How Capitalism Saved America

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Sep 16 2005, 08:52 AM
Well no kidding... I guess crime is commited only in Somalia...

But it happens FAR, FAR, FAR more often in Somalia. People are trying to escape. I know many people from Somalia and they would love nothing more than to be able to return to their homeland, but they don't because it's unsafe for them and their families. Given that there is no government agency to keep crime statistics, we can only go by anecdotal evidence from what the immigrants tell us is going on there. Murders happen in broad daylight because the warlord's mercenaries don't really care if people know that they are running around killing people. Actually, they prefer to do it out int he open... that we people will know to fear them. It keeps them in slavery.

Speaking of which, you seem to think that the warlord system works well. Since that is what would happen in your laissez-faire system, the stories I have heard about the warlords is that they have whole towns under their thumbs. If you don't do exactly what the warlord wants, you are executed. Especially women who won't give in to becoming sex slaves. Children get bought and sold. Anyone who tries to take control from the warlord is beaten and/or killed.

That's your dream society. That's what it will end up as. Hell on Earth full of suffering and misery. There are a few at the top of the food chain that are the masters and the vast majority of society live wretched lives of servitude.

I agree with those that suggested the FoL should go live in Somalia to get a first hand look at what his dream society is. I'll agree to pay the whole plane fare if FoL agrees to spend a month touring the streets of Mogadishu. He won't come back.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Sep 16 2005, 08:36 AM
How is that any different? People kill other people, in all economic and political systems.

Quantity.

I have no qualms whatsoever walking around Albany with a $600 digital camera.

Do that in Somalia and you're as good as dead. With no law enforcement, you have no property rights. It's not "what's yours is yours and what's mine is mine". It's "I'm keeping what's mine and stealing what's yours". And you can't do a damn thing about it. Unless you want a 24 hour security detail around you at all times.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Devils'Advocate@Sep 17 2005, 02:49 PM
Quantity.

I have no qualms whatsoever walking around Albany with a $600 digital camera.

Do that in Somalia and you're as good as dead. With no law enforcement, you have no property rights. It's not "what's yours is yours and what's mine is mine". It's "I'm keeping what's mine and stealing what's yours". And you can't do a damn thing about it. Unless you want a 24 hour security detail around you at all times.

I don’t think that is a fair comparison. Why compare Somalia to Albany? Compare Somalia to Belarus, Cuba, Nigeria or North Korea. Would you feel safe walking around in Minsk knowing it could be police to rob and beat you once they notice you are (potentially rich) foreigner? Belarusian police beat up Polish diplomats; they wouldn’t have much problems beating up you. How safe are you going to feel in Sudan (plenty of state there)?

Stop assuming that Somalia is what I consider a prime example of a free society. It is not, same as Belarus is not a prime example of a democratic state.

[Devils'Advocate]

Please explain the difference between your no-government anarchist capitalist state vs the Somali no-government anarchist capitalist state.

[Hakan]

[sarcasm]The people in his government are white and thus more civilized and dignified than those black African brutes?[/sarcasm]

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Devils'Advocate@Sep 17 2005, 06:10 PM
Please explain the difference between your no-government anarchist capitalist state vs the Somali no-government anarchist capitalist state.

Anarchocapitalist state is an oxymoron. Talk about anarchocapitalist society.

Well whats wrong with Somalia. Maybe the culture where woman is worth two sheep and a cow? Thats got nothing to do with political system though. It goes deeper into the way people think.

[Devils'Advocate]

I meant state as in a land mass with a border.

So your response is about what Hakan wrote?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Sep 17 2005, 02:51 AM
steal - To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

The state takes my money and they have my permission.

By your definition it seems that only the anarchocapitalists are being robbed by the state, what with the "permission" aspect and all.

Re: moving to Somalia

If I lived in a state (which I presume you do) where I felt like I was being robbed every single day by that state, where I was being oppressed, denied all sorts of natural rights and economic opportunity, denied freedom basically... but I had the right to move away from that state any old time I wanted to, I would do it. And I would pick a state that meshed with my beliefs.

Somalia may be getting too much attention in this thread, but through your own words you make it sound like an ideal place. Maybe not ideal, but certainly better than the hellhole (by your definition) you are currently stuck in.

What other places fit your ideals? Do any?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Devils'Advocate@Sep 17 2005, 06:47 PM
I meant state as in a land mass with a border.

