you are just going to get the old objection claiming that property is an initiation of force, because they assume for some reason that the whole planet is something like a heritage of all the living.
That cuts both ways obviously. No-one can predict the future 100%, including an Anarchist who believes his system would result in less violence should there be no state intervention.
But really, you've just made an argument that invalidates all scientific endeavor and critical thinking. If we can't argue about what will minimize co-ercion overall taking into account the future, what's the point of having this argument. Sounds like Keynesians in the long run we're all dead attitude.
I don't believe any such thing. I just know that I should NEVER initiate violence against an innocent person that I don't even know who poses no threat to me. Very simple. You have the wonderful task of explaining to me why certain people have this right and the rest of us don't. Universality is a crucial component to any legit theory. My theory has it. Yours doesn't.
I have no idea what an anarchist society will look like. I claim that I should not punch you for no reason. Pretty basic stuff.
@lukebessey Really dude. You think you should NEVER, ever initiate violence against an innocent person. So if I see an innocent person about to be hit by an oncoming bus, I shouldn't be allowed to shove him out of the way to prevent certain injury. What a strange moral claim.
Libertarianism says that people should be free to pursue their objectives, provided you do not prevent others from doing the same. Anarchism lacksthe second part of that statement, in effect making freedom meaningless.
@dick391 Digging deep aren't you? I will let you answer your own straw man. I like your definition of libertarianism. Unfortunately for you there is no room for "the state" in such a definition. Mow that over a few times.
@lukebessey Of course in an anarchist society, I would be free to punch you in the face. In a Libertarian society I wouldn't be allowed to. Violence will perpetuated against innocent people in either system. The question once again is how to minimize it. You're taking the fork in the road once again.
The statist's claim is pretty remarkable. You claim that a good state reflects the will of the people, and yet you claim that without violence the will of the people will change. With a state people will vote to do the right thing, but without the state these same people will resort to evil. Simply remarkable!
Either everyone is evil, in which case a state is meaningless; everyone is good, in which case we dont need a state; or some people are good and some evil, in which case we cannot afford to have a state because the evil will seek power over the good (see every example of statism ever!)
@blackacidlizzard "Allow" has nothing do to with it. A group possessing greater power than another has the "ability" to coerce, steal, and violate the will of that other group. Sadly, human nature is such that these people will always exist (absent extreme social-engineering).
Coercion takes place with gov't and in the absense of gov't. Although by no means perfect, I think democratic, constitutionally limited gov'ts achieve the fairest allocation of coercion overall.
I am not a minarchist. Markets can only produce goods and services more efficiently when 1. they are competitive and 2. when people are free to co-operate voluntarily. Markets depend on trust and the government has an important role in protecting them. The freest form of market is one where government enforces contracts, provides courts of law, etc. Anarchic markets are not as free. Socialist, fascist and communist markets are the least free. Libertarian are the most free.
You are a minarchist. You believe in a tiny but necessary state. Those are just assertions. You have no proof that "Markets depend on trust and the government has an important role in protecting them. The freest form of market is one where government enforces contracts, provides courts of law, etc. Anarchic markets are not as free." Anyone can just make claims. This is not impressive at all.
Explain to me why you should be able to initiate violence against me, even though I pose you no threat.
@lukebessey People obviously will not co-operate voluntarily with each other if they do not trust each other. When I give the storekeep $1 for a chocolate bar, I expect to get a chocolate bar. If I give him the $1 and he can keep it without providing a service, I have no incentive to transact with him. Absent basic property laws, there are no incentives to earn and hold wealth.
The argument for state to initiate "violence" against you is that in its absense you would experience more.
You wouldn't trust someone without the police? You obviously have no market experience. Most arbitration is handled privately because the state apparatus is too clunky and slow. The shopkeeper could take your dollar, and you could have a defense agency that protects your property. Lets say you can't afford a defense agency. You may only shop at places that you trust, and you only trust places that you or your family know well. Do you think you wouldnt have any friends without the state? Family?
@dick391 I have to go for a few hours. Send me a message if you don't mind. Youtube commenting is awful (which is why my new startup will destroy them!!!!) lol. Search "Streable" in youtube to see what I am talking about. Cheers!
If I'm going to spend anytime reading this supposedly magical book addressing all my "errors", give me at least two or three plausible defenses against the points I have made from the book. Otherwise its not worth wasting my time.
