianism and the freedom and the democracy.

Ooooooh. New material. Latin America capitalist? The IMF? That's funny stuff.

Vote communist. Slavery makes you rich. It's so good they had to build a wall around Berlin to keep the oppressed capitalist citizens from sneaking in!
Well said. Oh and don't forget to say that communism is nazism. Stalin killed several million people, and hitler killed the jews. Those commies are fucking murderers.

Bring back McCarthy!

Communism can work. Your entire existence has been based around communism. Without it you would be dead.

You however really take the biscuit. Your repeated and lengthy self parodies are some of the most side splittingly funny pieces of writing I've ever read. I particularly like how you reiterate points which have been debunked for decades without ever letting the act slip, even accusing us of not being able to respond when we tire of repeatedly refuting the same old nonsense!
Wow. The little baby is throwing a tantrum.

I must admit, though, that until meeting you and BAAWA I had no idea there were so many ways of saying "I'm right and you're wrong, fucking bastard!" as an excuse to ignore the other guy's points. BAAWA's one-liners, in particular, showed me just how far a libertarian will go to avoid rational argument and/or answering difficult questions.

By the way, were those one-liners the decades-old things that were supposed to "debunk" my logic? Well, now we know the highly eloquent and carefully constructed libertarian argument against marxism: "You're wrong".

Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains. And your home. And your car. And your food and healthcare and your liberty. Death to the evil capitalist pig dogs! Together we shall crush them comrade citizen.
Now that's hillarious - particularly the part about food and healthcare, seeing how you're the one saying the poor shouldn't receive them.

But at any rate, please tell me when you've stopped being a sore loser and decided to keep what's left of your dignity.

Seriously, stop acting like a baby, will you?

By the way, were those one-liners the decades-old things that were supposed to "debunk" my logic? Well, now we know the highly eloquent and carefully constructed libertarian argument against marxism: "You're wrong".
Not only you're wrong, but I've been saying that since several centuries. And plus, you're gay.

Ooooooh. New material. Latin America capitalist? The IMF? That's funny stuff.
Yes, the International Monetary Fund (http://www.imf.org/). And yes, Latin America has been thoroughly capitalist for the past... oh, not much, just 150 years or so. But I guess you missed it, huh?

Vote communist. Slavery makes you rich. It's so good they had to build a wall around Berlin to keep the oppressed capitalist citizens from sneaking in!
*yawn* Strawman. We discussed Stalinism (and its opposition to communism) ages ago.

Anyway, have you finished your tantrum yet?

Yes, the International Monetary Fund (http://www.imf.org/). And yes, Latin America has been thoroughly capitalist for the past... oh, not much, just 150 years or so. But I guess you missed it, huh?


*yawn* Strawman. We discussed Stalinism (and its opposition to communism) ages ago.

Anyway, have you finished your tantrum yet?
I'm not having a tantrum, I'm laughing at the sophisticated comedy on display here. Get making with the funnies again, it's not fun if you're just going to insult me instead of spouting social commentary laced with irony and undertones of sarcasm.

Now that's hillarious - particularly the part about food and healthcare, seeing how you're the one saying the poor shouldn't receive them.
Yes you're right. That's exactly what I'm saying.

I repeat. Communism can work. Your entire existence has been based around communism. Without it you would be dead.

John Smith lives in your uber-capitalistic la-la land. John Smith has no job, and he's about to starve to death (or get sliced by thugs because he can't afford to pay the private police for his protection - whichever comes first).
Why is this about to happen? Prove your claim.
snip the idiocy that does not back the claim
Back. The. Claim. Now.

Now answer my question: What happens in your uber-capitalist system to a man who doesn't have enough money to buy food?
Private charities.

Or how about a man who doesn't have enough money to pay the private police for protection?
He can work something out. There's nothing about capitalism that says such can't happen, unless you're trying to redefine capitalism so that it doesn't, which is patently dishonest. You're not trying to be dishonest, are you?

Let me guess - he dies.
You guess wrong.

If you claim this will never happen, then tell me WHY it won't. What's to stop people from starving to death?
Don't people starve to death in socialist countries?

Or, without private police protection, who will defend their rights?
Other people. Private police.

Keep in mind that, since the police is a private for-profit organization, only the rich have their human rights protected.
Prove it.

If you can't afford the police, no one will protect your rights, because there's no government, is there? So the poor are free game for murderers, rapists, and robbers.
So there are no "good samaritans"?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Moron.

Not to mention that in such a system, that very small minority of criminals (as opposed to the entirety of "society" under socialism) would find it very hard to ply their trade, as the police, unlike now, would have good reason to keep the crime rate low).

John Smith has one job opportunity at a huge corporation. The corporation tells him: "Do what we say or starve"

The same thing can happen in any capitalist country with no welfare state. The poor are given a choice between obeying their capitalist masters or starving to death.
Why would this happen? Prove your claim.

You beg too many questions. Keep trying.
snip whining
Prove. Your. Claim. NOW!

What part of that do you have trouble comprehending?

If you can't stand to back your claim, then crawl back in your hole, little oxymoron.

I think he's having trouble dealing with the idea that people are capable of getting by without someone telling them when to go the bathroom.

Wouldn't you defend your life? Isn't your life your property?
No, it isn't. Human beings are not property.
Strawman. I said that your life is your property and your body. It is yours due to the fact that you are an individual being with consciousness and sentience. If it's not your body, then is someone else typing for you? Or is someone controlling your mind to engage your muscles to type? Descartes' evil demon, perhaps?

Moron.

I am NO ONE's property. Not my own, nor anybody else's.
Then I can kill you and no one can do anything about it, because it's not your life. You have no title to it. It's not your body, anyway. It doesn't matter. You have no title to it.

Moron.

The idea that human beings are property - which you support
I do? Prove it.

- is the foundation of slavery. After all, if people "own" lives, then they can buy and sell lives, can't they?
Nope.

Hey, there should be a "free market" of human lives, right?
Nope. No one can own another. You only own yourself.

I'm sorry, but you tried a strawman and it got killed. Tough shit on you.


No, no one's forcing it. You're free to reject it if you like. But don't try to force anyone else to not respect property rights.
Property rights are illegitimate.
Prove it.

I will not have illegitimate laws forced down upon me.
Fine. But when you take something that someone else has title to, don't expect to not have retribution. Don't come crying to anyone at all.

I've already given you an explanation regarding the illegitimacy of private property:
No. You gave me your begged question about it. Try it without that.


I feel sorry for you that you have to use refuted ideas and think they are valid, especially that "exploitation" nonsense and the idea that "capitalists don't work". What a fucking load!
I feel sorry for you that you have to constantly reassure yourself that you have "refuted" an argument
I feel sorry for you that you like to lie.

that you've always ignored. Let me explain once again, for the third time in this topic, how capitalist exploitation works:

Every employee works using means of production which are the property of his employer. The product of his work also becomes the property of his employer. In exchange for this, the employee receives a salary. But this salary has no connection with the actual value of the product that the employee produces, or with the work he puts into it.
Assumes that there is some "ultimate value". Utterly false. Try again. This time, don't use the refuted-to-death labor theory of value.


So someone can kill you and nothing can ever come of it? How sick!

Your life is your property. Your body is your property. If your body is not your private property, then slavery is ok. So are murder and rape. Going to go down that road, moron?
LOL, talk about a blundering hypocrite!
Show the hypocrisy.

Tell me, what is "slavery", you fool?
Someone claiming ownership of another, fool. Which cannot be.

Oh, that's right, PRIVATE PROPERTY over someone else's body. Private property. Slaves can be bought and sold, because they are property.
Nope. No one may own another person.

Obviously, you've never grasped self-sovereignty. Too bad for you. I guess someone's just controlling your fingers, right?

Moron.

If you can own lives and bodies, then you can buy and sell them, too.
You can own YOUR life and body. Now how do you go from there to owning other people? Show it. Now. Don't beg the question. SHOW IT!

If you whine, you lose. That's it. I'm done with your whining.

And human beings, last time I checked, were intelligent creatures capable of making their own decisions - not slaves to a mystical "human nature".
Yet that's what Marxism claims: humans are slaves to some mystical "animal" nature.

Maybe you ought to read Marx.....

I think he's having trouble dealing with the idea that people are capable of getting by without someone telling them when to go the bathroom.
I heard that we need the government to breath.

Now, there is one more point I need to bring up: A few pages back, poor BAAWA was having trouble understanding the significance of the CIA statistics showing Cuba to have some of the highest standards of living in Latin America.
No, actually I wasn't.

Poor Connie just can't grasp reality.

He said this wasn't such a great achievement, since the rest of Latin America is quite poor - but what he failed to understand is that the poverty of the other Latin American countries was exactly the point I was trying to make. You see, they are all highly capitalist countries,
No, they are all highly socialist countries or tribalistic countries marked by civil wars and strife.

You lose, Connie.

I heard that we need the government to breath.
You see that's not funny. It's only funny when you make people think you actually believe what you're saying.

You see that's not funny. It's only funny when you make people think you actually believe what you're saying.
Sorry, I'll try harder next time ;)

I was considering giving a serious reply to this thread, and I may when soemthing brought on by brain usage comes around. Right now though, I think BAAWA has covered all the bases against morons. Maybe I'll just sit back and watch...

I believe people own themselves, that is why they are entitled to the results of their labor. If this is true, why wouldn't one be able to 'sell themselves' into slavery provided the initial agreement was voluntary?

This was talked about a few points back. I believe Nozick discusses this idea briefly in AS&U, correct me if I'm wrong. I don't find that idea disturbing at all.

I agree with many of the comments posted here, partiuarly the ones about how general foregin policy (led by the US) is to stamp out any upstart communist/socialist countries and force democracy on them. Who are we to say that democracy is the right way to live one's life?
If you actually imagine a working scenario, its not that hard to see how beneficial it would be. Of course, it all depends on the leadership - but isn't that true of any governmental system, regardless of its method of governance?
In this imaginary country, you get a job, say, in a supermarket. You are relocated to a flat near your workplace - to increase efficiency - and when you need to purchase things, you can use your ID card, which entitles you to food, entertainment, etc. Because the food, entertainment, and supermarket are all produced by the government for the people, you don't need to pay rent, and you don't get wages, because you have an entitlement as a worker to food, entertainment, healthcare, etc. The ID card is the physical manifestation of your entitlement. Obviously, one could use microchips under the skin, for the ultimate in anti-fraud, but this is just minor details. The point is that this will cost the government a lot of money to enforce, but because your entitlement doesn't have to provide for things such as new televisions, cars, etc, if you were getting paid it would be much less than in a capitalist country, but you don't need the extra money as it is all provided by the government. Excess material goods would be provided on a need-only basis. For example, everybody would be entitled to a televison, as it is an obvious method of governmental-populace interaction. A car would be made available if you were unable to be located within walking or cycling distance of your workplace. Obviously, although the government will register a loss, its well-motivated workforce would produce high-quality goods - the excess being exported to other capitalist countries. This is a perfectly realistic scenario. A country like France has no need to export any foodstuffs - it can all be produced in French territories and its former colonies. My country, Britain, already has a National Health System, and formerly had a nationalised railway, telephone, gas and electricity system. Countries such as America have social security systems which register details about individuals and identify them with a unique number.
The only flaws that I can see are potentially corrupt leadership, and an imbalance of goods. These can be addressed by trading surpluses with other countries with similar governments, and fair elections. Unlike America, where the elections are funded by various companies, etc, the government would allot a fixed amount of resources to each candidate, ensuring that the winner is not the one who can afford the most media exposure and best spin doctors.

Is this a futile dream or a vision of Utopia?
No doubt you will all have fun picking my views apart, and pointing out any flaws in this vision.
I look forward to your feedback.

I believe people own themselves, that is why they are entitled to the results of their labor. If this is true, why wouldn't one be able to 'sell themselves' into slavery provided the initial agreement was voluntary?

This was talked about a few points back. I believe Nozick discusses this idea briefly in AS&U, correct me if I'm wrong. I don't find that idea disturbing at all.
Someone who knew a little philosophy of law once taught me about this. He said that contracts promising future actions are worthless. Only transfers of (non human) property are legitimate and enforceable. For instance, if I promise to wash your car every day and then don't then you can't force me to. Of course this will make me less trustworthy but it won't have any legal ramifictions. If I take ten pounds off you in exchange for my promise you can however force me to pay you back, possibly with compensation, if I fail to comply.

Thus slavery is not legitimate. If I sold myself to you as a slave and then didn't want to be a slave you could force me to give your money back and compensate you but nothing else. It also puts a nail in the coffin of all "social contract" theories of govt.

You are a marxist? you could have fooled me. ( dont flatter your self no one is a true marxist they have all got it wrong)And therein lies your fundamental mistake. Marx is a political theorist, he does not provide a political blueprint for society. and i feel anarchist are scum because i feel in a goverment free world chaos would rule and people would get hurt therfore i belive anyone who supports that is scum.Whatever Marx's disagreements with Bakunin that's a Stalinist viewpoint not a Marxist one. ( i am a supporter of marx theories and not a leninist nor stalinist or any over type of lefty traitor and i suport cuba because it is the closest thing to real communism there is and it is alone in the world standing up for itself. i do not think its any way near close to perfect but its taking a stab at it if it had more support from the international communisty it might be better . For example US funding might help it become na better place for its people but no the US hates it because they feel they are the rightful owners of Cuba and hate lefties. If you support Cuba you don't support Marxes theories. The two are mutually contradictory. Where's the working class control in Cuba? You're a Stalinist because you follow Stalin's theories (anarchists are scum, 'socialism' in one country, collaberation with the capitalist countries, persecution of gays etc.)


America is the strongest nation in the internetional world so has a lot of influence i did not say it was a paradise or workers utopia.You said it was a communist country.


i do not think Castro is perfect but having seen the man myself (not personally but pretty damn close) i think he is a great leader. he praised stalin initially as a way to get maximum reaction out of the USA in the cold war but has lost sight of marxism which is a shame and its also a sahme he thinks homosexuality is wrong but so do many people in the world (mainly religious world) Without wanting to invoke Godwin's Law, that's like saying that someone praising Hitler is ok if they don't mean it. And he hasn't lost sight of Marxism. He was never a Marxist in the first place.
i do not agree with it (gay torturing) but still support the goverment.So you're prepared to condone it. What other groups (Jews, Anarchists, Blacks etc) are you prepared to support a goverment which oppresses them?
I didnt go to Cuba with any group i was born there and my parents are from Chile not that is you businessWho were your hosts? Members of the Cuban 'Communist' Party by any chance?

