Anarcho-Capitalists?

[metis]

Hold up. You're getting a bit presumptuous there. It's true that I can't think of a place where anarcho-capitalism has been implemented, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work. Of course, if it has been implemented and it failed, someone let me know (cite your sources, please). You seem to be implying, Metis, that anarcho-capitalism healthcare can't work, but how do you know unless it's been tried?

Because it not only is illogical, but in order to implement it would require massive changes to our entire directly and indirectly-related economic and educational systems that would only be possible to implement using the polar opposite of a libertarian/anarcho approach.

It used to exist as such if we go back many centuries ago whereas groups did not have any health-care system that was organized on anything beyond the local level, but as time went on and things in general became more complex, countries had no choice but to abandon it. On a small scale with simplistic equipment and no extensive educational requirements, it can and has worked, but the minute you go on a larger-scale, matched with more sophisticated equipment, and also a higher training for medical personnel, it breaks down, which is why no country today has it.

If it could be done, some country somewhere would have done it by now because it would be less expensive, thus less costly to the state, thus a strong incentive to implement it-- but it logically cannot work on that kind of scale because of the factors that I mentioned.

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course you're gonna hate this because you like your "privileged" position too much, so I'll be waiting next for the "That is stupid..." response. Except, it works, and we know it works-- unlike your charity health-care approach.

Oh, dear....you're still smarting from my mirthful post about your wanting government illegalize volume discounts. That still is a really "dumb" (the word I actually used) idea. But your basic values aren't things I'd call "dumb".....they're just values different from mine. ("Wrong headed" might be more appropriate, eh?)

Btw, you don't meet the definition of "socialist" per the posted RF definition. Be careful lest they kick you out!

 

[Slide]

Because it not only is illogical...

That's your opinion, not based in fact.

...but in order to implement it would require massive changes to our entire directly and indirectly-related economic and educational systems...

It would require massive changes to the entire system. No argument there.

...that would only be possible to implement using the polar opposite of a libertarian/anarcho approach.

What do you mean by that? Why would the implementation of anarcho-capitalism be only possible through "the polar opposite of a libertarian/anarcho[-capitalist] approach?"

It used to exist as such if we go back many centuries ago whereas groups did not have any health-care system that was organized on anything beyond the local level, but as time went on and things in general became more complex, countries had no choice but to abandon it. On a small scale with simplistic equipment and no extensive educational requirements, it can and has worked, but the minute you go on a larger-scale, matched with more sophisticated equipment, and also a higher training for medical personnel, it breaks down, which is why no country today has it.

Please cite your sources as to where in history anarcho-capitalism has been tried and failed.

If it could be done, some country somewhere would have done it by now because it would be less expensive, thus less costly to the state, thus a strong incentive to implement it-- but it logically cannot work on that kind of scale because of the factors that I mentioned.

This is a fallacy. It is like saying, "if world peace could be done, we would have done it by now." The truth is, world peace could be achieved, but the world hasn't "done it." Anarcho-capitalism, like any system, works well on paper, but it has problems in practical application given human nature. No system survives in its original form once it is implemented. I don't argue that anarcho-capitalism would be perfect, nor would it be exactly like it is envisioned. I only support it because I believe individual liberty is morally correct.

 

[metis]

Oh, dear....you're still smarting from my mirthful post about your wanting government illegalize volume discounts. That still is a really "dumb" (the word I actually used) idea. But your basic values aren't things I'd call "dumb".....they're just values different from mine. ("Wrong headed" might be more appropriate, eh?)

Btw, you don't meet the definition of "socialist" per the posted RF definition. Be careful lest they kick you out!

Ever look up "socialism", even in Wikipedia? There's lots of different flavors, plus all countries today to a greater or lesser extent are "socialistic".

BTW, be careful with the word "capitalism" because no country uses it exclusively. Therefore, you might be kicked out of this forum if you use "capitalism" again. Don't say I didn't warn ya.

As far as volume discounts are concerned, there simply is no logical reason why they must supposedly be absolutely necessary, especially since there would be advantages in making them illegal, as I mentioned.

As for values being different, I agree-- we're built differently. I strongly believe in democracy and relative equality, whereas you love having "privilege".

Anyhow, on that note, I'm outta here until Sunday at the earliest. BTW, Monday is both my 70th birthday and 48th wedding anniversary, so I expect a lot of presents from you, but none that tick.

 

[metis]

That's your opinion, not based in fact.



It would require massive changes to the entire system. No argument there.



What do you mean by that? Why would the implementation of anarcho-capitalism be only possible through "the polar opposite of a libertarian/anarcho[-capitalist] approach?"