@dick391 You claim that the way to protect persons and property is to violate those persons and property (see statism). This is analogous to curing a headache with a guillotine. This violates the law of non-contradiction.
@lukebessey Again, there is no such thing as society free of theft. So statism violates this "law" no more than anarchism. You can only minimize the total amount of theft. I get the sense that too many anarchists live in a dream world.
A better analogy would be cutting of a leg to prevent the spread of disease resulting in death. You have two ugly choices. Pick one. Don't take the fork in the road as Yogi Berra says.
@dick391 You are right, but there can be a society that does not legislate theft, and make it relatively easy for criminals to steal (see statism). Please, take the time to read that book. I have a feeling you will benefit greatly from it. It is not magic, it just lays out the case for private defense in a way that crushes this justification for the state.
Just because one system isn't perfect, doesn't mean that the alternative is better. No system is perfect obviously, because humanity is perfect. Basic reasoning man. Either show that the alternative is better, or you have nothing.
@dick391 I am simply saying that the initiation of violence is wrong, and any society that operates around it is going to have problems. Societies that operate around voluntary interaction tend to do much better than those that operate around coercion. Violence against an innocent is wrong. Explain to me how it is not.
@lukebessey I agree. So the question is how to best arrive at a society of voluntary interaction. Anarchism does not result in the kind of society that you want. Libertarianism doesn't either, but its better. What you really are is a kid that wants to live in heaven. Sorry, nirvana is not for this world.
@dick391 "anarchism does not..." Textbook assertion. I am not a kid that wants to live in heaven. I am a person who realizes what the state is, and is not fooled by the propaganda that has been shoved down my throat since I was a child.
I was on your side of the argument a few years ago, and I actually apologized to those who were trying to help me see clearly. You seem to be on the right road, so keep searching. After you get your ass kicked by anarchists for a few months you will come around.
Well I'm still waiting for this supposed "ass-kicking" as I've debated many anarchists and never found any of the arguments compelling. I also have no illusions about the efficacy of the state (after all I'm a Libertarian). I take the Grover Norquist view of shrinking government down to the size I can flush down my toilet.
Again, no-one has made a convincing argument to me that Anarchism would lead to less co-ercion (overall) then Libertarianism. That's the real question here.
@dick391 After all you are a minarchist. Big difference. If you understand markets at all you will know how they can produce goods and services at a lower cost and a higher quality than the state. The fact that you refuse to apply these basic principles to all goods and services will keep you up at night, until you eventually collapse under the weight of your own contradictions. It happens to the best of us buddy. Sleep on it, and if you still have issues send me a message tomorrow. Cheers!
The irony of course is that your description of anarchy in the intro is the exact opposite of its practice. In anarchy, one group of humans is free to "own" another group of humans without legal repercussion from the state. A peaceful society is not possible without the ability of the state to co-erce. If someone is free to kill or steal from me, is that peace?
Anarchy is rife with basic logical flaws. I'm not an anarchist, precisely because peace and voluntary co-operation is my end goal.
@dick391 You would also be free to protect yourself. What amazes me is that you live in this world and still make these claims. Are you awake? Have you looked at the last 2000 years of human history?
States are by far the most dangerous thing when it comes to human life and liberty. The irony lies in you claiming that anarchy is riddled with logical flaws when statism by definition violates the law of non-contradiction. "We are going to protect your property by stealing half of your property."
@lukebessey Again, I'm Libertarian precisely because I have looked at the last 2000 years of history. You've just made the basic logical error of grouping all forms of statism together. It is only the last few hundred years, with relatively free markets, rule of law, and democracy that we have advanced as much as we have.
There is no logical flaw there because there is such thing as absense of theft of property. That's human nature. The question is how to minimize it obviously.
@dick391 There are plenty of examples of private law that you can look at. Iceland survived for hundreds of years with a private law system. Early Pennsylvania is another example of a stateless society that did quite well.
I am sorry, but you will never be able to convince me that we need to steal from innocent people in order to protect them. It is such a ridiculous idea that it literally takes years of brainwash for people to ever believe. Good luck to you on your journey.