I'd also like to thank all the commies who have been kind enough to join the fun and flap about for our entertainment. It's very sporting of you to trot out your comical "arguments" at great length to make us laugh. "Employment is explotation", "Property is theft", "The rich, the poor, the workers: oh me oh my, the humanity". The self parodies are truly hilarious. Cheers guys.
Oi, Libby, tell us the one about how the Levellers were really anarcho-capitalists again. That one always gets them rolling in the aisles. Or the one about how you'd support a libertarian dictator. Anarcho-fascism anyone?

I agree with many of the comments posted here, partiuarly the ones about how general foregin policy (led by the US) is to stamp out any upstart communist/socialist countries and force democracy on them. Who are we to say that democracy is the right way to live one's life?
If you actually imagine a working scenario, its not that hard to see how beneficial it would be. Of course, it all depends on the leadership - but isn't that true of any governmental system, regardless of its method of governance?
In this imaginary country, you get a job, say, in a supermarket. You are relocated to a flat near your workplace - to increase efficiency - and when you need to purchase things, you can use your ID card, which entitles you to food, entertainment, etc. Because the food, entertainment, and supermarket are all produced by the government for the people, you don't need to pay rent, and you don't get wages, because you have an entitlement as a worker to food, entertainment, healthcare, etc. The ID card is the physical manifestation of your entitlement. Obviously, one could use microchips under the skin, for the ultimate in anti-fraud, but this is just minor details. The point is that this will cost the government a lot of money to enforce, but because your entitlement doesn't have to provide for things such as new televisions, cars, etc, if you were getting paid it would be much less than in a capitalist country, but you don't need the extra money as it is all provided by the government. Excess material goods would be provided on a need-only basis. For example, everybody would be entitled to a televison, as it is an obvious method of governmental-populace interaction. A car would be made available if you were unable to be located within walking or cycling distance of your workplace. Obviously, although the government will register a loss, its well-motivated workforce would produce high-quality goods - the excess being exported to other capitalist countries. This is a perfectly realistic scenario. A country like France has no need to export any foodstuffs - it can all be produced in French territories and its former colonies. My country, Britain, already has a National Health System, and formerly had a nationalised railway, telephone, gas and electricity system. Countries such as America have social security systems which register details about individuals and identify them with a unique number.
The only flaws that I can see are potentially corrupt leadership, and an imbalance of goods. These can be addressed by trading surpluses with other countries with similar governments, and fair elections. Unlike America, where the elections are funded by various companies, etc, the government would allot a fixed amount of resources to each candidate, ensuring that the winner is not the one who can afford the most media exposure and best spin doctors.

Is this a futile dream or a vision of Utopia?
No doubt you will all have fun picking my views apart, and pointing out any flaws in this vision.
I look forward to your feedback.The flaw is that you're a fucking commie. Are you a member of the KGB? Where are my guns?

Oi, Libby, tell us the one about how the Levellers were really anarcho-capitalists again. That one always gets them rolling in the aisles. Or the one about how you'd support a libertarian dictator. Anarcho-fascism anyone?
I never said either of those things. Your posts are less funny than the others. Please try a little harder.

I think he's having trouble dealing with the idea that people are capable of getting by without someone telling them when to go the bathroom.Well this is good sarcasm but I'm sure you can do better. It is quite frustrating actually to debate against one-liners.
Are there any good libertarian debaters out there?

Look at what is happening now. The libertarians are so boring that we end up in a debate between different flavors of socialism.

The flaw is that you're a fucking commie. Are you a member of the KGB? Where are my guns?
Some unwashed hippy stole them, he said it was okay since you weren't using them.

Well this is good sarcasm but I'm sure you can do better. It is quite frustrating actually to debate against one-liners.
Are there any good libertarian debaters out there?
I'm an excellent debater, I just don't see the point of debating with commies. Some people just have an animus against freedom. Once I effortlessly brush aside one of their "arguments" - perhaps the one that capitalism leads to overproduction, or underproduction, or damages the environment, or harms the poor, or is based on greed, or is exploitative, or is oppressive, or leads to war - they instantly come up with another, frequently opposing, "point" - perhaps that capitalism is dehumanising, or destroys "culture", or leads to alienation, or compromises your integrity, or is coercive, or based on theft or...

The list of imagined problems is endless and the only way to win the debate is to get rid of the underlying irrational animus, something that is very difficult to do. It's easier to focus on people who are open minded and willing to listen to reason.

I never said either of those things. Your posts are less funny than the others. Please try a little harder.Specifically then you said that the Levellers were essentially the historical and philosophical forerunners to liberal economic policy. And that you'd rather live under a capitalist dictator then a non capitalist democracy. Please clarify. (And if you think I'm still misrepresenting you then kindly tell us what you believe you said).

Just to point something out all of you seem very stubborn about your views and often when prooved wrong just use sarcastic one-liners which undermine and ruin the debates. (especially BAAWA)

And no one here is going to make their view happen by sitting at their computer so why dont you log off and go join a political party (or if your already a member go do some caimpaigning or something) and actually affect the world you are all talking about?

Specifically then you said that the Levellers were essentially the historical and philosophical forerunners to liberal economic policy. And that you'd rather live under a capitalist dictator then a non capitalist democracy. Please clarify. (And if you think I'm still misrepresenting you then kindly tell us what you believe you said).
The classical liberal position grew from the levellers' program in many ways. Religous tolerance, peace etc. There were differences but this is why I said it grew from the levellers. Also I'd rather live under a libertarian dictator than a corrupt elect-a-fascist democracy. I'd most of all like to live in an area with no govt. Govt is no less evil for being elected. If Hitler had been elected (which he sort of was) would that make what he did better? Would you rather live under an elected Hitler or a dictatorship of Thomas Jefferson?

I'm an excellent debater, I just don't see the point of debating with commies. Some people just have an animus against freedom. Once I effortlessly brush aside one of their "arguments" - perhaps the one that capitalism leads to overproduction, or underproduction, or damages the environment, or harms the poor, or is based on greed, or is exploitative, or is oppressive, or leads to war - they instantly come up with another, frequently opposing, "point" - perhaps that capitalism is dehumanising, or destroys "culture", or leads to alienation, or compromises your integrity, or is coercive, or based on theft or...

The list of imagined problems is endless and the only way to win the debate is to get rid of the underlying irrational animus, something that is very difficult to do. It's easier to focus on people who are open minded and willing to listen to reason.So you are not interested in debating the flaws of capitalism, is that right?

Just to point something out all of you seem very stubborn about your views and often when prooved wrong just use sarcastic one-liners which undermine and ruin the debates. (especially BAAWA)

And no one here is going to make their view happen by sitting at their computer so why dont you log off and go join a political party (or if your already a member go do some caimpaigning or something) and actually affect the world you are all talking about?
I found the internet invaluable when arriving at my opinions. I'm not sure BAAWA has been proven wrong at any point.

The classical liberal position grew from the levellers' program in many ways. Religous tolerance, peace etc. There were differences but this is why I said it grew from the levellers. Also I'd rather live under a libertarian dictator than a corrupt elect-a-fascist democracy. I'd most of all like to live in an area with no govt. Govt is no less evil for being elected. If Hitler had been elected (which he sort of was) would that make what he did better? Would you rather live under an elected Hitler or a dictatorship of Thomas Jefferson?No government so. Who does enforce the law then?

So you are not interested in debating the flaws of capitalism, is that right?
There's nothing wrong with freedom. There's no point in trying to teach you this since your hatred of freedom isn't based on any points you will make here, it is based on an underlying animus which I don't know how to eliminate other than drawing your attention to it.

And no one here is going to make their view happen by sitting at their computer so why dont you log off and go join a political party (or if your already a member go do some caimpaigning or something) and actually affect the world you are all talking about?Because if I suddenly left my desk to go campaigning my boss would notice.

The classical liberal position grew from the levellers' program in many ways. Religous tolerance, peace etc. There were differences but this is why I said it grew from the levellers. We're not talking minor differences though. "The earth was made a common treasury for everyone to share"- does that not sound communist to you?Also I'd rather live under a libertarian dictator than a corrupt elect-a-fascist democracy. I'd most of all like to live in an area with no govt. Govt is no less evil for being elected. If Hitler had been elected (which he sort of was) would that make what he did better? Would you rather live under an elected Hitler or a dictatorship of Thomas Jefferson?Neither. I think we're talking at cross purposes here. When I talk about democracy I mean specifically the real democracy of localised direct democracy. Representive 'democracy' is actually an oligarchy. A direct democracy dictator is a contradiction in terms.

There's nothing wrong with freedom. There's no point in trying to teach you this since your hatred of freedom isn't based on any points you will make here, it is based on an underlying animus which I don't know how to eliminate other than drawing your attention to it.Let's make it clear. I love freedom. I think the people should have as many freedom as possible. However, I think one's freedom stop when other's freedom begins. Do you agree with that?

No government so. Who does enforce the law then?
Please read this brief article. It will be easier than me trying to explain it. The idea is private security firms. At the moment we produce defence of our rights the same way the USSR produced food and shoes and the results are analogous.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html

Just to point something out all of you seem very stubborn about your views and often when prooved wrong just use sarcastic one-liners which undermine and ruin the debates. (especially BAAWA)
Proved wrong? In what fucking universe?

And no one here is going to make their view happen by sitting at their computer so why dont you log off and go join a political party (or if your already a member go do some caimpaigning or something) and actually affect the world you are all talking about?
Anarchists joining a political party. That's rich.

I can't believe you lot have spent 366 posts saying NOTHING. I expect this from BAAWA - I suspect this kind of 'debate' is part of some peculiar wank fantasy for him - but it's really disappointing to see some of you stooping to his level.

I found the internet invaluable when arriving at my opinions. I'm not sure BAAWA has been proven wrong at any point.


Quote:
Originally Posted by McColl land
i have given you material how about the stuff i quoted from Constantinopolis about how cuba has life expectany and literacy rates nearly as good as the US if Castros killing so many people where did the Cia get those results from (and dont just give me the "they only count the rich people crap because do you think the cia couldnt find some poor people in Cuba)


Originally Posted by BAAWA
From the Cuban government propaganda.

Originally Posted by Constantinopolis
The CIA distributes Cuban government propaganda??? Have you been living under a rock for the past 50 years, or are you really just hopelessly dumb? The CIA tried to kill Castro dozens of times, for God's sake!

When the rabid capitalist starts dismissing all the facts you show him - even those provided by other rabid capitalists - as "evil commie propaganda", then you know you've won the argument.

So I'm sorry, BAAWA, but we're living in reality, not your imaginary fantasy world. No amount of wishful thinking and whining can wash away the facts.




This example good enough for you Libertovania?

Let's make it clear. I love freedom. I think the people should have as many freedom as possible. However, I think one's freedom stop when other's freedom begins. Do you agree with that?
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McColl land
And no one here is going to make their view happen by sitting at their computer so why dont you log off and go join a political party (or if your already a member go do some caimpaigning or something) and actually affect the world you are all talking about?

Originally Posted by The holy word
Because if I suddenly left my desk to go campaigning my boss would notice.



emm yes if you do it in front of him. If you claim to be a marxist you should know it takes action by the people to make changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by McColl land
i have given you material how about the stuff i quoted from Constantinopolis about how cuba has life expectany and literacy rates nearly as good as the US if Castros killing so many people where did the Cia get those results from (and dont just give me the "they only count the rich people crap because do you think the cia couldnt find some poor people in Cuba)


Originally Posted by BAAWA
From the Cuban government propaganda.

Originally Posted by Constantinopolis
The CIA distributes Cuban government propaganda??? Have you been living under a rock for the past 50 years, or are you really just hopelessly dumb? The CIA tried to kill Castro dozens of times, for God's sake!

When the rabid capitalist starts dismissing all the facts you show him - even those provided by other rabid capitalists - as "evil commie propaganda", then you know you've won the argument.

So I'm sorry, BAAWA, but we're living in reality, not your imaginary fantasy world. No amount of wishful thinking and whining can wash away the facts.




This example good enough for you Libertovania?

I don't think this proves anything. People thought the USSR was doing okay for a while because it was so hard to get good info.

Well this is good sarcasm but I'm sure you can do better. It is quite frustrating actually to debate against one-liners.
Do you or any of the socialists/communists have anything worthy of something other than one-liners? If so, I'd love to see it presented.

I can't believe you lot have spent 366 posts saying NOTHING. I expect this from BAAWA - I suspect this kind of 'debate' is part of some peculiar wank fantasy for him - but it's really disappointing to see some of you stooping to his level.

Very true Very true

(which side do you support communism or capitalism?)

whine whine whine
If you don't like it, don't fucking read the posts. No one's forcing you to, bitch.

emm yes if you do it in front of him. If you claim to be a marxist you should know it takes action by the people to make changesAre you suggesting that no-one is a real Marxist unless they get themselves fired? Go on then. Tell your teacher (I'm guessing you're not old enough to have a job) to fuck off. Let us know the results tommorow.

Very true Very true

(which side do you support communism or capitalism?)
Neither. Both. I don't think they have to be mutually exclusive.

Neither. I think we're talking at cross purposes here. When I talk about democracy I mean specifically the real democracy of localised direct democracy. Representive 'democracy' is actually an oligarchy. A direct democracy dictator is a contradiction in terms.
That's not the point. Which would you RATHER live under if they were the only 2 options. A direct democracy could in principle (and I believe in practice too) be extremely oppressive too. I want the system that gives me the most freedom, not which is most popular.

That's not the point. Which would you RATHER live under if they were the only 2 options. A direct democracy could in principle (and I believe in practice too) be extremely oppressive too. I want the system that gives me the most freedom, not which is most popular.I don't believe a libertarian dictator could exist. And surely the system that would give you the most freedom (in the abstract) would be to become a hermit. Or live on the road.

If you don't like it, don't fucking read the posts. No one's forcing you to, bitch.
I said it was disappointing. I might add that it's also quite amusing.