Please cite your sources as to where in history anarcho-capitalism has been tried and failed.



This is a fallacy. It is like saying, "if world peace could be done, we would have done it by now." The truth is, world peace could be achieved, but the world hasn't "done it." Anarcho-capitalism, like any system, works well on paper, but it has problems in practical application given human nature. No system survives in its original form once it is implemented. I don't argue that anarcho-capitalism would be perfect, nor would it be exactly like it is envisioned. I only support it because I believe individual liberty is morally correct.

Besides not having the time, it doesn't seem that discussing this with you is likely to end up good, so Ill just butt out. I gave you me rationale and why it is as such, but you don't accept it, and that's quite OK with me.

 

[Slide]

Besides not having the time, it doesn't seem that discussing this with you is likely to end up good, so Ill just butt out. I gave you me rationale and why it is as such, but you don't accept it, and that's quite OK with me.

That's fine. I admit I'm no expert on the subject, but I am curious in considering the idea of anarcho-capitalism. I'm looking to develop my theories and ideas, and I appreciate the discussion we did have. Take care.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ever look up "socialism", even in Wikipedia? There's lots of different flavors, plus all countries today to a greater or lesser extent are "socialistic".

I agree that there are different flavors out there.
But RF has its own definitions....
Definitions for the restricted political areas. | ReligiousForums.com
It has created some oddities:
- I'm a classical liberal, but they've defined this as being socially conservative.
- "Capitalist" includes state capitalism, for which Wikipedia gives the USSR as an example.
- "Libertarian" even includes posters who oppose economic liberty.

BTW, be careful with the word "capitalism" because no country uses it exclusively. Therefore, you might be kicked out of this forum if you use "capitalism" again. Don't say I didn't warn ya.

If you read the RF definition, you'll see that I comfortably fit there.
Commonly used definitions don't always fly here.

As far as volume discounts are concerned, there simply is no logical reason why they must supposedly be absolutely necessary, especially since there would be advantages in making them illegal, as I mentioned.

The disadvantages would introduce tremendous inefficiencies into the economy, due to higher transaction costs, enforcement costs, shipping costs (with deleterious environmental effects), & reduced economies of scale.

As for values being different, I agree-- we're built differently. I strongly believe in democracy and relative equality, whereas you love having "privilege".

I favor a libertarian oriented constitutional representative democracy.

Anyhow, on that note, I'm outta here until Sunday at the earliest. BTW, Monday is both my 70th birthday and 48th wedding anniversary, so I expect a lot of presents from you, but none that tick.

Is a size large OK?

 

[dust1n]

There's none been in an instance of anarcho-capitalism in history to draw any conclusions from, and it seems pretty contradictory to me, considering capitalism requires a state to administer it. However, seeing how economic forces are pretty much stronger than political forces in many ways, and can often dictate global outcomes over the head of individual governments, that the world already pretty much exists in a state of anarcho-capitalism.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's none been in an instance of anarcho-capitalism in history to draw any conclusions from, and it seems pretty contradictory to me, considering capitalism requires a state to administer it. However, seeing how economic forces are pretty much stronger than political forces in many ways, and can often dictate global outcomes over the head of individual governments, that the world already pretty much exists in a state of anarcho-capitalism.

Anarcho capitalism has existed at times where business expanded into areas where government was weak or had yet to arrive. But I take exception with the claim that government is needed to "administer" capitalism. I say it's useful to regulate & provide legal recourse for disputes, but not to actually run anything....that's where capitalism gets into trouble because it becomes socialistic.

 

[dust1n]

Anarcho capitalism has existed at times where business expanded into areas where government was weak or had yet to arrive. But I take exception with the claim that government is needed to "administer" capitalism. I say it's useful to regulate & provide legal recourse for disputes, but not to actually run anything....that's where capitalism gets into trouble because it becomes socialistic.

Example?

 

[Revoltingest]

Example?

The first thing which comes to mind is the TV series "Deadwood". It's an accurate representation of history, in the sense that commerce was quite self-organized, even though the justice system was less formal than it is now....though things haven't necessarily improved.
Another example is how insurance companies & Standard & Poors arose to meet regulatory needs. Capitalism benefits from government in that regulation protects people's rights & commercial interests, & the justice system makes for peaceful resolution of conflicts. However, the current system is breaking down.

 

[dust1n]

The first thing which comes to mind is the TV series "Deadwood". It's an accurate representation of history, in the sense that commerce was quite self-organized, even though the justice system was less formal than it is now....though things haven't necessarily improved.
Another example is how insurance companies & Standard & Poors arose to meet regulatory needs. Capitalism benefits from government in that regulation protects people's rights & commercial interests, & the justice system makes for peaceful resolution of conflicts. However, the current system is breaking down.