@lukebessey I find neither of those examples (Iceland, Pennsylvania) particularly compelling. The mere fact that they survived isn't compelling evidence. The real question is counterfactual: would either society have been better off under a Libertarian system then an Anarchist one. It doesn't follow that replacing the present system with an Anarchist one would result in less violence, etc.
@dick391 All claims made by statists are counterfactual. Again, libertarianism is the basis for anarchism (non-agression axiom). Minarchism is what you are defending. I am a true libertarian. I don't think we should be 95% free, I think we should be 100% free. This does not mean that we are free to kill others, because those others are free to protect themselves. Basic game theory will lead you to the conclusion of a relatively peaceful society in the absence of a state.
@lukebessey There is no such thing as 100% freedom, obviously. Under an anarchist system you are not 100% free. Others can kill you, steal from you, etc. Under a Libertarian system you are not 100% free either. The question is which one maximizes freedom.
The question is not "which system maximizes freedom?" because this questions assumes that we can predict the future, which we can't. The question is "what should our actions be right now?" and the answer is we should not initiate violence against innocent people because we THINK that the world will be better off. We cannot predict the future. We can only control our bodies in this moment. Don't aggress against me because you THINK your way is right. Accord me the same respect that I accord you.
Without state co-ercion, the ideals of voluntarysm (voluntary co-operation) are unrealizable. Put another way, you are not free to co-operate in a voluntary manner if another individual can kill you, steal from you etc without legal repercussions
If your goal truly is a society based on voluntary cooperation, you have two options: 1 Libertarianism (government only big enough to prevent others from infringing) or 2 Social engineering Hilter-style to remove ppl that don't co-operate voluntarily
@dick391 I disagree, Dick. Voluntaryists dont claim that there will be no crime without a state, we only demand that we are free to choose how we protect ourselves. People will purchase defense services in a free society.
The rational conclusion of Libertarian philosophy is voluntaryism.
Sorry, but your arguments are old and boring. There are plenty of counter arguments to your claims, but I just don't have the time to go over them. Read Hoppe's Private Production of Defense for starters.
Are you serious dude? How free is an individual to protect himself if he cannot afford the necessary defensive services. If a gang of nigger more powerful thugs are "free" to steal from you, how free are you to defend yourself. You strip "freedom" of all meaning.
If you have counter-arguments, feel free to actually make them. Sorry, the only stale and boring arguments made are the ones that you have presented. If you can't make a rational defense, don't waste my time thanx.
@dick391 You approached me, and I gave you a short book that you can find for free online. It is under 50 pages and addresses all of your mistakes.
So you are saying that right now we have terminal cancer that will kill us. But you would hate to get rid of the tumor because another one MIGHT come back. Awesome.
The poor in this country are not protected by the state at all. They are terrified of the police. You obviously don't get out much.
is not property a concept, i.e. a legal right? When you're buying a house, the house is not the property, you're actually acquiring the title which is proof of property, i.e. you have property in something (e.g. the house). In order for property to exist you need an enforcer to enforce the legal right,.... it could be a government or something/someone else. I think the common misconception is to mistake property for rightful possession.
@bergweg We do not have any rights (rights are a manmade construct). But we can still claim that a theory is invalid because it lacks universality. This is true for ethical theories. If I say that one group of men will be the authority and that another group must submit to this authority my theory is obviously invalid due to the fact that it is not universal. A theory involving property rights and the non-agression principle, however, can be universal. I am not sure if I answered you:)
But what about the people with no property? Violence exists, babies die during birth sometimes. Mother tiger must eat, mother ah... racoon to feed baby tigers and all baby racoons die of hunger. My question is, you say about how the violence of forcing people to do things, so you don't see as violence the dissonances of power and wealth and influence no matter how far apart they get? Continue...
@tironi333 ... Like, what guarantees, if not the State in a market system, that an employer will not dispose of a female employee because she got pregnant? He must "voluntarily" support her? All the people should "voluntarily" support her if it is for her and the baby not to wither and die? Is it really "violence" to rule out that everyone must be attended on basic human needs be it you don't give a fuck about them or be it not?
@tironi333 So you think that the state actually protects the mother who has gotten pregnant? I would encourage you to look at the empirical evidence of what the state is and how the state handles situations.
Violence is a terrible way to handle problems. If you think that the best way to handle problems such as poverty and other social dilemmas is to point guns at people I fear that you may not be seeing clearly. There are literally millions of ways to deal with these situations peacefully.