Neither. Both. I don't think they have to be mutually exclusive.

interesting. I would count my self as a socialist who belives in democracy aswell

Are you suggesting that no-one is a real Marxist unless they get themselves fired? Go on then. Tell your teacher (I'm guessing you're not old enough to have a job) to fuck off. Let us know the results tommorow.

You should only count yourself as a marxist if you practise what you preach.
If your boss fired you because you exersised your democratic right to protest then you could sue him for a lot of money (and as a true marxist im sure you would donate it to a suitable cause)
and i assure you i am far to old to go to school

I don't believe a libertarian dictator could exist.
Me either. But I'd rather live under Pinochet than an elected Hitler.
And surely the system that would give you the most freedom (in the abstract) would be to become a hermit. Or live on the road.
That's not really a system, more a personal way of life. I do have other priorities too such as being near my family and material comfort.

Everyone should get the hell out of America. It's far too good for them.

Corporatism and communism really aren't that far apart as economic models for the organisation of labour and resources. A corporation is a great big production, management and distribution amalgam. Like a communist state.

But in the communist state model, that state gets control of state apparatus like justice, import/export & foreign policy too. In the corporate model, another body, government, has control of those things. This is a good thing.

Me either. But I'd rather live under Pinochet than an elected Hitler.
That's a bit like saying you'd prefer to spend time with the devil than in the deep blue sea. Or perhaps vice versa.

Right, so let me get this straight: In your uber-capitalistic la-la land, ALL people would have ALL the money they need ALL the time?

Absolutely not. That's called communism, because in such a scenario, we'd all be equal little monkeys wondering when we'll be rewarded our next lightbulb.

Do you support social programs - by the state or by an anarcho-communist commune - to eliminate poverty? I was under the impression that you don't. And, in that case, I've got news for you: In capitalism, some people are RICH and others are POOR. Wow, amazing news, isn't it? :rolleyes:

And what's wrong with that?

Now answer my question: What happens in your uber-capitalist system to a man who doesn't have enough money to buy food? Or how about a man who doesn't have enough money to pay the private police for protection? Let me guess - he dies.

Yep, he dies. Or gets a job, assuming he hasn't squandered his life to the point where he has no job skills, nothing worth giving back to society in which case, society has no obligation to give anything to him.

Let me ask you, when you imagine up this poor downtrodden unemployeed homeless man, do you ever stop to think, "Hey, how did he get himself into such a position anyway?".

Do you ever stop to consider that it may be his own damn fault?

All you bleeding heart commies never stop to consider that oft-times, people are in such positions have put themselves there. A Capitalist society gives people the chance for success - this doesn't necessarily mean they will become rich, as most people here tend to argue in extremes. But it does mean they are very likely middle-class and able to support themselves and a family in relative comfort. This is the case for the majority of people in capitalist societies presently. And if the majority of people are served well in such an environment, why is that a bad thing?

Someone who has squandered their own opportunties are at their own fault for the position they are in. Society owes them nothing more. They in turn have to pick themselves up and find a way to turn things around for themselves, or they die.

Keep in mind that, since the police is a private for-profit organization, only the rich have their human rights protected. If you can't afford the police, no one will protect your rights, because there's no government, is there? So the poor are free game for murderers, rapists, and robbers.

Wow... You are supremely naive. It's hard to believe this is even spewing from your mouth and that you actually believe in this extremeist bullshit.
Even if we assume the police become a for-profit organization, it is still in the best interest of major corporations and "the rich" to continue protecting the populace from crime and harm. Why? Because the populace is what makes them wealthy. You commies are so bleeding stupid when it comes to the basics of economics. You do realize that producing a product or service that no one can afford to buy because they're;

A) too poor
B) dead

is poor business planning! A capitalist economy is BASED ON a free market. How can there be a free market is all the populace who would be the fundamental building blocks of that market are lacking police protection? Even in this Cyberpunk world of yours, corporations would still find it in their interest to protect the populace from themselves.

Perhaps you may want to live in such a twisted world, but us normal human beings have a different idea of how things should be run.

I dunno, I think you'd have to be a pretty retarded little monkey to come up with the world you think capitalism will spawn. Nice propaganda though. Get back to me when you actually learn a few things about economics.

I have made the following statement: In the absence of any welfare and social programs, unemployment equals starvation and death. Therefore, the "free contracts" between individuals and corporations are reduced to "do what we say or you're unemployed", which means "do what we say or you starve".

Yep, pretty much. This would be a major problem if;

A) there is only ONE Corporation that ruled everything and controlled the lives of everyone - in which case, that's pretty much corporate communism

B) there is no competition and your job skills are so worthless that you simply will never get a job anywhere else

Thankfully, a free market includes something called competition. And one of the things corporations would be fighting for are human resources, because again, since you seem to forget that corporations don't make money simply by existing - they need to create a product, market a product and be able to sell this product. To do this, they need people - both people to make and sell it, AND PEOPLE TO BUY IT.

It is not in their best interest to destroy the lives of the little folk, as the little folk are there to buy into their marketing schemes to make them profit.

A corporation that fires one guy may find that guy now working for the competition. That guy may end up starting his own business to become competition.

The fact of the matter is, unemployement does not equal "death" even without gov't sponsored programs because lacking those social programs, people have more disposable income. Some of that which may actually go into something like "savings" (you've heard of that, right?) for such a rainy day. Or worse yet "investments" (good lord, I hope I'm not breaking you). THere may even be "products and services" which a person can buy Unemployement Insurance for themselves... sort of like the way Canada has a mandatory UI - except this would be privately run.

Hmm.. wow.. interesting, an ECONOMY.

You seriously need to think shit through before you start trying out this dystopia of a free market. Just because there is a free market, does not mean it's taken to extremes. Frankly, I'd rather have the power to choose than to be ruled by a communist government that assumes to know what's best for me.

:sniper: :mp5:

Please read this brief article. It will be easier than me trying to explain it. The idea is private security firms. At the moment we produce defence of our rights the same way the USSR produced food and shoes and the results are analogous.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html
"Before labelling a society in which different people are under different laws chaotic and unjust, remember that in our society the law under which you are judged depends on the country, state, and even city in which you happen to be. Under the arrangements I am describing, it depends instead on your protective agency and the agency of the person you accuse of a crime or who accuses you of a crime."

It does make sense only when compared to the current feudal status of the world.
This is still chaotic and unjust, maybe just as it is now, maybe less, but sure as hell more chaotic and unjust that Communism.
Actually I think your link does just adress the authoritarian capitalism critics, not the socialist ones.

This is still chaotic and unjust.
I don't understand what you mean by this claim. Chaotic?
Actually I think your link does just adress the authoritarian capitalism critics, not the socialist ones.
You wanted to know how the system would work, now you do. I didn't expect it to convert you, just educate.

I don't understand what you mean by this claim. Chaotic?

You wanted to know how the system would work, now you do. I didn't expect it to convert you, just educate.Okay, so nobody enforce the law, because there is no law, is that correct?

Okay, so nobody enforce the law, because there is no law, is that correct?
No. Did you read the whole thing? You hire police, or get together with other volunteers, to protect yourself and your property. There are laws but they are more customary and take the form of contracts within and between police companies (or whatever), as opposed to arbitrary proclaimations by the local mafia (govt).

No. Did you read the whole thing? You hire police, or get together with other volunteers, to protect yourself and your property. There are laws but they are more customary and take the form of contracts within and between police companies (or whatever), as opposed to arbitrary proclaimations by the local mafia (govt).But if the law does not apply to everybody, it is not a law, is it?
I've understood there were contracts and that the contracts were respected because it was in the interest of the parties to respect their contracts.

One of my concerns with Friedmann's essay (and, I guess, with any anarchist society) is the absence of an explicit ban on the death penalty. Though, in fairness, at least the punishment is not in the hands of a state purporting to represent every citizen.

One of my concerns with Friedmann's essay (and, I guess, with any anarchist society) is the absence of an explicit ban on the death penalty. Though, in fairness, at least the punishment is not in the hands of a state purporting to represent every citizen.
The market for law would handle that. Private legal companies would write legal code, which would be resold via the insurance/police agencies/courts. Just like evolution, the legal codes people want would be selected over those they don't. Just like a....market!

One of my concerns with Friedmann's essay (and, I guess, with any anarchist society) is the absence of an explicit ban on the death penalty. Though, in fairness, at least the punishment is not in the hands of a state purporting to represent every citizen.
There's no guarantee that without a state there won't be a death penalty. But there's no guarantee that there won't be one with a state either. With a state the guy in charge is more likely to be Stalin or Bush than it is to be you or someone like you. When you imagine a govt doing something don't assume it's you who's in charge, it very rarely will be. It's not worth the risk.

The market for law would handle that. Private legal companies would write legal code, which would be resold via the insurance/police agencies/courts. Just like evolution, the legal codes people want would be selected over those they don't. Just like a....market!
Yes. Just make sure you hire a police company that opposes executions. You'll get your way most of the time.

The market for law would handle that. Private legal companies would write legal code, which would be resold via the insurance/police agencies/courts. Just like evolution, the legal codes people want would be selected over those they don't. Just like a....market!Then there would be a market of nuclear weapons, wouldn't there?

The market for law would handle that. Private legal companies would write legal code, which would be resold via the insurance/police agencies/courts. Just like evolution, the legal codes people want would be selected over those they don't. Just like a....market!
Thanks, though I was trundling along to the the answer under my own somewhat wheezy steam. Hmm. You know, I think I'll cross that objection off my (extensive) list. One point to the free market, who'd a thunk it?

Then there would be a market of nuclear weapons, wouldn't there?

Sort of like the way there is now?

Nuclear weapons have been invented and used. The only way to get rid of them is to go back in time and prevent their invention. Once created, they cannot be uncreated. You'll have to live with that.

When discussing "law" (I'm not really sure the term applies) in a libertarian capitalist society, posters here have concentrated exclusively on laws that apply to the protection of private property. But what about all those other laws that facilitate our daily existence?

For example: traffic law. How would this be run in a purely market system? Would competing companies build competing roads -- all going to the same places, mind you -- each with its own set of speed limits and safety standards? Would EVERY road -- and the accompanying set of laws/courts -- be paid for in tolls?

Seems like a great waste of resources... not to mention a real pain in the ass.

Of course, I would appreciate an anarcho-capitalist's better idea. Really, I would.

for:
communism works well if ALL the following are true:
- all people are trustworthy
- all people do their share of work
- all rewards are distributed evenly
- no one is corrupt in the least, morally or otherwise

against:
since none of those have ever been true in human history, communism runs into a wall when people feel the rush of power over others.

misc:
i will say one thing though... china's doing a half-decent job of being communist. makes me wonder how actualy communist they are... meh. i don't live there, nor do i care to.

dun like what i think? bite this :sniper:

Somewhere, someone mentioned that under libertarian capitalism, those wonderful private security/police agencies would have a great interest in keeping crime low -- presumably, because they will profit if people trust their service, yes?

But, I'm wondering... If I were running a private security agency, I can tell you what my ideal situation would be -- crime is low only for my customers, but through the fucking roof for anyone else.

I mean, really... If crime is virtually eliminated, people might start thinking "do I really need to pay so much for security? Maybe I'll just take the basic plan." But as long as they're scared... hehehe... oh yes, the money will roll in.

In fact, I might even hire a couple of kids to go cause some trouble for non-customers. Sure, there's a risk they'll get caught... but isn't being an entrepreneur all about risk? Besides, I'll make damn sure they know that if they get caught and tell anyone who sent them... it'll be over for them.

Hopefully, they'll get away with it more often than not -- risk for gain, remember? If they do, people will be scared... but surely they'll notice that my customers are well protected, yes? Demand for my service, naturally, will increase... and I'll grow into a bigger fish.

Hey, think of it!! If I get big enough, maybe I'll take another calculated risk... and get the word out to the other agencies that if they mess with my kids, they'll be messing with the whole operation. Of course, by now maybe a few other companies have done the same... there are a few "biggies." If it comes to it, I'm sure we can agree to something -- after all, as long as crime is high for everyone else, we can still charge exhorbitant rates, which, naturally, not everyone can afford anyway. So, we'll all pick on those who can't afford our expensive "service" -- which by now just means leaving our "customers" alone. Making sure, of course, to stay out of each other's turf.


Ohhhhh, wait!! I just looked in the mirror! I'm the fucking Mafia. BIG risks, BIG profit. Hey, that's capitalism, right??

EDIT: Of course, the risks will be much lower without those meddling state police, sworn to some ridiculous notion of "justice." Rubbish!! Anarcho-capitalism all the way!!

When discussing "law" (I'm not really sure the term applies) in a libertarian capitalist society, posters here have concentrated exclusively on laws that apply to the protection of private property. But what about all those other laws that facilitate our daily existence?

For example: traffic law. How would this be run in a purely market system? Would competing companies build competing roads -- all going to the same places, mind you -- each with its own set of speed limits and safety standards? Would EVERY road -- and the accompanying set of laws/courts -- be paid for in tolls?
Those are possibilities. But were we to be able to say precisely that would be evidence for central planning.

It's possible that some roads would be toll every so often. Some toll-by-cumulative use. Some purely private.

As for laws, the market system does tend to a standard (after all, a Ford and Chevy car have some differences, but the technology is pretty much identical).

Somewhere, someone mentioned that under libertarian capitalism, those wonderful private security/police agencies would have a great interest in keeping crime low -- presumably, because they will profit if people trust their service, yes?

But, I'm wondering... If I were running a private security agency, I can tell you what my ideal situation would be -- crime is low only for my customers, but through the fucking roof for anyone else.
Why would that be ideal?

I mean, really... If crime is virtually eliminated, people might start thinking "do I really need to pay so much for security? Maybe I'll just take the basic plan." But as long as they're scared... hehehe... oh yes, the money will roll in.
Oh, so you're going to create crime in other places. tsk. It will be found out and your company will go into the shitter because no one will want to deal with you.

The market DOES work like that, despite the whines to the contrary.

Did you have a point that wasn't designed to make you look stupid?

I agree with everyone that says earth never saw a communist goverment.. Cuz it didnt even the USSR wasnt communist .. yet.. See communism at its core is somewhat closer to a state of mind for an entire community. Communism is the total ABSENCE of goverment, (where unlike anarchy the people have become wise enought to govern themselves) not a strong-armed approache like the soviets used, which is the problem with the communist goverments we've seen up to now.

