Well you can hardly expect China to support any sort of interference in the sovereign territory of a nation state

Think Tibet

 

Well you can hardly expect China to support any sort of interference in the sovereign territory of a nation state

Think Tibet

 

 

I was, amongst other things

 

But you will recall that China claims Tibet as own territory and their actions merely as helping the return of a lost province to the fold of the motherland (i.e. like Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan).

That remark about the UN is unfounded and untrue. In reality US still owes about 2 billion $ for UN programs and the like it took a commitment to fund - same as every other member state. True US agreed to contribute some 22% to the UN budget, but Japan and Germany contribute almost the same amount, with actually making regular payments (unlike US) ... so no, there are no self-serving leeches living off American tax-payers.

Very true. I just wish people would take the time to research things instead of just believing propaganda. World would truly be a better place.

 

PS: I just brought up Tibet, because it's the province that would probably like to secede the most, but yes, there are many territories that wouldn't mind being "further" away from China.

If you think so then take the UN and move it to Tokyo or Berlin and get the hell off our real estate. The UN is nothing but self-serving bloodsuckers that want to drain the wealth from the US to enrich themselves. I'm Republican remember? I don't believe in debt or aid to anyone, for any reason, without clear benefit, and only to those that deserve it. Stupid and weak leaders have driven the value of American power into the dirt by giving away protection so cheaply.

 

I wonder what the price would be for guaranteed independence of the free world?

 

Back to the issue of the Ukraine... The UN will not do jack-squat to Putin... they are self-serving leeches.

If you think so then take the UN and move it to Tokyo or Berlin and get the hell off our real estate. The UN is nothing but self-serving bloodsuckers that want to drain the wealth from the US to enrich themselves. I'm Republican remember? I don't believe in debt or aid to anyone, for any reason, without clear benefit, and only to those that deserve it. Stupid and weak leaders have driven the value of American power into the dirt by giving away protection so cheaply.

 

I wonder what the price would be for guaranteed independence of the free world?

 

Back to the issue of the Ukraine... The UN will not do jack-squat to Putin... they are self-serving leeches.

 

It is not a matter of what I think (or not for that matter), but what facts tell us. The facts tell us taht the only leaching done in the UN is done by the US (quite disproportionaly to any other bloodsuckers there may be). Even worse, the US does so even while small, poor, developing, more or less undeveloped, etc countries meanwhile contribute per what they agree to contribute.

 

In addition US is one of the top users of instruments available via the UN, be it for sanctions, vetos, etc etc

 

Yes, and I'm an ultra conservative (i.e. includes what may be refered to as fiscal conservative as well) ... either way nor you nor I are excused from ignorance by simply saying that I would also remind you that it was a democrat that enabled a sufficit to the US in the last 25 years or so and not a republican.

 

The US does not in fact guarantee independence of the free world, it does however guarantee its own interests which it absolutely should. Thus in terms of self-servedness ... every state in the world is self-serving

UN has always seemed to me like putting your car in neutral and stepping on the gas, sure you can make a lot of noise, but you don't get anywhere.  And I would agree that the US probably uses the UN more then most....especially when it comes to sanctions and investigations.  Look at all the times we have had UN investigators go into countries looking for WMD's, and all the sanctions we put on other countries.  Now I am probably ignorant to what sanctions other countries put on others via the UN mainly because I live in the US so I only really hear about US sanctions on the news...but still it seems we use it a lot.  

Well your first problem is that you believe in the state

Well your first problem is that you believe in the state

 

I knew we were going to have this discussion one day

 

Counter: What's the alternative?

Counter to your counter: Voluntaryism and a Stateless society. Anarcho-Capatalism

Define what you mean by anarcho-capitalism, and we can start

 

Is your understanding the same as the Wikipedia article's?

Would have been interesting to see if they'd have chosen to be their own country. Probably turn into a Russian puppet, but might have made more sense in the long run to simply say they wanted to be masters of their own future.