@tironi333 I am not sure if I understand your question. Do you want me to list peaceful ways to take care of poverty? Charity, getting rid of minimum wage laws...etc
Right now it costs several thousand dollars to start a business selling cookies on the side of the road because of government regulations. I believe that getting rid of the state would improve the current conditions in regards to poverty. I hope I answered your question:)
property, without a legal system is only what you can keep. A broad legal system allows us to disambiguate property titles. Without this, property only exists insofar as you can keep a hold of it. if I leave a home in a lawless place and come back to find people living there, I may consider it 'my house' but if they can prevent me from reacquiring it, it's no longer mine. I feel like libertarians and anarchists have an idealistic notion of property which has no ground in reality.
@allanps1979 Anarchy does not mean without rules, it means without rulers. Again, the key is voluntary vs. coercive. The state is illegitimate because it is a coercive institution. If you were buying a home you would probably belong to a homeowners association that "governed" your neighborhood. The difference is you entered into the contract voluntarily. Voluntaryists are not opposed to governance, we are opposed to the state. Cheers!
@allanps1979 That is true. What's your point? Isn't it clear that I have the best claim over my body? And shouldn't I be free to protect myself?
People think that anarchists are unaware or naive about the evil nature of some humans. I am an anarchist precisely because I am aware of how evil people can be. I just believe that giving all the guns to the sociopaths is a bad way to solve social problems.
@lukebessey My point is that your claim that others should not use coercive force against you is illegitimate because they did not sign a contractual agreement with you not to use coercive force. You may not like what they are doing but it is not illegitimate or against any agreement. If you brush that aside don't be surprised when statists are brushing your argument aside that you didn't get into a contractual agreement with the state about this and that, and therefore it's illegitimate.
@lukebessey statists if we set aside the whole lack of contractual agreement discontent with the state, you have plain moral arguments. people can protect themselves to the extent in which they fail to be able to do so, and many are unable to do so whether they are free or not. if i truly thought it was moral that everyone should be protected i think the best way to do that would be to have everyone collectively protect one another in an efficient way.
@allanps1979 I couldn't agree with you more. But to jump from there to "the best way to protect persons and property is by stealing half of the property of said persons" is illogical.
I am not against collectivism as long as its voluntary. It is true that some people would not be able to protect themselves in a stateless society. Some people are not able to kill and filet their own cows but that does not mean that they don't get steak. Markets can provide defense services. Wouldn't you agree?
@lukebessey sometimes it seems like what you are saying is that voluntary contractual agreements between two people determine the moral justification of a behavior limitation at the threat of force, yet other times you seem to be saying there are inherent body-claims which determine the moral justification of a behavior limit at the threat of force, prior to a contractual agreement. my problem is that you seem to be going back and forth. which one is it?
@allanps1979 I am not sure if I understand what you mean. Forgive me if this response is not relevant. If I enter into a contract with you and the contract states that you will give me your shoes and I will give you a painting, and you fullfil your obligation and I do not, then your use of force is not the initiation of force, rather it is self defense, because I have initiated force against you.
My claim is pretty simple. The initiation of force is immoral.
@lukebessey i am interpreting what you are saying as: 1. breaking contractual agreements is unethical and 2. initiating force, even without a contractual agreement not to do this, is unethical due to a 'body claim'. My problem is that these issues OVERLAP, my question to you is 'which one over rules the other'? If a contractual agreement I made violates my personal 'body claim' is the contract invalid or is the body claim invalid. I'm pretty sure what I'm saying is clear, please respond.thx
@allanps1979 i guess my main issue is this: if you expect people to not initiate coercive force against you even though they have NOT SIGNED AN AGREEMENT to curb coercive force against you why do market anarchists get upset when other people expect them to do things even though they have not signed an agreement? just something to think about...Market anarchists DO expect behavior of others who have NOT signed an agreement and yet complain when the tables are turned on them.
@allanps1979 I think I get what you are saying yet I would love to hear what you think about it. Please submit a video explaining your philosophy and how you would view this issue. Here is my stab at it.
