53 replies to this topic

[onbekende]

 

 
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/

[ccabal86]

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

[onbekende]

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

[Bull of Doom22]

 

 
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

[ccabal86]

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

[Blaskowicz]

 

 

 

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.

[digger]

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.

[Bull of Doom22]

 

 

 

 

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?

[digger]

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.

[Bull of Doom22]

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?

[Bull of Doom22]

There is plenty of oppression that states have no part in, and also plenty of actions that states have taken to reduce oppression.

This is true, although I have yet to see non-governmental groups (such as the KKK for example) be nearly as successful as governmental groups (Like Nazis in Germany, Stalin's Soviet Russia, or the Kim's North Korea). As for statist intervention, it often comes far too late. The allies failed to save numerous Jews from Hitler's Germany, thousands of Tootsies from the Hutu slaughter, and countless Armenians from the Ottoman genocide

[digger]

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?

Despite all your complaints, you do agree that what we have now is better than anything else we've tried. I repeat, if you propose radical changes, the burden is on you to explain how how what you propose would be any better than what we have now. I'm not saying it's not possible. I'm saying that you haven't demonstrated it.

[Cadana]

 

 

...

[Bull of Doom22]

 

 

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?

Despite all your complaints, you do agree that what we have now is better than anything else we've tried. I repeat, if you propose radical changes, the burden is on you to explain how how what you propose would be any better than what we have now. I'm not saying it's not possible. I'm saying that you haven't demonstrated it.

 

The current government is highly ineffective, and make things a lot more pricey and complicated then necessary, agreed?
The private sector on the other had streamlines process, finishes tasks quickly, and is sure to do a good job. So privatize as much as possible, if not all.

Democracy leads to tyranny of the masses. a simple majority can enact any law they want. Granted there are built in checks to limit the extent of these laws, the checks don't always work. This led to slavery, refusal to grant civil rights (both to women and racial minorities), and, it can be argued, the Civil War. In a stateless society everyone can do their own thing. There will be no racism, sexism, or most other -isms

 

In a stateless society most power will be held by corporations. The key difference here is that they are much weaker than an established government. If you don't agree with a corporation, you don't have to support them. You can organize boycotts and rallies against them. If enough people agree to boycott, you can bring down the corporation. With the government you can hold rallies, but they'll still tax you. You can boycott elections, but an official will still be elected.

 

Finally, if I were to take your money, it would be theft. If I were to force you to work for me or fight my battles, it would be slavery. If I were to capture you and hold you in a cage, it would be kidnapping. The government can somehow do all of these "legally" under the terms taxation, conscription, and prosecution.