Ah, the United Nations is not useless. It's stopped a few wars during it's history, promoted universal human rights, and has been more successful at that than any other international organization before. That doesn't mean it's perfect and we all need to be happy about it, but I'd rather have it than not have it.

 

Also, as a supranational organization, it's rather powerless. The only binding resolutions of the United Nations are those made by the Security Council, which means they can be blocked by any of the big five (US, UK, France, Russia, PRC) from ever getting approved. Any other resolution (By the General Assembly, for example) is optional, and merely involving the countries that adhere to it. So what's happening in Crimea will most likely be solved outside of the UN.

 

Also, what's stopping an anarcho-capitalist society to quickly become a plutocracy?

Ah, the United Nations is not useless. It's stopped a few wars during it's history, promoted universal human rights, and has been more successful at that than any other international organization before. That doesn't mean it's perfect and we all need to be happy about it, but I'd rather have it than not have it.

 

Also, as a supranational organization, it's rather powerless. The only binding resolutions of the United Nations are those made by the Security Council, which means they can be blocked by any of the big five (US, UK, France, Russia, PRC) from ever getting approved. Any other resolution (By the General Assembly, for example) is optional, and merely involving the countries that adhere to it. So what's happening in Crimea will most likely be solved outside of the UN.

 

Also, what's stopping an anarcho-capitalist society to quickly become a plutocracy?

 

Well it isn't really a supranational organization, but rather one of its institutional bodies has supranational aspects with a caveat of plausible enforceability.

 

A very good point on the issue of plutocracy too.

 

Also, what's stopping an anarcho-capitalist society to quickly become a plutocracy?

That is why I'd love to debate the question, bui it seems no one will take me up on it.

 

 

Also, what's stopping an anarcho-capitalist society to quickly become a plutocracy?

Nothing. If the people will submit to the wealthy, then the wealthy could run the show. Simple as that.

 

Define what you mean by anarcho-capitalism, and we can start

 

Is your understanding the same as the Wikipedia article's?

Basically the same idea. I doubt that courts or police would be privately operated, as I doubt they will exist at all. Maybe more like professional body guards for escort? I wouldn't see a profit in someone providing essentially a private army to keep the peace.  But if that's what they want to do, that's up to them. Basically a "do whatever you want" society, driven by the desire to make money through business.

 

 

Also, what's stopping an anarcho-capitalist society to quickly become a plutocracy?

That is why I'd love to debate the question, bui it seems no one will take me up on it.

 

 

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/118829-anarchist-capitalism/

Oh, I know about those topics. I also know there is no point in debating anything with the OWF crowd, let alone RL politics.

just saying, I amuse myself with reading them occationally, its fun to see just extreem spectrum people talking about stuff

 

 

Also, what's stopping an anarcho-capitalist society to quickly become a plutocracy?

That is why I'd love to debate the question, bui it seems no one will take me up on it.

 

refer to my previous comment

Will do, when I'm not too tired to put 2 sentences together

 

 

 

Also, what's stopping an anarcho-capitalist society to quickly become a plutocracy?

Nothing. If the people will submit to the wealthy, then the wealthy could run the show. Simple as that.

 

Define what you mean by anarcho-capitalism, and we can start

 

Is your understanding the same as the Wikipedia article's?

Basically the same idea. I doubt that courts or police would be privately operated, as I doubt they will exist at all. Maybe more like professional body guards for escort? I wouldn't see a profit in someone providing essentially a private army to keep the peace.  But if that's what they want to do, that's up to them. Basically a "do whatever you want" society, driven by the desire to make money through business.

 

 

The thing is, pretty much all systems would work if people behaved in a certain way. There's always going to be people that seek to put themselves on top, harming others in the process, and if there's no system in place to resolve disputes and impart justice, it's very likely it resolves through bloody means. That's why, even though the State is not perfect, as far as society structure goes it keeps some order, giving freedom within the confines of the law, and guaranteeing the happiness and well-being of most of it's members.

Well, this thread has drifted pretty far off topic.

 

Blask's view is classic; the state enforces the social contract and protects the commons.