So your response is about what Hakan wrote?

No. I don’t think it is so hard to understand. There are other “elements” or characteristics to a society important to me. Those elements don’t depend solely on economic system though so in my opinion it is not an argument for or against any particular system.

For example, I think that people have a right to do/sell/produce/whatever drugs if they want to. But that doesn’t mean I am thinking “gee it would be great if I and my kids were drug dealers.” While I accept that people should be able to do drugs if they want to, it doesn’t mean I want to be around them. So to use the drugs example: my “dream society I want to live in” (a stretch, but I will bite) is one where people CAN do drugs freely, but CHOOSE NOT TO do drugs.

Makes sense?

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Sep 18 2005, 11:56 AM
No. I don’t think it is so hard to understand. There are other “elements” or characteristics to a society important to me. Those elements don’t depend solely on economic system though so in my opinion it is not an argument for or against any particular system.

For example, I think that people have a right to do/sell/produce/whatever drugs if they want to. But that doesn’t mean I am thinking “gee it would be great if I and my kids were drug dealers.” While I accept that people should be able to do drugs if they want to, it doesn’t mean I want to be around them. So to use the drugs example: my “dream society I want to live in” (a stretch, but I will bite) is one where people CAN do drugs freely, but CHOOSE NOT TO do drugs.

Makes sense?

Yup. You're establishing the 'dream' by examining what is probable (reality), and then wishing for the opposite (fantasy).

I think many people wish that all drugs were legal, and no one did any of them. Obviously that wouldn't work. I'd do drugs in your back yard, and (because I'm a little wealthier, and can afford better security) I think I'll set up shop there with my friends... maybe now it will be 'my' backyard. Private Property and all that. What was yours will be mine, and there's nothing you can do about it except wave a 'natural law' book in my face. What happens if I take your book?

You're setting up anarchy, nothing less. Anarchy is the opposite of order, and thus far, you've established collective order (the only kind seen on any scale in the past... 2-3 centuries?) as completely illegitimate, while legitimizing anarcho-fantasy.

Why don't you just buckle and announce that your ideology is pure philosophy, and should be examined as such? You'd get a lot farther if you said 'i believe in reduced levels of government' than 'government is a slave-driving thief who is ruining my life.'

[Maritime Q-Scout]

ok here's why 100% pure laisez-faire capitolism is bad.

IF it weren't for socialists Thomas and Martha Wayne, Gotham City would have crumbled through the power of overwhelming economics as forseen by Raz Al Guhl. If that had have happened, then with Gotham's distruction so too would have fallen the entire Wayne family not just Thomas and Martha, thus Bruce too, and with the fall of Bruce Wayne as a child there would be no Batman... and let's face it, Batman kicks ass!

Therefore with 100% pure capitalism there would be no Batman, and let's face it "Flame of Liberty" do you really want to pass Batman off?

[Five-hole]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Sep 17 2005, 01:51 AM
steal - To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

I dont remember giving the government a permission to take money from me. Where does your (gov) right to my money comes from? Just because you claim it is so? Verbal claim is not a right.

So you reject first definition of the word and conclude that my question isnt worth talking about. Simply put, you refuse to take facts into account only because they dont fit your agenda.

My own terms? Its from a dictionary.

Way to totally miss the point, as usual.

I don't, and many thousands of others don't, view taxation as stealing. It's part of the greater social contract that ensures and makes possible a stable society in which self-actualization can occur without inevitable harmful or fatal interference from violent others. I know you probably don't buy the social contract thing, and that's where we differ. But it always offends me when you assume that nobody else does either, and they apparently share all your assumptions about the world and then it's just a matter of realizing that your dream state magically fixes all these problems. I believe in social contract, consequently the government is not stealing from me. Until you realize that, you'll never convince me of an argument which accepts that as a premise.

That's what I'm talking about with you arguing on your own terms. You always do it, and I hate it, which is why I very much dislike arguing with you.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Five-hole@Sep 18 2005, 11:16 PM
Way to totally miss the point, as usual.

I don't, and many thousands of others don't, view taxation as stealing. It's part of the greater social contract that ensures and makes possible a stable society in which self-actualization can occur without inevitable harmful or fatal interference from violent others. I know you probably don't buy the social contract thing, and that's where we differ. But it always offends me when you assume that nobody else does either, and they apparently share all your assumptions about the world and then it's just a matter of realizing that your dream state magically fixes all these problems. I believe in social contract, consequently the government is not stealing from me. Until you realize that, you'll never convince me of an argument which accepts that as a premise.