Marx said that the proletaria being the only true revolutionary class could not achieve any dominance unless it completely shot off every single existing definition of class and ownership. Thus, the conversion from capitalist goverments to communist systems was to be supervised by a transiatory goverment- Political science has since dubbed this political system as REVOLUTIONARY SOCIALISM.

Which is what the USSR was, what Korea is, what cuba is and what China was for the longest time. Of course human nature will always see the strongest people or the sly people take advantage of others...

Human nature by itself is exploitative, under the revolutionary socialists you will always end up with a dominance created by the rulers- Be it party, dictator or class- So to you hardcore capitalists and hardcore communists who cant even budge a single bit from your points I say nuts, there are some good points in both sides argument.

-Communism has never existed on earth

-Communism is not PLAUSIBLE on earth at the moment (impossible)

Voila.

Why would that be ideal?

I think I explained it pretty clearly, but it seems I always have to repeat things for you... so here goes:

1. You know all about price, supply, and demand, right?

2. Well, if mine is the only company whose customers are safe, don't you think there would be high demand for my product? And, there is only one of me... so supply is pretty low. Therefore, if everyone else experiences a nightmarish crime rate, but my customers do not, this situation is ideal -- as far as my profit, anyway... which IS the motive that's supposed to govern your silly world, right??

Oh, so you're going to create crime in other places. tsk. It will be found out and your company will go into the shitter because no one will want to deal with you.

PROVE IT. NOW. NOW. NOW. (I look in the mirror again... now I'm BAAWA!! Oh, what an extraordinary day!!)

Seems to me business manages to get away with a lot as it is... but in your fantasy world, I suppose the local psychic will tell me what everyone is up to, yes? Of course, I already know what you would say (or should say, to remain consistent)... There will be private, for-profit consumer oversight boards!! Of course!! And what makes them immune to corruption, when my company offers a bribe? I guess it all depends on how they can make more money... A) by keeping business in check so people get a fair deal, or B) allowing business to do essentially what they want, thus earning the money with which to pay off the oversight board. Hmmm.....

The market DOES work like that, despite the whines to the contrary.

Hey, I'm not saying market forces will be absent and that companies won't be regulated to some extent by having to live up to their cusomer's expectations. Like I said, the world of organized crime is higher risk... but, also higher payoff. And at least some will be tempted, and at least some will succeed, if on probability alone.

PROVE that they won't!! How do you know people will ALWAYS KNOW what every company is up to. Admit it, you don't!! You can't!! Of course, I don't know that they won't... but please, I think your omniscient consumer is the harder case to prove. Burden of proof = yours. So prove it!!! Hahaha!!

Did you have a point that wasn't designed to make you look stupid?

Hey... are you looking at the mirror, too?!

Grow up, cowboy... free range justice is a BAD idea.

Oh, so you're going to create crime in other places. tsk. It will be found out and your company will go into the shitter because no one will want to deal with you.

While you still have the problem of proving that NO ONE will succeed in the high-risks game of organized crime and deception, consider this...

Who will "not want to deal with me"? The people whose choices are A) pay for my "protection," or B) become the victims of my attacks?? Sure, they won't want to deal with me... but I don't really see what choice they have. Another security agency? Good luck to them. Like I said, it's a high-stakes game. I'm willing to take on whatever they want to bring, since they payoff is so high. Of course, the pay-off would be high for them, too... I'm sure people would be willing to pay a lot to have someone get rid of the big bully!! But now we're just talking gang warfare -- paid for by the good citizens of Fantasyland, no less!!

And what happens when someone manages to take me down? You don't think they'll be tempted to take over where I left off, rather than conduct "legitimate" business?

What, will greed just disappear off the face of the earth? No one will try to break the "rules of the game," or cheat a trusting customer to get ahead?

Damn. You "ancaps" are starting to sound a lot like those communists you deride so well.

"It'll be ok, folks!! People will change, and they'll only be honest and forthright!!" Gee, shucks, NOW I'll sign up with you guys!! You can change human nature.

Or are you just naive enough to believe granny when she says, "Crime never pays." To cite an argument you should understand quite well, it must, or people wouldn't try it!!

Wake up. Moron.

free range justice

jeebus, don't go giving them catchy slogans like that.

Why would that be ideal?
I think I explained it pretty clearly,
No, you didn't.

1. You know all about price, supply, and demand, right?
Yep. How does that relate here?

2. Well, if mine is the only company whose customers are safe,
Why would that be?

don't you think there would be high demand for my product?
Not when people find out about your scheme.

And, there is only one of me... so supply is pretty low. Therefore, if everyone else experiences a nightmarish crime rate,
.....because of you, which will be exposed and cause your company to no longer exist because no one will want to deal with you.

Reputation counts for a lot. Never forget that.

but my customers do not, this situation is ideal -- as far as my profit, anyway... which IS the motive that's supposed to govern your silly world, right??
No.


Oh, so you're going to create crime in other places. tsk. It will be found out and your company will go into the shitter because no one will want to deal with you.
PROVE IT.
Easy.

1. There's this thing called "the press" aka journalists
2. They do this thing called "investigate"
3. Does the conclusion have to be spelled out, or are you intelligent enough to grasp it from there?

Seems to me business manages to get away with a lot as it is
Prove it.

There will be private, for-profit consumer oversight boards!!
Amazing how they exist already in real life.

Here's a handkerchief. Wipe the egg from your face.

Of course!! And what makes them immune to corruption, when my company offers a bribe?
Reputation. Counts. A lot.

You keep forgetting that.

Why do you think that Nissan changed its Datsun-brand name back to Nissan? I'll give you a hint: what was the perception about Datsuns?


The market DOES work like that, despite the whines to the contrary. Hey, I'm not saying market forces will be absent and that companies won't be regulated to some extent by having to live up to their cusomer's expectations.
*laughs*

Actually, that's precisely what you're saying.

PROVE that they won't!! How do you know people will ALWAYS KNOW what every company is up to.
They won't. But there's no reason at all to believe they will be eternally ignorant, as you want them.

You're still flailing away with points designed to make you look stupid.

As for free-range justice, it works very well, actually. Cattle and sheep ranchers whose sheep or cattle crossed into other ranchers' land tended to be moved far from the offending rancher's land, ensuring that considerable cost would be needed by said farmer to transport (and by this is not meant ransom) the animal back to his land, telling said rancher in a subtle way to fix his damned fence.

Yes, it happened like that. And fences were thus mended quickly to ensure that such didn't happen again.

Oh, here's another handkerchief. I don't want the other one back, either. You can keep it.

Oh, so you're going to create crime in other places. tsk. It will be found out and your company will go into the shitter because no one will want to deal with you.

While you still have the problem of proving that NO ONE will succeed in the high-risks game of organized crime and deception,
No, you have to prove that they will consistently succeed.

Who will "not want to deal with me"?
Everyone.

Reputation. Counts. A lot.

Learn it.

Live it.

Love it.

Somewhere, someone mentioned that under libertarian capitalism, those wonderful private security/police agencies would have a great interest in keeping crime low -- presumably, because they will profit if people trust their service, yes?

But, I'm wondering... If I were running a private security agency, I can tell you what my ideal situation would be -- crime is low only for my customers, but through the fucking roof for anyone else.

I mean, really... If crime is virtually eliminated, people might start thinking "do I really need to pay so much for security? Maybe I'll just take the basic plan." But as long as they're scared... hehehe... oh yes, the money will roll in.

Ahh.. now you're thinking like a true entrepreneur. Up until the point you realize you're not the only one thinking that, and you find yourself pitted against other security companies. Competition solves your little delimma. There would be more than one security company, afterall.

Besides which, as soon as your activities are discovered, you'll be blacklisted and go into financial ruin. And don't think something as stupidly blatant as that won't get discovered.

Sort of like the way there is now?

Nuclear weapons have been invented and used. The only way to get rid of them is to go back in time and prevent their invention. Once created, they cannot be uncreated. You'll have to live with that.
And even worse. Your answer does only make sense when applied to feudalism of to authoritarian capitalism. It does not adress the socialist critic.

for:
communism works well if ALL the following are true:
- all people are trustworthy
- all people do their share of work
- all rewards are distributed evenly
- no one is corrupt in the least, morally or otherwise

against:
since none of those have ever been true in human history, communism runs into a wall when people feel the rush of power over others.

misc:
i will say one thing though... china's doing a half-decent job of being communist. makes me wonder how actualy communist they are... meh. i don't live there, nor do i care to.

dun like what i think? bite this :sniper:You should read some books and learn what communism is. It is not what McCarthy described. I think you are confusing it for anarchy.

I agree with everyone that says earth never saw a communist goverment.. Cuz it didnt even the USSR wasnt communist .. yet.. See communism at its core is somewhat closer to a state of mind for an entire community. Communism is the total ABSENCE of goverment, (where unlike anarchy the people have become wise enought to govern themselves) not a strong-armed approache like the soviets used, which is the problem with the communist goverments we've seen up to now.

Marx said that the proletaria being the only true revolutionary class could not achieve any dominance unless it completely shot off every single existing definition of class and ownership. Thus, the conversion from capitalist goverments to communist systems was to be supervised by a transiatory goverment- Political science has since dubbed this political system as REVOLUTIONARY SOCIALISM.

Which is what the USSR was, what Korea is, what cuba is and what China was for the longest time. Of course human nature will always see the strongest people or the sly people take advantage of others...

Human nature by itself is exploitative, under the revolutionary socialists you will always end up with a dominance created by the rulers- Be it party, dictator or class- So to you hardcore capitalists and hardcore communists who cant even budge a single bit from your points I say nuts, there are some good points in both sides argument.

-Communism has never existed on earth

-Communism is not PLAUSIBLE on earth at the moment (impossible)

Voila.
You too are confusing anarchy and communism.

Why do you think that Nissan changed its Datsun-brand name back to Nissan? I'll give you a hint: what was the perception about Datsuns?
Why doesn't Microsoft change name? Does Halliburton care about its reputation?

Why don't you all just go into politics if you're so upset and want change the government so badly?

I think you forget about monopolies. If I've got nuclear weapons, I don't care what my "customers" think. And if there's another company with nuclear weapons, I'll get a deal with them. In the meantime, you'd better give me your money fast before I get angry.

Why don't you all just go into politics if you're so upset and want change the government so badly?Aren't we into politics?

Aren't we into politics?
A curse upon you and your family for your incompitence! PLEH!

A curse upon you and your family for your incompitence! PLEH!Sorry I'm doing my best.

Sorry I'm doing my best.
Then you might want to consider a factory job. I hear they give some great benefits, like a wet rag to wipe off the grime before you leave every day!

Then you might want to consider a factory job. I hear they give some great benefits, like a wet rag to wipe off the grime before you leave every day!
I have one already. Does that mean I should be banned from politics?

I have one already. Does that mean I should be banned from politics?
Not because of that, but from what I have gathered from "Sorry I'm doing my best." if I had to guess I would say yes! Not because of any job you have, though!

Well, nobody's ever actually seen communism work.

Actually, we have. It's called "Cuba". And it's been relatively succesful. Their primary education system is perhaps better than the United States, and their health system as as effective as ours... without the technology and medicines that we have here because of a certain embargo.

But no, pure communism does not work. Then again, neither does pure capitalism. No, we don't have a pure capitalist system here. The closest we've had to that was during the industrial revolution. Damn am I glad things have progressed.

You'd call Cuba successful? I'm not even going to talk to you anymore! :P

Not because of that, but from what I have gathered from "Sorry I'm doing my best." if I had to guess I would say yes! Not because of any job you have, though!Because of what then? Is it because my ideas differ from yours?

Because of what then? Is it because my ideas differ from yours?

Try reading my post...

"from what I have gathered from "Sorry I'm doing my best." "

Try reading my post...

"from what I have gathered from "Sorry I'm doing my best." "Is it because I'm doing my best then? Or is it because I'm sorry, or both?

Is it because I'm doing my best then? Or is it because I'm sorry, or both?

Because politics requires a higher standard of "doing your best" than what your's apparently is.

Because politics requires a higher standard of "doing your best" than what your's apparently is.What do I lack then?

What do I lack then?

Whatever was required to answer my question without a stupid answer!

Whatever was required to answer my question without a stupid answer!Could you please ask the question again?

Could you please ask the question again?

AH there you go again! OH well I suppose I shall be accomidating.

"Why don't you all just go into politics if you're so upset and want change the government so badly?"

AH there you go again! OH well I suppose I shall be accomidating.

"Why don't you all just go into politics if you're so upset and want change the government so badly?"
But the question is stupid. You ask why we DON'T go into politics, but we DO go into politics. What kind of intelligent answer can you give to that question?
Another instance of stupid question would be "Why is the earth flat?". Can you give an intelligent answer to that?

But the question is stupid. You ask why we DON'T go into politics, but we DO go into politics. What kind of intelligent answer can you give to that question?
Another instance of stupid question would be "Why is the earth flat?". Can you give an intelligent answer to that?

As in a job...

As in a job...
People here don't tend to elect anti-capitalist politicians.

Why doesn't Microsoft change name? Does Halliburton care about its reputation?
Because MS makes decent enough products, and Halliburton does care about its reputation.

I think you forget about monopolies.
Coercive monopolies only happen with governmental interference.

If I've got nuclear weapons,
How did you get them?

I don't care what my "customers" think. And if there's another company with nuclear weapons, I'll get a deal with them. In the meantime, you'd better give me your money fast before I get angry.
Ah, so you're writing a Hollywood script. I see.

Because MS makes decent enough products, and Halliburton does care about its reputation.
I think you must not know enough about computer science to talk about Microsoft.
Let's take another example. Britney Spears. The product is obviously inferior but is sold to us thanks to a nearly monopoly on the music industry and on the media.

Halliburton does not care about its reputation enough to take care of the environment and of the iraqis. Why would they? You will have to buy oil anyway.

Coercive monopolies only happen with governmental interference.


How did you get them?


Ah, so you're writing a Hollywood script. I see.Monopolies happen with private property, because private property itself is a monopoly.

I did get the nuclear weapons on the free market.

I'm not writting a hollywood script, you are.

Who is this BAAWA character? I mean, seriously.

http://www.sonic.net/~wooly/

Let's take another example. Britney Spears. The product is obviously inferior but is sold to us thanks to a nearly monopoly on the music industry and on the media.