Anything with a bit more likelihood of being able to access tangible evidence or some sort of source in which I could read about the Dakota territory. As far as companies preemptively addressing regulatory needs, that doesn't mean the company that exist within a state. Regulation often has benefits for company, and even more so when a company dictate its own regulation. All of these mentioned used money, correct? Congress created the Dakota Territories, from the previously purchased Louisiana Territories, passed the Homestead Act. The area would be transition out of state bonds in this era too. I think the dollar became the official unit around the Civil War. I mean, don't the ends and outs of frontier bureaucracy, but I'm betting the state governments and the federal government were proactive in incentivizing settlement.

 

[Revoltingest]

Anything with a bit more likelihood of being able to access tangible evidence or some sort of source in which I could read about the Dakota territory. As far as companies preemptively addressing regulatory needs, that doesn't mean the company that exist within a state. Regulation often has benefits for company, and even more so when a company dictate its own regulation. All of these mentioned used money, correct? Congress created the Dakota Territories, from the previously purchased Louisiana Territories, passed the Homestead Act. The area would be transition out of state bonds in this era too. I think the dollar became the official unit around the Civil War. I mean, don't the ends and outs of frontier bureaucracy, but I'm betting the state governments and the federal government were proactive in incentivizing settlement.

The only sources I have are obscure & arcane technologically related history books.

 

[Revoltingest]

I thought of an example of how government has too much power.
Every year, local government reassesses our real estate valuation & taxes. We gotta pay for services, right? No problem there. But they do this without any careful analysis.....there's a system in place, but no one at my township knows how it works. The machine spits out numbers, & they are imposed upon us.

I know this is boring, but stay with me.....
One of my properties, a self storage facility, has been largely unaffected by the economic downturn, so it hasn't experienced any increase in value. But they just hit me with a 40% increase in value, & a lesser (restricted to a max increase/year) amount\\\\ of tax increase. (Last year it was about a 10% increase.) So over the next few years, I'll see a tax increase of 50+%, with no real increase in value.

Now, I know what you're thinking.....
That greedy capitalist pig of a landlord could appeal it! This is true.
Some difficulties:
- The last time I appealed 2 properties, I spent about a year, $10,000 in legal fees, & much time doing so.
(I got a 40% reduction. I'd been paying too much for years.)
- If I could hire a professional real estate appraiser to do some basic research (they can do it far more easily than I).....say a couple hours of work for $500, & I'd be well prepared. But the law prevents them from doing anything less than a full appraisal, which would be about $4000.
- Government makes these high assessments knowing full well that every owner who doesn't fight it will be paying the sucker rate. And those who do fight it have some high hurdles. Even when the taxpayer wins, government doesn't have to pay any damages or anything.

It's a scam, & it adds greatly to the cost of doing business to be paying illegally high taxes, & having to regularly pay to appeal them to bring them in line with actual current values as required by state law. There's no way to avoid it because the real estate has a fixed location.

Contrast this with the businesses I deal with. AT&T raised the Yellow Pages fees too much once, so I ditched them entirely. Even before the internet took over, the amount of business I lost was less than their fees. If one gas supplier charges too much, I'll switch to another. Can't do this with government.

 

[dust1n]

The only sources I have are obscure & arcane technologically related history books.

Well, never hurts to try. Never know what I might come across.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, never hurts to try. Never know what I might come across.

No one will find these by accident....
"Machines & Morality....The 1850s" by Sobel
"English & American Tool Builders" by Roe
Economic history is interestingly related to manufacturing history.

 

[dust1n]

No one will find these by accident....
"Machines & Morality....The 1850s" by Sobel
"English & American Tool Builders" by Roe
Economic history is interestingly related to manufacturing history.

I found Roe free in archive. Sobel looks I would have to pay a dollar plus shipping. Bummer. =[

 

[xkatz]

I find AnCap rather untenable.

 

[metis]

The disadvantages would introduce tremendous inefficiencies into the economy, due to higher transaction costs, enforcement costs, shipping costs (with deleterious environmental effects), & reduced economies of scale.

As I mentioned before, the cost increase would likely be quite minor but the benefits major. Delivery costs should not change at all since each retail store would order what it needs, so nothing there really should be different (no matter what the retail cost per unit may be, items would have to get shipped either way). There should be no real change with enforcement.

Is a size large OK?

Try 2XL. Hate to brag, but I was a gymnast in high school and college, and my shoulders are very wide for a guy who's only 5'9" and shrinking.

 

[metis]

I think slavery would be an excellent example of anarcho-capitalism at its "finest", as the profit-motive was the #1 cause.