That's what I'm talking about with you arguing on your own terms. You always do it, and I hate it, which is why I very much dislike arguing with you.

OK that`s fair enough. The government is stealing from those, who dissagree with the social contract concept (you are right, I do disagree with that, I have never seen one, I have never signed one. Have you?) and do not want to pay taxes. Still, that is plenty of people (otherwise tax evasion wouldnt be a major crime).

Was this the middle ground you were speaking of?

BTW

1.unhappy people in stateless Somalia = stateless society is not working
2.unhappy people under governmental rule = if they dont like they can fata off, still the state is great

Double standards, anyone?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Sep 18 2005, 04:57 PM
Yup.# You're establishing the 'dream' by examining what is probable (reality), and then wishing for the opposite (fantasy).

I think many people wish that all drugs were legal, and no one did any of them.# Obviously that wouldn't work.# I'd do drugs in your back yard, and (because I'm a little wealthier, and can afford better security) I think I'll set up shop there with my friends... maybe now it will be 'my' backyard.# Private Property and all that.# What was yours will be mine, and there's nothing you can do about it except wave a 'natural law' book in my face.# What happens if I take your book?

You're setting up anarchy, nothing less.# Anarchy is the opposite of order, and thus far, you've established collective order (the only kind seen on any scale in the past... 2-3 centuries?) as completely illegitimate, while legitimizing anarcho-fantasy.

Why don't you just buckle and announce that your ideology is pure philosophy, and should be examined as such?# You'd get a lot farther if you said 'i believe in reduced levels of government' than 'government is a slave-driving thief who is ruining my life.'

Nice. Every time I hope my post is not open to any double meanings, you are right there to prove me wrong. I clearly indicated that the “dream” part was a stretch, to illustrate a point. But, no, you can and you will completely by pass that and start putting words into my mouth.

Probably I should have said "community" instead of "society." Do you really think I was thinking of society on the global scale, that no one in the world would do drugs? Where did you get that from? Obviously I was talking about close surrounding society. Do you think it is a fantasy to think that certain streets, communities, neighboroughs, and suburbs wouldn’t be drug free even if drugs were legal? That’s silly. Who cares if people do drugs miles away? I don’t. Let them do whatever they want. How is that building a fantasy world? Yeah, it is not.

If you were to set up a shop in my back yard, I would either kick you off by myself or with the help of security agency. Is it a fantasy to think people would protect their property? Why would your security agency back you up while you would clearly be aggressing against my property rights? Such agency would lose its customers, don’t you think? Unless you think that majority of people want to associate themselves with thugs, but then there is no hope for us, stateless society or not.

Anarchy is not the opposite of order. But nice try. Anarchy means absence of ruler (no ruler). It may be a fantasy to you, because you know precious little about it. Under communism, people were not able to imagine a private grocery store. It was all fantasy to them because all they knew were empty-shelved, poorly serviced state owned grocery shops. And now? You have private grocery stores everywhere, offering higher quality goods and services those poor people could have ever imagined.

Lastly, I can’t say that I believe in reduced levels of government, because, well I don’t believe in reduced levels of government. You don’t want me to be hypocritical, do you?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Sep 19 2005, 03:59 AM


If you were to set up a shop in my back yard, I would either kick you off by myself or with the help of security agency. Is it a fantasy to think people would protect their property? Why would your security agency back you up while you would clearly be aggressing against my property rights? Such agency would lose its customers, don’t you think? Unless you think that majority of people want to associate themselves with thugs, but then there is no hope for us, stateless society or not.

Oh it's that simple is it? Just hire a security agency. They'll look after everything. Of course!

Okay suppose I can't afford a security agency.

Then what? I mean for example, I'm a single mother and I work in a factory making widgets. I have no benefits, no bathroom breaks, and chronic back pain that I can't afford to get treated at a private hospital. What can I do about the drug dealers in my back yard?

[Cube Inmate]

I hate to get into such a stupid argument (or at least 50% stupid), but I've gotta add something (also a drive-by, but this isn't really a point for debate):

Personally, I'm tired of collectivist society and its failures. Tired of having my tax money used in ways I don't like. Tired of being told I can't smoke a joint because it's bad for me. I think it's ridiculous that a moron in Flin Flon Manitoba has any effect on my life whatsoever simply because we're stuck living in the same political jurisdiction (that's not to say everyone in Flin Flon is a moron, but there is undoubtedly at least 1 living there). All of this goes against my desires to do whatever I want, which is a very human trait.