Nah: Britney Spears or whatever current teen sensation is not infereior - their very superiroity is due to the fact that all the other consumers in the terget demographic are consuming her product. The key to why Britney Spears is so successful lies not in any musical content, but in the very fact of marketing: what is being sold is acceptance by peers and a culture separate from that of those who champion a different pop product or belong to a different generation. BS is all about conformity and peer-acceptance.

I guess what I mean is, how is anarcho-capitalism different from and similar to anarchism and capitalism? Or is it just anarcho-capitalism because adding "anarcho" prefixes is trendy nowadays?

It's an oxymoron, an attempt to slander anarchism by coming up with an impossibly contradictory combination of two contrasting and incompatible systems - anarchism and capitalism. Of course, BWAWAWA(someone stole my bokkle) will now reappear and claim that nothing in anarchism means it's anti-capitalist (except, of course, its history and basic principles), that communism is incompatible with anarchism because of the USSR (except, of course, the USSR was not communist) and he'll probably spout some more rubbish along with that. But that's him, he's a troll.

Vas.

Nah: Britney Spears or whatever current teen sensation is not infereior - their very superiroity is due to the fact that all the other consumers in the terget demographic are consuming her product. The key to why Britney Spears is so successful lies not in any musical content, but in the very fact of marketing: what is being sold is acceptance by peers and a culture separate from that of those who champion a different pop product or belong to a different generation. BS is all about conformity and peer-acceptance.I fully agree with that. That is why I talked about the monopoly of the media. BS is marketed via the medias. Here the market is not functioning because this monopoly makes it impossible for superior products to be marketed.

Here the market is not functioning because this monopoly makes it impossible for superior products to be marketed.

To you and I there may very well be many musically superior products, certainly, but it is not music that the target audience of BS is particularly interested in, and you and I are still free to purchase products by those artists we consider to be musically superior, whether they be marketted on EMI/CBS/A&M or Vermiform/One Little Indian/Peaceville or whatever - contrast this to the former East block where one only had the choice of consuming artists on Melodiya (or whatever national official label) or running the risk of illegally dealing in imported or home-produced records. BS is an excellent product in that she fulfills the role (only slightly related to her actual music) demanded of her by record company and by fans extremely well.

To you and I there may very well be many musically superior products, certainly, but it is not music that the target audience of BS is particularly interested in, and you and I are still free to purchase products by those artists we consider to be musically superior, whether they be marketted on EMI/CBS/A&M or Vermiform/One Little Indian/Peaceville or whatever - contrast this to the former East block where one only had the choice of consuming artists on Melodica (or whatever national official label) or running the risk of illegally dealing in imported or home-produced records. She is an excellent product in that she fulfills the role demanded of her by record company and by fans extremely well.It makes sense.

My example was a bad one then. I will go back to the Microsoft one.
Let's imagine a company making roads. They could then decide which car they would allow on their roads and create a monopoly on cars, making it impossible for other car manufacturers to be marketted.

It makes sense.

I do however firmly agree with you that the major record labels are a force which stifles musical creativity and the distribution of musically interesting and quality recordings, generally speaking.

A direct democracy could in principle (and I believe in practice too) be extremely oppressive too.

Minimised opportunity, as a direct democracy relies on the opinion of the majority. Thus, a majority oppressing a minority is, by definition, less oppressive than a minority oppressing a majority.

I want the system that gives me the most freedom, not which is most popular. emphasis added

Exactly. Any option that gives you, and you alone, the most freedom, does so at the expense of others, because it's impossible to maximise the freedom of one without minimising the freedom of others. To maximise the freedom of all is anarchism, which looks at the blocks to freedom - government, hierarchy, property and seeks to remove them and introduce a system where the only obstacle to freedom is respecting that of others.

Vas.

Because MS makes decent enough products, and Halliburton does care about its reputation.
I think you must not know enough about computer science to talk about Microsoft.
I was the head of the service department at the local Computer Renaissance for a couple years. I've built over 800 systems and worked on another 3,000. Care to try again?

Let's take another example. Britney Spears. The product is obviously inferior
Inferior according to whom?

Aesthetics are a subjective thing. I personally think she's nothing more than eye candy, but teenybopper girls love her. Whaddaya gonna do?

Halliburton does not care about its reputation enough to take care of the environment and of the iraqis. Why would they? You will have to buy oil anyway.
But the oil can come from other sources.

Coercive monopolies only happen with governmental interference.
Monopolies happen with private property, because private property itself is a monopoly.
You have a very warped definition of monopoly. Certainly doesn't match any definition proffered in economics.

How did you get them (nuclear weapons)?
I did get the nuclear weapons on the free market.
How?

Ah, so you're writing a Hollywood script. I see.
I'm not writting a hollywood script, you are.
IKYABWAI. Childish.

It's an oxymoron,
No, that's anarcho-socialism and anarcho-communism. The oxymorons claim that you can have socialism and communism without a government, but that is impossible, as it is self-contradictory.

Of course, you don't care about that, do you. Nothing about anarchism means that it is anti-capitalist (remember the definition from the philosophy dictionary? Yeah, you coward. Try to run away from reality).

Of course, you could show that the basic principles of anarchism are counter to capitalism, but you can't. All that anarchism is about is there not being a state. Please provide the definition that says it is anti-capitalist. Philosophy dictionary only, please.

And yes, the USSR was communist, despite your whining about it.

So yes, you are a troll. You deny reality and then complain when people point it out to you.

Troll.

Why don't you all just go into politics if you're so upset and want change the government so badly?

What makes you think we haven't?

Vas.

I fully agree with that. That is why I talked about the monopoly of the media. BS is marketed via the medias. Here the market is not functioning because this monopoly makes it impossible for superior products to be marketed.
Superior according to whom?

Please answer.

Oh, and don't think that you can get away with claiming that aesthetics are objective.

My example was a bad one then. I will go back to the Microsoft one.
Let's imagine a company making roads. They could then decide which car they would allow on their roads and create a monopoly on cars, making it impossible for other car manufacturers to be marketted.
Prove it.

Note: why would a company only allow one type of car on their roads? Why aren't there other companies that own roads?

In short: why are you begging a host of questions and strawmanning?

Why would that be ideal?

I think I explained it pretty clearly,

No, you didn't.

Ahhh, typical BAAWA tactics. (We all know them well -- I won't say "used" to them, because that would indicate we don't mind that he is petty and arrogant, and refuses to discuss any argument on its own merits, preferring instead to break up each line and pretend as if the rest of the post does not exist. Hmm... he must have learned that from American politicians.)


1. You know all about price, supply, and demand, right?


Yep. How does that relate here?

HA!! He did it again!


2. Well, if mine is the only company whose customers are safe,


Why would that be?

Why do I like Coke better than Pepsi? Why is my ISP faster than AOL? Here's something that political economists learned a long time ago: the market decides on results, not process. Government, on the other hand, usually decides on process more than results, since often people generally agree on what results they want.

So as far as supply-and-demand operates, results are a HUGE issue -- especially when my safety is concerned. Hell, look at how government even shifts to a "results" argument when it comes to safety. How many people don't fucking care that Bush would trample civil rights "to protect them"?

Actually, there's another example of my point!! Bush claims that people will be safer under him than under Kerry. How does he make this such a big selling point? By stirring up crime and terrorists around the world, so we stop caring "how" or "why" we are protected. We only care about being safe.


don't you think there would be high demand for my product?


Not when people find out about your scheme.

Maybe. Maybe.

But first, YOU'RE BEGGING THE QUESTION. You don't know that I'll be found out. Maybe I will -- but that's the risk I take, and I'm ok with that.

Secondly, can you not imagine the following discussion??

Son: "Dad, these people are criminals!! You can't just pay into their 'protection' racket when they're out there killing people!!"

Dad: (He can't look his son in the eye when he says this.) "Someday, when you have a family, you'll understand, son. If I don't pay them, we'll be next. I can't do that. Not to your mother and your sisters."

Son: "So we'll go to BAAWA protection agency! They'll have to defend us!"

Dad: "Ha! You want to try that? What happens if they can't, son? You want to make ANARCHYEL doubly angry?! They'll torture us!"


The fact you're missing, BAAWA, is that "protection" is fundamentally different than any other market commodity. If I find out that my cereal company is cheating me, I no longer use them. If I find out my stock broker is cheating me, I use someone else. But if I find out my "security" agency is busting heads of people who cancel they're plan, I just might think twice about cancelling!!

And, there is only one of me... so supply is pretty low. Therefore, if everyone else experiences a nightmarish crime rate,

.....because of you, which will be exposed and cause your company to no longer exist because no one will want to deal with you.

Reputation counts for a lot. Never forget that.

Oh, I know. But first, FUCKING PROVE IT, YOU IGNORANT SACK OF SHIT!! (Ooops, lapsed into a BAAWAism again. Mods, please forgive me.)

You can NEVER, EVER know that someone isn't cheating -- although given what they have to gain from succeeding, you can probably guess that they are. And as for "no one will want to deal with you," see above. I don't need them to want me. I just need to make it an offer they can't refuse.

As for reputation, I know all about that. I want a reputation... that says that any time someone drops my service, they get mugged. Or raped. Or beaten. I love reputation. It's what drives my criminal enterprise.

but my customers do not, this situation is ideal -- as far as my profit, anyway... which IS the motive that's supposed to govern your silly world, right??

No.

My sincerest apologies, then. Please enlighten me, as this could resolve our entire dispute. What happened to the profit motive in your pure capitalism, then?

Oh, so you're going to create crime in other places. tsk. It will be found out and your company will go into the shitter because no one will want to deal with you.

PROVE IT.

Easy.

1. There's this thing called "the press" aka journalists
2. They do this thing called "investigate"
3. Does the conclusion have to be spelled out, or are you intelligent enough to grasp it from there?

Hahahahaha!! You make me laugh!! That's not a PROOF!!

1. There's this thing called "the press" aka journalists.
2. Since this is anarcho-capitalism, I know they are run privately, so they do this thing called "sell TV news and newspapers"!!
3. If "investigation" sells news, they will do so. If something else sells news, they will do that.
4. All empirical evidence to date suggests that violence sells news. Hence, the death of the "expose" in the latter half of the twentieth century.
5. Does the conclusion have to be spelled out, or are you intelligent enough to grasp it from there?

Seems to me business manages to get away with a lot as it is

Prove it.

What fucking world do you live in? Look around!! Or perhaps you think they "don't get away with it" because your beloved press eventually ratted them out? After how many years? And how much profit did the owners and managers walk away with? Enough to make it clear that it's worth the risk if I can follow in their footsteps?

Of course, with most businesses the worst thing that happens is we get "cheated" out of our hard-earned cash. Some of the worse examples involve automobiles that blow up when they get rear-ended, that sort of thing... But do we really want to take the risk of someone running LAW and ORDER for hire... and cheating?? Seems like an awfully big risk to me. Even if they're found out... imagine what damage they would do in the meantime!!


There will be private, for-profit consumer oversight boards!!


Amazing how they exist already in real life.

Here's a handkerchief. Wipe the egg from your face.

Sure, they do. Do you think they never take a bribe? I would imagine, as I suggested earlier, it depends on how likely they think it is they'll get caught (shall the oversight boards watch the oversight boards, too?)... and, of course, how big the bribe is.

Of course, I have no way to PROVE this... but you can't prove that they don't, either!! So, it comes down to a matter of predicting which is most likely, given what we know about human behavior.

Moreover, YOU reify "business," as far as reputation goes!! Ha!! You did it!! See, because while it surely matters to the owner what the reputation of his business is, the business -- oversight boards included -- is merely a collection of individuals!! It has no "behavior of its own," as if it were some sort of actual thing! So, it doesn't fucking matter what's "good for the business" if for me, individual investigator, it is more profitable to take the bribe... and from a group as powerful and profitable as the Mafia, I'm willing to be the bribe is a big one.


Of course!! And what makes them immune to corruption, when my company offers a bribe?


Reputation. Counts. A lot.

You keep forgetting that.

No, you keep reifying "the company" and its "reputation"... as if there were no individuals involved who don't give a shit what the company's reputation is, if the payoff is big enough. Out of a job? Maybe. Like I said, the bribe would have to be awfully big. And who's going to find out about it? There's no IRS to see how much I'm making, right?? HA!! BAAWA omelette, anyone??

Why do you think that Nissan changed its Datsun-brand name back to Nissan? I'll give you a hint: what was the perception about Datsuns?

WILL YOU LISTEN FOR ONE FUCKING SECOND, YOU THICK-HEADED IGNORAMUS?!

I agree with you. Reputation is important capital to a business. But you pretend as if the most profitable thing for a business person to do is ALWAYS stay in business... If your only motive is profit, however, you go where the money is. And sometimes -- not always, got that? -- the money will be in a venture that risks your business itself. BUT IT JUST MIGHT BE WORTH IT!!

Now, we deal with that all the time as it is... and I do not expect your system to be perfect. If I did, I'd just be setting up a straw man (like so many do to attack communism). Nothing is perfect. But I am concerned that allowing law and order, the rules of justice, to be governed by the same rules as other business -- which sometimes encourage cheating -- is a risky venture indeed.

The market DOES work like that, despite the whines to the contrary.

Hey, I'm not saying market forces will be absent and that companies won't be regulated to some extent by having to live up to their cusomer's expectations.

*laughs*

Actually, that's precisely what you're saying.

What fucking post are you reading??? Seriously, do you have problems with inserting your own fantasies into reality? You should see someone about that. To reiterate:

Hey, I'm not saying market forces will be absent and that companies won't be regulated to some extent by having to live up to their customer's expectations.

I just think "to some extent" might not be enough when safety and justice are involved.

PROVE that they won't!! How do you know people will ALWAYS KNOW what every company is up to.

They won't. But there's no reason at all to believe they will be eternally ignorant, as you want them.

You are a fucking moron. That is abundantly clear. Since I have said, on numerous occasions, that I do not expect them to be "eternally ignorant." You, on the other hand, suppose a level of oversight that demands 100% knowledge (or at least, supposing it to be along the lines of the Panopticon, the businessperson's belief in constant surveillance). You have to admit -- unless you're as blind as the communists you so love to attack -- that there is some chance someone will cheat, and that there is some chance he/she will get away with it. Maybe not for long... but how long is too long to live under Mafia rule?

