Reptired wrote:
I mean...if you were infinitely rich and powerful because you ran a con game that had the whole population enslaved you'd hardly tell them the truth would you ?
No, not if you were a con artist, these people are not just con artists though, they back up their scams with physical violence.
Anarcho capitalism has some obvious flaws.
Well, in order to asses it’s flaws you might suggest what you think it’s aims are.
1) Blank slate.
It can only work if every single person involved starts with nothing and if the system is ENTIRELY unregulated, you can trade whatever the hell you like including drugs and nuclear weapons, no holds barred. This way it would be impossible to ever have a monopoly.
There’s three points here.
First , it must be completely unregulated, by definition.
Second , you are assuming that the aim is to avoid monopoly, not so.
Monopoly in itself in not a bad thing, if someone creates a solution to a problem which is much better in every way to all other options and everyone chooses this as it is rational that’s a monopoly, I don’t see a problem with that, it’s so theoretical it’s probably not worth much discussion unless there is a real world example and you can find a specific problem with it.
Monopolies today are created by the State and it’s Croporations and use the violence to force people into them, whether it’s direct violence or redirecting wealth from previously stolen peoperty.
Third point is that everyone needs to start with nothing, I’m not sure why you think this, or how you would get there, the second point is important, how would you get there without Regulation/Theft/Violence because if you need to resort to that it’s not Voluntary.
Some of the monopolies that exist today were created without state involvement at all and monopoly in the way I've used it above refers to a monopoly of profit which is obviously a really bad thing.
If there was a monopoly of common sense then I wouldn't mind it either.
There are no laws of decency within the state , it’s a criminal cabal, the whole thing is funded by proceeds from crime, it could not possbily be any worse.
One word, Somalia.
There are criminals who keep kid gloves on and then there are those who don't bother at all.
They're both criminals and thats quite correct, however I'd much rather take the gentler crowd lol.
The much better choice is direct democracy of the type with mondragon.
I think you’re contradicting yourself here. If everyone has a direct equal share , aren’t they being forced into this?
“Forcing decent behaviour”.
Nope, you don't have to join mondragon do you? Are you with them now or something? lol.
You have to buy your job with mondragon, you buy a direct voting share. When you retire you sell your share.
Anarcho-syndicalism is fine provided your not forcing it on other people, when you expend it and force it on others it’s Communism.
Democracy is mob violence, you are forcing behavior with direct democracy, people seem to think DD is ok because they thing they might have more of a say in controlling other peoples lives, it’s the exact same pathology that the people who run the state now are infected with.
No, very very different. With representative democracy you vote for rulers, with direct democracy you vote for decisions.
Its important to note that with anarcho-syndicalism the group as a whole cannot have secrets or lies, information is well disseminated for intelligent choice so that the group can function better as a whole, this is how good businesses work.
You cannot expect perfection or utopia, only something better to aspire towards, mondragon is an example of a better system to aspire towards which encourages decent behaviour which you agreed with above, hopefully you understand.
Libertarianism is a statist ideology, it is all about force, they scale it down from the more extreme democrat and socialists but the principle is identical and the historical lessons are there for everyone to see even if they were inclined to accept a little bit of violence for the common good. (The U.S.) .
Voluntaryism is not the same as Libertarianism, not even close.
What you just described is american libertarianism which is nothing more than laissez faire austrian economics, it has no social principles whatsoever and is therefore not a political ideology as it has no human connection whatsoever. It is for the benefit of the 'person' an artifical entity not the human being.
The figures I think are even more extreme than that. These people re not hard working, they are not productive, they do not generate wealth, they are a cancer on Society and they have gotten control of all those resources through state violence. I wouldn’t choose to engage with them, given the choice, would you?
Quite correct, but where is the choice? Its that or starve. Simples.
There might have been a time when you could farmstead, if such an option existed then you could say that there is choice but you can't farmstead now, all the land is owned by some rich bastard, bank or government, so we cannot now make a living from the land.
Quite deliberate of course, which ties in with what you said about force and law and I'm with you 100% on that in this example.
You’re fundamentally misunderstanding what government is and confusing it’s primary mechanisms with errors.
You'll have to back that one up somehow.
For example-
The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. -Abraham Lincoln
He obviously knew what the prime role of government actually was
Like I said, this responsibility has been outsourced to someone else who in turn do not take liability for their actions (federal reserve, IMF, World Bank, BoE etc etc) by pretending to be government entities.
Seeing as govt has outsourced this role, they are no longer our government. They are someone elses.
No, I haven’t given government any “responsibility” and therefore, as far as I am concerned, there is no possbile way they can get it.
If you need people to run your life and tell you what to do, that’s fine, your choice, but you do not have the legitimate right to force that on me.
They don't really care about legitimacy when they are the sole source of it backed up by enforcers and media as mentioned before so no matter how right you are and sovereign by not partaking in voting for example etc you still end up in the same boat as everyone else.
Again I'd point at mondragon as an example of dismantling that stratified power-base and returning it to the people, or at least a means towards that end in a positive productive manner.