 

The question of what stops a plutocracy from forming is much simpler than it appears. To look deeper, ask how the people would get rid of a plutocracy in the first place. The answer is communal self defense, based on an educated and empowered population. You have to develop that before anarchy can break away from plutocracy in the first place, and it is that same empowered population that would prevent a plutocracy from reforming.

 

But when you start to examine what sort of structures a people free of plutocrats would build to continue to enforce the social contract and protect the commons from plutocracy, it starts to look an awful lot like a state. The difference would be voluntary association based on enlightened self interest. When you ask the question, what would be done about people who enjoy the benefits of an enforced social contract, but refuse to participate, things start to fall apart.

 

In my view, society is not ready for anarchy. People are too selfish. We could change, over time. The zeitgeist progresses. Without socialization, it would be Lord of the Flies. Parents have a social responsibility to instill values in their children, and there are social consequences for breaking those values. One of those values could become voluntarily enforcing the social contract. Then the answer to what prevents the plutocracy becomes socialization.

 

One of the most distasteful aspects of the state is corruption. It is the coercive power of the state combined with an uneducated, disempowered population that allows for corruption. Corruption is not binary, it is analog; there are degrees. Thus anarchy can be seen as the edge of a spectrum; the limit as corruption approaches zero. To promote anarchy can be seen as the fight to hold power accountable. It is the skills that people learn and the alternatives to power that people create in the process that will prevent plutocracy from reforming.

 

If power is the ability to control other people's lives, than in order to create freedom, one must destroy power.

 

 

 

 

Also, what's stopping an anarcho-capitalist society to quickly become a plutocracy?

Nothing. If the people will submit to the wealthy, then the wealthy could run the show. Simple as that.

 

Define what you mean by anarcho-capitalism, and we can start

 

Is your understanding the same as the Wikipedia article's?

Basically the same idea. I doubt that courts or police would be privately operated, as I doubt they will exist at all. Maybe more like professional body guards for escort? I wouldn't see a profit in someone providing essentially a private army to keep the peace.  But if that's what they want to do, that's up to them. Basically a "do whatever you want" society, driven by the desire to make money through business.

 

 

The thing is, pretty much all systems would work if people behaved in a certain way. There's always going to be people that seek to put themselves on top, harming others in the process, and if there's no system in place to resolve disputes and impart justice, it's very likely it resolves through bloody means. That's why, even though the State is not perfect, as far as society structure goes it keeps some order, giving freedom within the confines of the law, and guaranteeing the happiness and well-being of most of it's members.

 

 

The state can easily begin to enforce laws that are unjust. Once these laws get enacted, the state has organizations (like the police and courts) to easily enforce these laws. Jim Crow laws, Hitler's Germany, Soviet Russia, and North Korea are just a few examples of the ease in which this can be done. In a stateless society, oppression as such is not feasible.

 

And if the idea is that Anarchy wouldn't work because people are too violent, aggressive, or ignorant to govern themselves, what makes elected officials so much better that they can govern not only themselves, but thousands, or millions, of people?

Bull, your argument is faulty. You're saying that since various states have been and are involved in oppression, therefor states are responsible for all oppression. Not only is this logic faulty, the conclusion is subject to countless counterexamples. There is plenty of oppression that states have no part in, and also plenty of actions that states have taken to reduce oppression.

 

In your second paragraph, you're dodging the question with one of your own. To answer your question, there are mechanisms in our current system to mitigate the impacts of the corruption of power. We have a separation of powers and an electoral system. These are not perfect, but they are tested and have proven to be better than anything else that has been tried. If you want to propose radical change, the burden is on you to explain why what you propose is better.

We have a separation of powers and an electoral system. These are not perfect, but they are tested and have proven to be better than anything else that has been tried. If you want to propose radical change, the burden is on you to explain why what you propose is better.

This separation can easily be abused, and taken over. FDR's court packing scheme in the 30's gave him a court full of justices he appointed, effectively giving him control of two branches of government. With the system in place, those two branches can effectively control the third. I do agree that Democracy is better than any system that was previously tried, but is that the best that we can do? Is democracy the end game?