People will still be people, no matter how fun it is to jerk off to your fantasy world.

You're still flailing away with points designed to make you look stupid.

BAAWA = Stupid. Everyone else sees it, why can't he?

As for free-range justice, it works very well, actually. Cattle and sheep ranchers whose sheep or cattle crossed into other ranchers' land tended to be moved far from the offending rancher's land, ensuring that considerable cost would be needed by said farmer to transport (and by this is not meant ransom) the animal back to his land, telling said rancher in a subtle way to fix his damned fence.

Yes, it happened like that. And fences were thus mended quickly to ensure that such didn't happen again.

YES!! It did happen like that!!! Hahahahaha!!!

And where was the fucking armed security force?

Different world, different issues, different political theory. NOT an argument for yours. Still anarchist, though.

Someone who knew a little philosophy of law once taught me about this. He said that contracts promising future actions are worthless. Only transfers of (non human) property are legitimate and enforceable. For instance, if I promise to wash your car every day and then don't then you can't force me to. Of course this will make me less trustworthy but it won't have any legal ramifictions. If I take ten pounds off you in exchange for my promise you can however force me to pay you back, possibly with compensation, if I fail to comply.

Thus slavery is not legitimate. If I sold myself to you as a slave and then didn't want to be a slave you could force me to give your money back and compensate you but nothing else. It also puts a nail in the coffin of all "social contract" theories of govt.

We're not discussing jurisprudence. I see your point, but I don't see why that is true. I'm interested in what you're saying, I would like to know why, not in a legal sense, contracts promising future actions are worthless, invalid, etc. I think if this point were proven, it would indeed go a long way in attacking libertarian and or social contract thought

[QUOTE=BAAWA]
'It's disgusting.
It says that those who produce MUST GIVE things away because others need them. By what right do those people's need have title over anything? You've NEVER been able to answer that.'


Yes, but in capitalism many people end up with far more than they need. Surely it's better to produce what you can to the best of your ability, keep what you need, and give what you don't need away to those who do need it, instead of just selfishly hoarding it. This would also mean that if you ever fell on bad times yourself, you would know that you'd still be provided for by someone who was doing better.

However, this is a very idealistic concept, and it would be very difficult to put into practice, since people are very unwilling to create more without an incentive to do so. In a capitalist society, people can sell their excess and make a profit, and so they try to make more than they need.

During the Russian civil war in the 1920s, Lenin did try to get rid of the capitalist idea of 'profit' by introducing a policy which insisted that everyone had to give up their excess produce to the state. Needless to say, this resulted in peasants purposefully producing less and burning any excess they did produce simply to show how they hated being deprived of an oppurtunity to make a profit.

Marx's principle was a wonderful idea, but tragically human nature prevents it from ever being put into practice.

Oh, so you're going to create crime in other places. tsk. It will be found out and your company will go into the shitter because no one will want to deal with you.

While you still have the problem of proving that NO ONE will succeed in the high-risks game of organized crime and deception,

No, you have to prove that they will consistently succeed.

Since when? I don't want to be ruled by the Mafia... even "sometimes"... even "until they get caught." Maybe you do. But if not, you've got to show that it will NEVER happen.

Burden of proof = yours.

Who will "not want to deal with me"?

Everyone.

PROVE IT. Maybe some (sadistic) people enjoy being the only ones who are safe... and watching the poor get the shit beat out of them on a daily basis. Maybe some people just want to be safe, and don't care how or why -- and they have the money to pay me, so what difference does it make? Isn't that what the capitalist usually says? It's "their fault" they die because they don't have the money to pay me? I say, get a job, losers!!

Burden of proof = yours. (Naturally, you DID claim an absolute. "Everyone." Not one person will want to deal with me? Doubtful.)

Reputation. Counts. A lot.

My reputation = pay me or die. Counts. A LOT.

Learn it.

Or die.

Live it.

Or die.

Love it.

Probably not... but I expect a lot of people will do it anyway.

Handkerchief, anyone?

Ahh.. now you're thinking like a true entrepreneur. Up until the point you realize you're not the only one thinking that, and you find yourself pitted against other security companies. Competition solves your little delimma. There would be more than one security company, afterall.

Of course!! In fact, I'm counting on it!! (Not me, the hypothetical entrepreneur, but me sitting here arguing against this idiotic system.)

Sure, another company -- or companies -- will realize there is money to be made defending people from me. But, they know they're going to be headed into a warzone... so, it's going to be high-risk, and cost a LOT. Now, there are three possibilities:

1. We are relatively equally matched. The conflict gets drawn out indefinitely, and you have GANG WARFARE, funded by the people of Fantasyland. Now no one is safe.

2. I win, and my Mafia is stronger than ever before. The rich are safe, since they can pay me off. The poor suffer.

3. Another firm wins. MAYBE normal security competition resumes, and people are varyingly safe (depending on what level of protection they can afford). But what's to stop Company 2 from following in my footsteps? I guess it depends on if he thinks it's a worthwhile risk. See scenario 2.

Besides which, as soon as your activities are discovered, you'll be blacklisted and go into financial ruin.

Blacklisted by whom? The people who can either pay me, or suffer? We'll see. Besides, even if I am eventually caught, my enterprise only has to last a little while to show why purely private "justice" is a bad idea... who wants to live under the Mafia, even for a little while?

And don't think something as stupidly blatant as that won't get discovered.

A. Even if it is discovered, I may still be able to maintain enough fear to stay "in business."

B. I'm okay with "degrees" of criminality. Maybe I start out as a perfectly legitimate firm, but competition is fierce. If crime goes up by just 1% for my competitors' customers, I'll do better. So I hire some thugs for vandalism and a little property destruction. Relatively low risk. Still a higher profit for me. Hell, I don't see why every company doesn't do this!

Sure, another company -- or companies -- will realize there is money to be made defending people from me. But, they know they're going to be headed into a warzone... so, it's going to be high-risk, and cost a LOT. Now, there are three possibilities:

1. We are relatively equally matched. The conflict gets drawn out indefinitely, and you have GANG WARFARE, funded by the people of Fantasyland. Now no one is safe.

2. I win, and my Mafia is stronger than ever before. The rich are safe, since they can pay me off. The poor suffer.

3. Another firm wins. MAYBE normal security competition resumes, and people are varyingly safe (depending on what level of protection they can afford). But what's to stop Company 2 from following in my footsteps? I guess it depends on if he thinks it's a worthwhile risk. See scenario 2.

Option 4- You and the other company come to an 'arrangement' and carve the market up between you.

Why would that be ideal?

I think I explained it pretty clearly,

No, you didn't.
nothing
Where's the clear explanation?

1. You know all about price, supply, and demand, right?

Yep. How does that relate here?
nothing
How does that relate here?

2. Well, if mine is the only company whose customers are safe,

Why would that be?
Why do I like Coke better than Pepsi? Why is my ISP faster than AOL? Here's something that political economists learned a long time ago: the market decides on results, not process.
So why would your company be the only one whose customers are safe? Please answer the question.

[snip irrelevance]

don't you think there would be high demand for my product?

Not when people find out about your scheme.
Maybe. Maybe.

But first, YOU'RE BEGGING THE QUESTION.
Of course I'm not.

You don't know that I'll be found out. Maybe I will -- but that's the risk I take, and I'm ok with that.
Fine. But when you're found out, you'll suffer.

Secondly, can you not imagine the following discussion??

Son: "Dad, these people are criminals!! You can't just pay into their 'protection' racket when they're out there killing people!!"

Dad: (He can't look his son in the eye when he says this.) "Someday, when you have a family, you'll understand, son. If I don't pay them, we'll be next. I can't do that. Not to your mother and your sisters."
And you think that other agencies won't stand up and expose that? Please. You're so fucking naïve.

Stick to writing C-grade Hollywood mob movie scripts. That's what you're good at.

The fact you're missing, BAAWA, is that "protection" is fundamentally different than any other market commodity.
No, it's not.

Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security (PDF), Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Vol. 9 Num. 1) (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf)

The Private Production of Defence (PDF), Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Vol. 14 Num. 1) (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf)


And, there is only one of me... so supply is pretty low. Therefore, if everyone else experiences a nightmarish crime rate,

.....because of you, which will be exposed and cause your company to no longer exist because no one will want to deal with you.

Reputation counts for a lot. Never forget that.
Oh, I know. But first, FUCKING PROVE IT,
Already did.

Now show that you will never be found out. Show that people are so stupid and that the other companies so inept and that there will be no journalists.

Of course, you can't do that, can you? But you're assuming all of those.

but my customers do not, this situation is ideal -- as far as my profit, anyway... which IS the motive that's supposed to govern your silly world, right??

No.
My sincerest apologies, then. Please enlighten me, as this could resolve our entire dispute. What happened to the profit motive in your pure capitalism, then?
It exists, but not as your warped Hollywood version.

Dude, movies like "Antitrust" are just movies. They are FICTION. Get it?


Oh, so you're going to create crime in other places. tsk. It will be found out and your company will go into the shitter because no one will want to deal with you.
PROVE IT.

Easy.

1. There's this thing called "the press" aka journalists
2. They do this thing called "investigate"
3. Does the conclusion have to be spelled out, or are you intelligent enough to grasp it from there?
Hahahahaha!! You make me laugh!! That's not a PROOF!!
Certainly is.

1. There's this thing called "the press" aka journalists.
2. Since this is anarcho-capitalism, I know they are run privately, so they do this thing called "sell TV news and newspapers"!!
Yep. So what? They will sell the truth or people won't buy their rags except for entertainment purposes.

3. If "investigation" sells news, they will do so. If something else sells news, they will do that.
4. All empirical evidence to date suggests that violence sells news. Hence, the death of the "expose" in the latter half of the twentieth century.
Yep, so what? What's the conclusion?


Seems to me business manages to get away with a lot as it is

Prove it.
nothing that was proving his claim
I'm waiting.


There will be private, for-profit consumer oversight boards!!

Amazing how they exist already in real life.

Here's a handkerchief. Wipe the egg from your face.
Sure, they do. Do you think they never take a bribe?
And how easy it is for them to be found out.

And no reification happened. If you want to try to be the one to bribe people, good luck. You'll need it.

Of course!! And what makes them immune to corruption, when my company offers a bribe?

Reputation. Counts. A lot.

You keep forgetting that.
No, you keep reifying "the company" and its "reputation"...
Prove it.

as if there were no individuals involved who don't give a shit what the company's reputation is,
They are an infinitesimal minority. Certainly not enough to keep a company afloat financially.

Here, have a case of handkerchiefs. You really need it with all the egg on your face.


Why do you think that Nissan changed its Datsun-brand name back to Nissan? I'll give you a hint: what was the perception about Datsuns?
WILL YOU LISTEN FOR ONE FUCKING SECOND, YOU THICK-HEADED IGNORAMUS?!
You don't seem to be listening, so why should I, you thick-headed ignoramus.

I agree with you. Reputation is important capital to a business. But you pretend as if the most profitable thing for a business person to do is ALWAYS stay in business...
And how do they do that?

If your only motive is profit, however, you go where the money is. And sometimes -- not always, got that? -- the money will be in a venture that risks your business itself. BUT IT JUST MIGHT BE WORTH IT!!
So you risk your entire business and reputation? Risk that no one will be willing to work with you again? Big gamble. Best have the resources to deal with it.

Now, we deal with that all the time as it is... and I do not expect your system to be perfect. If I did, I'd just be setting up a straw man (like so many do to attack communism). Nothing is perfect. But I am concerned that allowing law and order, the rules of justice, to be governed by the same rules as other business -- which sometimes encourage cheating -- is a risky venture indeed.
So why take that big of a risk?


The market DOES work like that, despite the whines to the contrary.
Hey, I'm not saying market forces will be absent and that companies won't be regulated to some extent by having to live up to their cusomer's expectations.
*laughs*

Actually, that's precisely what you're saying.
What fucking post are you reading???
Yours.

Hey, I'm not saying market forces will be absent and that companies won't be regulated to some extent by having to live up to their customer's expectations.
Yes, you are saying precisely that. What do all of your examples have in common? That the company doesn't care about the consumer's expectations and just runs roughshod.

Fucking moron. You don't even understand your own examples! IDIOT!

PROVE that they won't!! How do you know people will ALWAYS KNOW what every company is up to.

They won't. But there's no reason at all to believe they will be eternally ignorant, as you want them.
You are a fucking moron. That is abundantly clear.
That's nice, but doesn't show how people will be eternally ignorant.

Since I have said, on numerous occasions, that I do not expect them to be "eternally ignorant."
Your examples betray that you do expect them to be eternally ignorant.


As for free-range justice, it works very well, actually. Cattle and sheep ranchers whose sheep or cattle crossed into other ranchers' land tended to be moved far from the offending rancher's land, ensuring that considerable cost would be needed by said farmer to transport (and by this is not meant ransom) the animal back to his land, telling said rancher in a subtle way to fix his damned fence.

Yes, it happened like that. And fences were thus mended quickly to ensure that such didn't happen again.
YES!! It did happen like that!!! Hahahahaha!!!

And where was the fucking armed security force?
For?

Different world,
No. It was Earth. US. Southwestern section. 1880s-1910s.

different issues,
Not really.

different political theory.
No, it's the same.

I must admit that idealy communism would be great, everyone having what they need and being happy with it. But there are very big inhernt flaws in communism, that have nothing to do with economics, but rest in humans.

First People are inherently lazy, not everyone mind you, but the majority. If we can get away with less work, we will do less work. Even if this is only a small minority, which it isn't, communism would fail because of reason two.

Second people get jealous. We have all hear the saying "the grass is always greener on the otherside." People want what they don't have and others do. So if the few people stop working less but get the same ammount, since what we have is based on need and even though they work less their need is the same, others will see that they are getting more for less and be jealous. Once they realize that they to can get away with working less they will also. This will lead to a chain reaction. Communism fails. How is this prevented?

1.) give incentives. When some one works harder they get more. O wait, that sounds an awful lot like capitalism. This creates inequaility, thus the lazy person who is also greedy now "needs" more. Since this will also cause a chian reaction it can't solve the dilema of communism.