For a contract to exist there does not have to be a signed piece of paper. There are millions of implicit contracts that are entered into everyday. For instance, if I invite you into my house there is an implicit contract that I won't kill you. You do not need to sign any paper...continued
@lukebessey It seems to me that if you are going to dress the non aggression principle up as an 'implicit contract' a statist can do the same thing and say their rules of conduct that you did not sign an agreement to were implicit contracts all along and therefore justified. For instance, many socialists think it is an implicit contract between human beings to provide health care to one another while market anarchists feel only the non aggression principle is implicit. It's cherry picking.
@allanps1979 "For instance, many socialists think it is an implicit contract between human beings to provide health care.." Verbal or written or otherwise expressed contracts trump any non verbal, or non written contracts. It may be the case that a socialist thinks that I have agreed to give him money, which is absurd and I would argue that no socialists actually thinks this, but the second he comes to get it and I express that I do not want to give him money should he be able to take it?
@allanps1979 My claim is not that others should not use coercive force against me (although I do believe that). My claim is there should not exist an institution that has given itself the legal right to initiate force against me. All I ask is that I am allowed to protect myself from agressors, and with the state it is clear that I am not. My philosophy allows for the existence of people who disagree with me as long as they keep their hands off of me....continued
@lukebessey you say you don't have a problem with individuals using coercive force against you and yet you do. I don't think what you are saying and what you really believe are in alignment. I also don't see why every possible type of state will not allow you to protect yourself from aggressors. There are many states I could imagine which would surely allow you to defend yourself. I am a strong advocate of gun ownership, so I know where you are coming from there.
@allanps1979 I should have been more clear. When I said "...that others should not use..." I was trying to say that I am not expecting private individuals to never initiate violence against me, but I will surely use self defense in those situations. Youtube's ridiculous restricted comment system gets me into trouble sometimes:) ....cont
@allanps1979 I would love to continue this discussion but I find youtube terribly annoying. If you would like send me a personal message or make a video. I would prefer the video because then the conversation can benefit others.
Forgive me if I am making a mistake, but it seems like you do believe the state is legitimate. I would like to know your justification for this in your message (or video). Cheers!
@allanps1979 To answer your main issue. Market anarchists do not demand that people have positive obligations (pay for war, pay for welfare, pay for anything), while statists do make these demands. Statists demand that innocent people pay for things that they don't want. All a market anarchist is saying is "do not make me do anything and I will not make you do anything". This is clearly different. A statists is forcing people to act, while an anarchist is not. Did this make sense?
@lukebessey it is different, I agree, but it is not positive or negative, it's in the various gradations of freedom the obligation prevents. Those pos/neg distinctions are language issues not physical ones. I could, for instance phrase any action in a positive or negative way. Example: (neg. obligation) You must refrain from doing anything except provide me with health insurance now. Or better yet (pos. obligation) you absolutely MUST do something other than initiate force against me.
@allanps1979 You are stretching for this one :) These are completely different and I think you know that. "You must refrain from doing anything except provide me with health insurance now"? "You absolutely MUST do something other than initiate force against me."
In the first example you still have a positive obligation. The second example you are not asserting a particular positive obligation at all. "You must pay for this war" is a better example. You see the difference, right?
@lukebessey The words 'negative' and 'positive' are language based 'you must' is positive, 'you can't' is negative. I never said there wasn't a distinction to be made, just that positive and negative is erroneous. I think you are saying the first is positive because you are defining 'positive' as that which limits your freedom in a maximal or near maximal way whereas negative is the minimal limitation. I'm not denying there is a difference I am just saying pos/neg is not accurate.
@allanps1979 I do not follow. The state coerces you into a positive obligation. I am not talking about language, I am talking about actions. As a market anarchist I would not coerce you into a positive obligation. Saying that "you must do anything besides hurt me" is not coercing someone into a positive obligation. "You must pay for this war" is.
@lukebessey My point is this simple: The demarcation between where negative ends and positive begins is ambiguous, defined by you virtually as 'you know...' well, it's still basically ambiguous. This is a key distinction to be made in my opinion and keeping it all hazy leaves room for linguistics sleight of hand. I agree youtube comments is a bad platform. Maybe I'll make a video if I can get around to it.
@allanps1979 I still disagree. It is not a continuum problem (10 ft above ground opposed to 40 ft). There is a fundamental, black and white difference between the two types of interactions. Forced positive obligations make someone do something that they wouldn't otherwise do, while no forced positive obligations do not force people to do something that they wouldn't otherwise do. I am not sure why this is not clear, but I look forward to your video :) Thanks!