There's a name for people like me: libertarian. It's tough to be of that mindset in this country, which is over-governed, so I can't imagine how bad it must be for you, FoL, with your ideals that are a hop, skip, and a giant leap over the rainbow from mine. You must feel like killing yourself!

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Sep 19 2005, 07:13 PM
Oh it's that simple is it? Just hire a security agency. They'll look after everything. Of course!

Okay suppose I can't afford a security agency.

Then what? I mean for example, I'm a single mother and I work in a factory making widgets. I have no benefits, no bathroom breaks, and chronic back pain that I can't afford to get treated at a private hospital. What can I do about the drug dealers in my back yard?

You can ask for a help.

Or do you think you are automatically entitled to receive help/care/money from other people? Are other people obligated to help you?

PS Cube, its tough but not as bad as you may think. No fatalistic thoughts here. You`ve got to keep hope.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Lurch+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lurch)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Imperialism and orginal appropriation are by and large the same thing. Armies created property rights and private landholders where none existed previously.[/b]

No they are not. Original appropriation happens where resources are previously unowned. Individuals have the right to homestead, mix with their labor, those resources. In other words, Indians owned land they cultivated and their hunting land. They were original owners of the resource. Imperial armies did not create property rights, they simply ignored them and stole what was not theirs. First settlers were acquiring land via trade, but of course there were cases where some settlers did not respect property rights.

Originally posted by Lurch@
Dream society ideal is silly - it cannot exist. So no, this has nothing to do with my dream. However, it is clear that if the majority decides my right to life is no longer a right, then I no longer have that right. Any number of genocides can attest to this. Private rights are meaningless when groups can organize and expropriate those rights. History has shown 2 things that unavoidably make your ideal society impossible: people organize and groups/people are aggressive. No matter how well you perform mental acrobatics, you cannot pull a spontaneous natural law out of thin air that everyone will abide by in recognition that its in their best interests.

No it is not clear than you lose this right. What is clear is that your existing right is ignored. Was holocaust OK because it was in accordance with German legislation? Obviously it was not OK, and German legislation ignored them. But that does not mean they did not exist. The existence of your right to your life doesn’t depend on what is written on a piece of paper (in the constitution for example).

Private rights are not meaningless when groups can organize and expropriate those rights. Of course people are not going to be free when there is a large group of aggressors against them. That’s why more and more people should learn about property rights and respect them, so they will be able to defend themselves against aggression and live more peacefully. The mere fact this group is weaker right now does not mean we should stop striving to live in a free society.

<!--QuoteBegin-Lurch
As a point on why your system won't work economically speaking consider the following. An individual inventor comes up with an economic way to create solar power. Alas, there are no patents since there is no gov't to enforce them. He does not have access to capital unless he shares his plans with companies to demonstrate the technology. The company decides that they love the technology, but lo and behold, it turns out they actually invented it, not the inventor. The inventor is paid the grand sum of a coffee and a donut for his invention, becomes disillusioned and gives up pursuing inventions. As I understand your system, this won't happen b/c this violates the intellectual property rights of the inventor - as enforced by "NATURAL LAW", or alternatively, the army of about 1 that the inventor can afford to enforce his property rights.[/quote]
What do you mean by “in turns out they actually invented it”? If you are going to write a contract between you (as the inventor) and the company (investor), you can make sure profits are split evenly. That way you don’t end up with a coffee and donut.

I am in opposition to patents and copyrights. One of the reason is that they prevent the owners of tangible property—scarce resources—from using their own property as they see fit. You can find more reasoning here.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Sep 20 2005, 02:36 AM
You can ask for a help.

Or do you think you are automatically entitled to receive help/care/money from other people? Are other people obligated to help you?

PS Cube, its tough but not as bad as you may think. No fatalistic thoughts here. You`ve got to keep hope.

You can ask for help? Who do you ask? What if they say no?

Geez, you really have some easy answers for difficult (if not impossible) questions.

If I told you babies were starving in the local hospital you'd roll your eyes and say "give them some food, sheesh".

[Five-hole]

Let them eat cake!