2.)Have bosses who make sure that each person is working to their capacity. If not give some sort of punishment. WOW......sounds like soviet russia with party bosses. This obviously creates a ruling elite with power over people. which then causes comunism to fail.

The problem does not lie in the flaw of communism, but in people. For it to work everyone must be willing to make sacrafices. must also work their hardest. [B]Everyone must be united in their cause.

Because of such strict reqs. communism will not work

Option 4- You and the other company come to an 'arrangement' and carve the market up between you.


Right right. Thanks. ;)

Oh, so you're going to create crime in other places. tsk. It will be found out and your company will go into the shitter because no one will want to deal with you.

While you still have the problem of proving that NO ONE will succeed in the high-risks game of organized crime and deception,

No, you have to prove that they will consistently succeed.
Since when?
Since the concept of burden of proof.

Who will "not want to deal with me"?

Everyone.
PROVE IT.
Already have.


Reputation. Counts. A lot.
My reputation = pay me or die. Counts. A LOT.
Yes, it counts a lot in a Hollywood script. Not in reality.


Learn it.
Or die.
Or live.


Live it.
Or die.
Or live.


Love it.
Probably not... but I expect a lot of people will do it anyway.

Handkerchief, anyone?
Yes, please take one and wipe the egg from your face.

Yep. So what? They will sell the truth or people won't buy their rags except for entertainment purposes.Um, doesn't the current media industry call that into doubt? I don't know about the U.S. but in the UK the best selling newspapers by far are the ones that contain less news.

Ahh.. now you're thinking like a true entrepreneur. Up until the point you realize you're not the only one thinking that, and you find yourself pitted against other security companies. Competition solves your little delimma. There would be more than one security company, afterall.
Of course!! In fact, I'm counting on it!! (Not me, the hypothetical entrepreneur, but me sitting here arguing against this idiotic system.)

Sure, another company -- or companies -- will realize there is money to be made defending people from me. But, they know they're going to be headed into a warzone...
And how many resources will you allocate to this war? How will you be able to stay financially solvent?

Conflict expends resources very quickly, you realize.

so, it's going to be high-risk, and cost a LOT. Now, there are three possibilities:

1. We are relatively equally matched. The conflict gets drawn out indefinitely, and you have GANG WARFARE, funded by the people of Fantasyland. Now no one is safe.
And wouldn't people get tired of it and contract with other companies, thus you lose your customer base and resources? Betcha didn't think of that, did you?

2. I win, and my Mafia is stronger than ever before. The rich are safe, since they can pay me off. The poor suffer.
And how is it that you win?

3. Another firm wins. MAYBE normal security competition resumes, and people are varyingly safe (depending on what level of protection they can afford). But what's to stop Company 2 from following in my footsteps? I guess it depends on if he thinks it's a worthwhile risk. See scenario 2.
The fact that it costs resources to do it.

You should read this article (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html) on Anarchy and Efficient Law from David D. Friedman.


Besides which, as soon as your activities are discovered, you'll be blacklisted and go into financial ruin.
Blacklisted by whom?
Other police agencies and the populace.

The people who can either pay me, or suffer?
Or not pay you and not suffer.


And don't think something as stupidly blatant as that won't get discovered.
A. Even if it is discovered, I may still be able to maintain enough fear to stay "in business."
That's a huge what-if.

B. I'm okay with "degrees" of criminality. Maybe I start out as a perfectly legitimate firm, but competition is fierce. If crime goes up by just 1% for my competitors' customers, I'll do better.
Will you?

So I hire some thugs for vandalism and a little property destruction. Relatively low risk.
Is it?

Still a higher profit for me. Hell, I don't see why every company doesn't do this!
Which is a rather shameful indictment of yourself.

I must admit that idealy communism would be great, everyone having what they need and being happy with it. But there are very big inhernt flaws in communism, that have nothing to do with economics, but rest in humans.

First People are inherently lazy, not everyone mind you, but the majority. If we can get away with less work, we will do less work. Even if this is only a small minority, which it isn't, communism would fail because of reason two.

Second people get jealous. We have all hear the saying "the grass is always greener on the otherside." People want what they don't have and others do. So if the few people stop working less but get the same ammount, since what we have is based on need and even though they work less their need is the same, others will see that they are getting more for less and be jealous. Once they realize that they to can get away with working less they will also. This will lead to a chain reaction. Communism fails. How is this prevented?

1.) give incentives. When some one works harder they get more. O wait, that sounds an awful lot like capitalism. This creates inequaility, thus the lazy person who is also greedy now "needs" more. Since this will also cause a chian reaction it can't solve the dilema of communism.

2.)Have bosses who make sure that each person is working to their capacity. If not give some sort of punishment. WOW......sounds like soviet russia with party bosses. This obviously creates a ruling elite with power over people. which then causes comunism to fail.

The problem does not lie in the flaw of communism, but in people. For it to work everyone must be willing to make sacrafices. must also work their hardest. [B]Everyone must be united in their cause.

Because of such strict reqs. communism will not work
I think you didn't understand communism. It is not about equality in life, it is about equality in rights.
Point 1 is invalid, it is not capitalism at all. It becomes capitalism when the people get paid for the work of others, they can be paid for their own work though.

I wish there was an ignore option in this forum. Is there one that I don't know, by any chance?

Yep. So what? They will sell the truth or people won't buy their rags except for entertainment purposes.
Um, doesn't the current media industry call that into doubt? I don't know about the U.S. but in the UK the best selling newspapers by far are the ones that contain less news.
Well, you have the Page 3 Girls....

whine whine whine
You could always just STFU. No one's forcing you to be here.

I wish there was an ignore option in this forum so I would not have to scroll over BAWAA's posts all the time. Is there one that I don't know, by any chance?Yes, though I can't remember how to use it. You'll want to know the mod ruling that publically stating you've ignored someone is flamebait.

Well, you have the Page 3 Girls....Yes, but if it was entirely about that porn mags would sell more then newspapers. And you also have bilge filled rags like the Daily Mail which don't contain Page 3 Girls, yet still sell more then the broadsheets.

Yes, though I can't remember how to use it. You'll want to know the mod ruling that publically stating you've ignored someone is flamebait.
Thanks for the info, I didn't know that. I'm going to edit the post and remove the name and just ask how to ignore a poster.

No, you have to prove that they will consistently succeed.

Since when?


Since the concept of burden of proof.

Are you trying to make yourself look stupid? Because you're doing so well, I can't imagine it's pure talent.

I never said "they will consistently succeed." Why should I have to prove something I have neither said nor implied??

Who will "not want to deal with me"?

Everyone.

PROVE IT.

Already have.

Nope. Try again!!

Yes, it counts a lot in a Hollywood script. Not in reality.

Ok, you've heard of the Mafia, right? Only in the movies? They were REAL. Boy, you really love those eggs, don't ya, boy? Don't ya?!

Let me know when you want to acknowledge reality, and real human motives, and we can talk.

By the way, you never did answer me: aren't we dealing strictly (or mostly) with the profit motive? Was there something you wanted to add?

Well, you have the Page 3 Girls....
Yes, but if it was entirely about that porn mags would sell more then newspapers. And you also have bilge filled rags like the Daily Mail which don't contain Page 3 Girls, yet still sell more then the broadsheets.
It was to be taken somewhat tongue-in-cheek, actually.

The US does have crap like the National Enquirer, Star, and Weekly World News. But papers like the WSJ and NY Times do have a large base comparitively so.

It was to be taken somewhat tongue-in-cheek, actually.Oops. My bad. It is sometimes argued completely straight like that over here which is why I missed the irony.

The US does have crap like the National Enquirer, Star, and Weekly World News. But papers like the WSJ and NY Times do have a large base comparitively so.Do you know where I might find a link for comparative sales figures for the US news media?

No, you have to prove that they will consistently succeed.

Since when?

Since the concept of burden of proof.
Are you trying to make yourself look stupid?
I leave the "making yourself look stupid" to you.

I never said "they will consistently succeed."
Yes, you have. You said the people will pay you or will be harmed. That means you must consistently succeed.

MORON!

Who will "not want to deal with me"?
Everyone.

PROVE IT.
Already have.
Nope.
Sure have.

Yes, it counts a lot in a Hollywood script. Not in reality.
Ok, you've heard of the Mafia, right?
Yep. Nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Let me know when you want to talk about reality. I'll be here.

By the way, you never did answer me: aren't we dealing strictly (or mostly) with the profit motive?
I answered you about that.

Was there something you wanted to tell me about your literacy level?

I wish there was an ignore option in this forum. Is there one that I don't know, by any chance?

yeah, there is. click on the name of a person you'd like to ignore next to one of their posts. a little menu will pop up. then click on 'view public profile'. when their profile comes up, there will be a thing on it somewhere that says 'add ____ to your ignore list'

And how many resources will you allocate to this war? How will you be able to stay financially solvent?

Conflict expends resources very quickly, you realize.

Somehow, the Mafia did it. Private armies do it and have done it all over the world. Hey, it might be difficult -- but prove that they can't!!

And wouldn't people get tired of it and contract with other companies, thus you lose your customer base and resources? Betcha didn't think of that, did you?

If they contract with other companies, we kill them. Or, those companies can defend them... but then they're just drawn into the war, aren't they?

What you and BowWow have to prove is that any company can compete with me without being drawn into a full-scale conflict.

2. I win, and my Mafia is stronger than ever before. The rich are safe, since they can pay me off. The poor suffer.


And how is it that you win?

Gee, how do you win any war? We could wax philosophical about this... but I think we both understand that if I beat the hell out of the competing company, eventually they won't be able to compete anymore. I win.

3. Another firm wins. MAYBE normal security competition resumes, and people are varyingly safe (depending on what level of protection they can afford). But what's to stop Company 2 from following in my footsteps? I guess it depends on if he thinks it's a worthwhile risk. See scenario 2.


The fact that it costs resources to do it.

It costs resources to do everything!! What determines action-based-on-profit is wether the returns are greater than the resources invested... and can you really show that the returns of extortion are not higher than the costs? Ever? I thought not.


You should read this article on Anarchy and Efficient Law from David D. Friedman.

Okay, I'll do that. Maybe he'll have something more enlightening than what's been offered in this thread.

Blacklisted by whom?


Other police agencies and the populace.

Sure! But what will they do about it?

The people who can either pay me, or suffer?


Or not pay you and not suffer.

How will they manage that? Haven't you been reading?

That's a huge what-if.

So is your entire system.

Will you?

Won't I?

Is it?

Isn't it?

Which is a rather shameful indictment of yourself.

Hey, I'm just your average, profit-minded citizen of AnarchoCappy Fantasyland. Blame the system.

By the way, you never did answer me: aren't we dealing strictly (or mostly) with the profit motive?

I answered you about that.

I'm so sorry! Imagine my shame! Well, if you did... I missed it. Either way, I'd be happy to read it. (Again?)

So, since I'm so slow, would you PLEASE, PLEASE answer my question. NOW.

Someone sent me this link (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html), as if it would explain why I "couldn't" run my criminal police organization in a libertarian capitalist society.

Here, the argument boils down to, "Since warfare is expensive..."

Which only begs the question: is it MORE expensive than forthright behavior... and more importantly, is it so expensive as to outweigh the possible returns?

I see no reason to believe that it is -- at least not ALWAYS. And all you need is one.

So basically, "ancaps" look at a world in which sovereign nations go to war against each other... and say, "You know what would be great?! If we got rid of them, and fought all our wars between private agencies, right in the streets!!"

Fan-fucking-tastic.

War is risky. You could lose -- BIG, but if you win, it can also be very profitable, too. (You know, like when America swoops in and starts grabbing all your oil and stuff.)

You people are just ridiculous.


By the way, the same article mentions that "readers familiar with the economic literature on efficiency may notice that my argument owes more to Coase than to Marshall."

You know Coase's panglossian bullshit simply ignores the existence of real market failures, right?

As in, it's a work of fantasy?

Good luck with that.

Hey BAAWA...

There's no reason for things to get bitter, right? As in, we're both just interested in figuring out what's right for the world?

Maybe it would help if we start with something simple.

You think that in a truly free market, the market will take care of everything, and there will be no need for authority systems.

Okay.

Here's my question.

Do you know what a market failure is? Could you name a common market failure, and explain how your system takes care of it... or why it doesn't matter?

Thank. I appreciate it.

The US does have crap like the National Enquirer, Star, and Weekly World News. But papers like the WSJ and NY Times do have a large base comparitively so.
Do you know where I might find a link for comparative sales figures for the US news media?
Here (http://www.infoplease.com/ipea/A0301522.html) is an article regarding readership for magazines (National Enquirer and other tabloids are classified as magazines in the US)

And here (http://www.infoplease.com/ipea/A0004420.html) is the one for newspapers.

In the literature suggested by posters here, and in what I have read elsewhere, almost all of the discussion about whether private police agencies would resort to violence, or peaceful arbitration, surround one question:

What will private police agencies do when there is a dispute between their clients?

Posters on these boards have tried to use the answer -- arbitrate because it is cheaper -- in reply to my concerns about the growing Mafia problems in AnarchoCappy Fantasyland.

But this doesn't work. OF COURSE it's cheaper to arbitrate when you're dealing with an individual customer's conflict: BUT ONLY BECAUSE YOUR ASSUMED REVENUE IS WHAT YOU CAN EARN FROM CUSTOMERS ON THE FREE MARKET.

So basically, it says, "Look, there are competitive rates for protection. So if you start the expensive enterprise of violent resolutions, your revenue simply won't pay for it."

But my model is different. I suppose that I artificially inflate the violence experienced by non-customers, and then charge customers a ridiculous amount of money for my "protection." Now I can afford warfare.

It might help to look at real-world examples like the Mafia. Which did just fine.

Of course, you might also notice that most of their "customers" were criminals themselves, who couldn't get protection from the Big Bad Government. So they were forced to rely on competing (criminal) private organizations. Then again, in AnarchoCappy Fantasyland, no one can get protection from the government, because it doesn't exist!!

So, you want to take the Mafia situation and expand it to include... well, everything.

Fan-fucking-tastic.

Here (http://www.infoplease.com/ipea/A0301522.html) is an article regarding readership for magazines (National Enquirer and other tabloids are classified as magazines in the US)

And here (http://www.infoplease.com/ipea/A0004420.html) is the one for newspapers.

Notice the National Enquirer beats the New York Times by some 500,000.

Not to mention the fact that, collectively, HOO BOY do the magazines have the newspapers beat!

Damn!

Kind of sad.

And that's when the newspapers actually have things to report... about politicians, governments, stuff like that. Imagine what'll happen when you get rid of that. If I were a reporter... Well, I'd sure like to get a spot at the Reader's Digest... Ooh, or TV Guide!

I think you didn't understand communism. It is not about equality in life, it is about equality in rights.
Point 1 is invalid, it is not capitalism at all. It becomes capitalism when the people get paid for the work of others, they can be paid for their own work though.

How silly it is to believe that communism is only equal rights. It is about communal living. Having a community own everything. Unless ofcourse you have changed the meaning of the word communism to mean equal rights. In which case, we would be talking about two different things. Plus i know that when I have worked in the US, a more capitalistic economy than communist, i get paid for the work I do. Not what others do.

How silly it is to believe that communism is only equal rights. It is about communal living. Having a community own everything. Unless ofcourse you have changed the meaning of the word communism to mean equal rights. In which case, we would be talking about two different things. Plus i know that when I have worked in the US, a more capitalistic economy than communist, i get paid for the work I do. Not what others do.
Communism is about putting the means of production in common, it is not about putting your tooth brush or your wife in common.
There is a difference between a car factory, where workers work and your car where nobody works.
Owning your car makes sense so you can drive along the beach and get some chicks with your flashy T-shirt.
Owning a car factory does only make sense so you can enslave workers and take away their work for yourself.

Communism is about putting the means of production in common, it is not about putting your tooth brush or your wife in common.
There is a difference between a car factory, where workers work and your car where nobody works.
Owning your car makes sense so you can drive along the beach and get some chicks with your flashy T-shirt.
Owning a car factory does only make sense so you can enslave workers and take away their work for yourself.

Forgive me. I know that in communism i still own my shirt, and as to owning my wife that idea in itself is ridiculus, husbands don't own their wives, nor wives thier husbands, but that is not the point. I understand what you mean. Nor do I dissagree that in an IDEAL world communism would be good, however you have still not adressed that human faults:Laziness, Jealousy, and Greed. It is these reason that communism only works in three situations. Situation A: communism works on paper. There is no human vices there. Situation B: Communism works for ants. They aren't greedy, jealous or lazy. Situation C: Communism works for termites. same reason as ants.

Nor do I dissagree that in an IDEAL world communism would be good, however you have still not adressed that human faults:Laziness, Jealousy, and Greed. It is these reason that communism only works in three situations. Situation A: communism works on paper. There is no human vices there. Situation B: Communism works for ants. They aren't greedy, jealous or lazy. Situation C: Communism works for termites. same reason as ants.

Situation D:

We don't insist that communism, unlike every other possible or existing form of society, be "perfect."

Now, I know there are some communists on these boards who honestly believe that if/when "true communism" were implemented, all conflict would disappear from human existence, and we would suddenly all be friends.

Of course, that leads me to an important point... Maybe we would all be "friends"... but when have things ever been perfect between friends?

Now, I don't consider myself a communist. (I do, on the other hand, think that some sectors of the economy are best off run communally.) However, as a political theorist it pains me to see any theory so maligned (often, admittedly, by its own adherents) as has communism on these boards.

If you take care to understand what the basic communist arguments are, and separate them from the idealism of some of the posters I've seen, you have to admit it has some pretty decent points -- and then, if you disagree, you have to deal with those points, rather than simply saying "people will never be perfect."

In my experience, the best common-sense, real-world illustration of communal living is... well, the house-hold itself. You have chores that need to be done, like taking out the garbage or cleaning the bathroom. Generally (you can choose another system if you like) no one pays you to do the dishes. It needs to be done, so you do it.

Of course, after a little while you might realize that you are the only one doing dishes. You are dealing with a bunch of freeloaders. You get angry, and discuss it with them. Either, A) they'd rather do dishes than have you angry at them, and the problem goes away (you might need to prod them along now and then until they get used to it); B) they really hate to do dishes, but they don't at all mind cleaning the bathroom -- and you hate that -- so you work out a reasonable division of labor (which can always be renegotiated); or C) you can't figure out how to live together, and someone moves out. Surprisingly, most of us can attest to the fact that C is probably the least common resolution... perhaps since we need one another to help pay bills, who knows?

The point is, people figure out how to live together communally on a daily basis -- even though it's rarely "perfect." Communists just want to expand that thinking to entire communities or societies.

Of course, you may be quick to point out that the household economy works a lot better because you know each other and are friends... which is probably true. That's one reason so many communists wind up saying "well, we'll have to keep this small."

To give a (not perfect) vision of communism on a larger scale, let's think about one of those terrible little jobs that no one really wants to do: collecting the garbage. Moreover, suppose that to make this interesting we step off the small rural commune and imagine ourselves somewhere in a great city.

Let's start at the beginning. Household garbage starts in the house. The members of the house gather it into a trash bag or two (or more...).

Now we're dealing with the street or neighborhood. They get together and decide that it will be easier and more cost-effective to throw out the neighborhood's garbage if it's centralized first (like the trash bags in your house)... So instead of putting it out on the curb, each house has to walk their garbage down to the end of the block and put it in the dumpster. (Makes the street more beautiful too, not having all those bags.) Someone from your house has to do a little more work... but hopefully, you're sharing in it. At any rate, you'll work something out (that's what households do).

At the city level, we need to collect the garbage from neighborhood dumpsters scattered throughout the city. Since it's probably not very efficient for each neighborhood to have a truck with which to transport it, we'll probably have a city-level service. And someone will have to drive those trucks.

Now, I guess in principle it could be a full-time job for someone -- but we've already discussed how it's not one of those jobs you want. So who would do it? I suppose you could pay a whole lot, and maybe some kid would jump at the opportunity to earn a lot over the summer... but now you're getting into market socialism (which I, personally, prefer), and here we're interested in the communist's response.

It could be any variety of things... But I'll make one up that should fit communist principles. Basically, this is one of those jobs that we usually take turns at in the household, since no one really wants to do it... but it has to be done. So in the city, perhaps each neighborhood takes turns picking up the garbage and transporting it to the dump, maybe a month or a few months at a time. Within each neighborhood, residents take turns doing it.

Of course, this means that everyone needs to be trained in driving that big-ass garbage truck. But, the communist just counts this amongst the things a person needs to learn as part of being a responsible citizen. (Kind of like how in the home everyone basically knows how to do all the chores.)

On the other hand, one neighborhood could offer to do more, or even all of the hauling... perhaps on the condition that they be exempt from some other city "chore." They could, in principle, even trade duties in particular months with other neighborhoods. And the same principle could apply within each neighborhood: individuals might offer to do more of one thing, for whatever reason.

The point is that responsibility for these chores is handled collectively (communistically)... and, for our purposes, democratically. (Of course a communist economy can be non-democratic... but then we'd just be describing a straw man, since most of us share democratic values.) And the more important point is that no one has to be "perfect," since we expect that we'll have to reprimand or even punish those who refuse to participate in community life, or do their share... and kicking them out is always an option.

One more thing: Just as if you happened to share an apartment with someone in a wheelchair, or a blind person, or one of your roommate's might break a leg, one's inability to perform a function serves as an "excuse," whether temporarily or indefinitely.


Like I said, I'm no communist... but their system, properly explained, has some attractions. And a responsible theorist figures out what it is that's so attractive (perhaps the strong sense of equality in this example) and figures out if it can be adopted in other systems... or even if it doesn't change his mind about the one he's studying.

Forgive me. I know that in communism i still own my shirt, and as to owning my wife that idea in itself is ridiculus, husbands don't own their wives, nor wives thier husbands, but that is not the point. I understand what you mean. Nor do I dissagree that in an IDEAL world communism would be good, however you have still not adressed that human faults:Laziness, Jealousy, and Greed. It is these reason that communism only works in three situations. Situation A: communism works on paper. There is no human vices there. Situation B: Communism works for ants. They aren't greedy, jealous or lazy. Situation C: Communism works for termites. same reason as ants.

I could say the same thing about capitalism. Why don't greed, laziness, and jealousy ruin capitalism? There are plenty of opportunities for them to cause trouble.

And how many resources will you allocate to this war? How will you be able to stay financially solvent?

Conflict expends resources very quickly, you realize.
Somehow, the Mafia did it. Private armies do it and have done it all over the world. Hey, it might be difficult -- but prove that they can't!!
The mafia picked-and-chose its battles, and didn't have a war all the time. Plus, they had fronts to make money. Private armies had bankrolls from people. Your company, during this time, is going to be hard-pressed to have either to survive.


And wouldn't people get tired of it and contract with other companies, thus you lose your customer base and resources? Betcha didn't think of that, did you?
If they contract with other companies, we kill them.
Then you're going to be hunted down.

Or, those companies can defend them... but then they're just drawn into the war, aren't they?
And they won't gang up on you?

2. I win, and my Mafia is stronger than ever before. The rich are safe, since they can pay me off. The poor suffer.

And how is it that you win?
Gee, how do you win any war? We could wax philosophical about this... but I think we both understand that if I beat the hell out of the competing company, eventually they won't be able to compete anymore. I win.
And how do you intend to do that?

3. Another firm wins. MAYBE normal security competition resumes, and people are varyingly safe (depending on what level of protection they can afford). But what's to stop Company 2 from following in my footsteps? I guess it depends on if he thinks it's a worthwhile risk. See scenario 2.

The fact that it costs resources to do it.
It costs resources to do everything!! What determines action-based-on-profit is wether the returns are greater than the resources invested... and can you really show that the returns of extortion are not higher than the costs?
In this case, yes. You'd be expending tremendous resources fighting other defense agencies, who would pool their resources and get rid of you.

Plus, how many of your employees would actually go for something like this in the first place? How many would blow the whistle? You do have to take that into account.

Blacklisted by whom?
Other police agencies and the populace.
Sure! But what will they do about it?
Spread the word. Other companies would join in, most likely. You'd be hard-pressed to fight when munitions companies won't sell to you, or fuel companies won't sell to you.

You'd be alone. Utterly. No one would do business with you.

The people who can either pay me, or suffer?
Or not pay you and not suffer.
How will they manage that?
By being with another agency. You won't be able to stop it.


That's a huge what-if.
So is your entire system.
Not really. Similar situations have happened in the past.


Which is a rather shameful indictment of yourself.
Hey, I'm just your average, profit-minded citizen of AnarchoCappy Fantasyland. Blame the system
No, the blame belongs on you for confusing Hollywood with reality.

AnarchyeL, yes I do agree with you that communism does have some very attractive characteristics. How every even that argument skirts the basic issues of greed and laziness. Why do we have dictator? Why did Russia fail to achieve communism? These are questions that must be asked and probed. The answer comes down to a simple principle: People are greedy. They want what they do not have. A regular household is not communism, there is a hierarchy, a class structure. Parents are best equated with dictators, and hopefully they are benevolent ones as I would say mine are. They utimately controll everything. So take my apartment where I live with three roomates. I guess this would be close to communism, however we are not a country nor even a community. For a country to exist it most produce something. And the people must have what they need to live. Now I have not lived in a communist community. But my parents have. And it ultimately failed. The support of the community ultimately rested on a few people. Sure everyone helped take out the garbage, but many people worked harder than others to support them, not because the others couldn't work, but wouldn't work as hard or at all. This lead to jealousy, anger, and frustration. Eventually causeing the end of the community. As for a more specific example, the community would pick apples in an orchard to earn money, which was then put in a community pot and distributed as needed. Everyone worked at the pace of the slowest person. On saturday it was decied that people could pick apples and take that money as personal money. With the same ammount of people they would accomplish more in that day than they did in two or three weekdays. Double the output. People had incentve. Now comunal incentive will work for some, but not for all, which is why communism will not work at a large scale. It simply gets too big for people to care and have any incentive to work hard and well.

Someone sent me this link (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html), as if it would explain why I "couldn't" run my criminal police organization in a libertarian capitalist society.

Here, the argument boils down to, "Since warfare is expensive..."
No, that would be oversimplification.

Which only begs the question: is it MORE expensive than forthright behavior... and more importantly, is it so expensive as to outweigh the possible returns?
Yep.

I see no reason to believe that it is -- at least not ALWAYS. And all you need is one.
That's because you live in Hollywood la-la land.

So basically, "ancaps" look at a world in which sovereign nations go to war against each other... and say, "You know what would be great?! If we got rid of them, and fought all our wars between private agencies, right in the streets!!"
No, that would be a strawman.

War is risky. You could lose -- BIG, but if you win, it can also be very profitable, too. (You know, like when America swoops in and starts grabbing all your oil and stuff.)
And who is paying for that war? Oh that's right--the TAXPAYERS.

And the economy suffers.

By the way, the same article mentions that "readers familiar with the economic literature on efficiency may notice that my argument owes more to Coase than to Marshall."

You know Coase's panglossian bullshit simply ignores the existence of real market failures, right?
There's no such thing as "market failure".

Communism does not work because those in power have just that, for all to be equal nobody can be in power, thus Communism only works without a central government... unless there is not a system of currency and the people in power are simply attempting to survive, think about it, packs of wolves and flocks of geese are all a buncha red commie bastards and they're just fine till you bloody capitalists start killing them for various reasons that can be traced back to money

Hey BAAWA...

There's no reason for things to get bitter, right? As in, we're both just interested in figuring out what's right for the world?
I doubt your motives.

Maybe it would help if we start with something simple.

You think that in a truly free market, the market will take care of everything, and there will be no need for authority systems.

Okay.

Here's my question.

Do you know what a market failure is?
No. No one does, since there's no such thing.

I could say the same thing about capitalism. Why don't greed, laziness, and jealousy ruin capitalism? There are plenty of opportunities for them to cause trouble.

True. Greed, Jealousy, and Laziness can cause trouble in any society. At least in capitalism people have incentives to not be lazy, you work harder you get more. You train and go through the stress and time needed to become a doctor and you get paid more than if you took less time and training and became a janitor (Though i am not knocking janitors, they provide a necesarry service to society and I am most thankful to have them and appreciate them a great deal.) So if you are jealouse of someone who has more, simply work harder and earn it.

Ofcoures the vices can also lead to crime but that is a different matter entirely.