@lukebessey Positive obligations are obligations where an entity has only has one or few options available under the obligation, negative obligations allow for a wide range of possible options with the exclusion of one or a few. There are gradations in between and no specific line which separates the two. You don't have to believe me, but I think I have provided logical examples, and that I have explained myself clearly and efficiently enough that I am satisfied. Thanks.
@lukebessey i'm advocating human rights. you think human rights only extend to the non aggression principle, I think they extend further. The reason I don't agree with market anarchy is because most of the arguments for it are irrational and composed of language trickery and logical fallacies, such as the accident fallacy among others. no problem. i enjoy exposing bs. lol
@allanps1979 Care to elaborate? video? What arguments are irrational? Could you point out the logical fallacies in my argument?
I believe that it is clear that a human is the sole owner of his body and no other man has a legitimate claim over it. Property rights are just a way to talk about who has a more legitimate claim over something. I would love to hear more about the bs that you have exposed. It may be that I am missing the point, or it may be that your point is not worth catching:)
@lukebessey market anarchy is entirely based on an ACCIDENT FALLACY. And the concept of 'ownership' without even an agreement between people, let alone a legal body, is as imaginary as theism. And a 'belief' in a right is nothing but an idea, how can market anarchists know that everyone will agree to believe in the same rights if they wont even create a minarchy state to accomplish this? And fictitious sciences, like positive and negative action simply DO NOT EXIST irl.
@allanps1979 Every system of social arrangement believes in "ownership", even the socialists do. Does minarchy, or whatever you believe in, not?
How does the creation of a state help in disagreements? It seems to me that even with the state the guy who has more resources still wins the day (even more so).
So there is no observable difference between me not making you do something using force and me making you do something using force?
@lukebessey 'ownership' is not a belief it's a description of an agreement by the use of sufficient force. A nightwatchman state definitely defends self ownership. And as per your question...What state? What disagreement? Like I said already twice, there is a difference, it just has nothing to do with positive and negative.
@allanps1979 okay, every situation of social arrangement aims to use sufficient force to keep stuff. I feel like you are not really wanting to share knowledge or seek truth. It seems that you are more interested in wasting time. Do we really need to bicker about semantics when it is clear as to what I mean?
Please, show some respect and get to the point. I watched several videos of your friend and I must say that if you are anything like that, this discussion is over. Not impressed at all.
@lukebessey I think you are upset because I'm not buying it and I have a developed argument. If you don't like inmendham that's fine. But i think I've been pretty respectful and have provided nothing but concrete counter arguments. If you don't want to continue responding that's fine. I'm going to continue responding with counter arguments until you convince me I am wrong. So far it's not convincing. What will prevent the development of limitless power accumulation in market anarchism?
@lukebessey And i do not believe the philosophy is that the human is the sole owner of the body. If it were, that would justify the enforcement of the non aggression principle via a night watchman state. Yet no. simply because this would require one single TAX or at least an agreement for people to uphold these principles via workshare...Anarchists therefore believe it should be OPTIONAL for people to OPT OUT of the non aggression principle, and the whole sole-ownership stuff.
@allanps1979 In the real world whatever entity possesses the most power sets whatever rules they may or may not enforce. Market anarchy does nothing to prevent the consolidation of power and completely ignores the said principle as if it were irrelevant. I find that extraordinary. Market anarchists seem to want to open Pandora's box where any random entity could control limitless power left unchecked, and they assume everyone will follow anarchist rules. It's appallingly unconvincing.
@allanps1979 I have no idea where to start. You make no convincing argument as to why a state is preferable. You obviously have a lot to say, so why don't you make a video explaining your beliefs?
"Anarchists...believe you should be able to OPT out..." I have no clue as to what you are talking about. Please, help me understand.
You seem to be advocating for minarchy. Is this correct?
@lukebessey Opt out of paying for taxes in order to create a night watchman state upholding the sufficent defense of the non aggression principle for everyone, as opposed to anarchy, where obviously the wealthier you are the more elite your self defense would be. Try looking this up also: watch?v=XSZDQBhUBBg
@allanps1979 not impressed. If this is the intellectual giant you subscribe to then I think I am wasting my time. Thanks for your opinions but I remain unconvinced by your arguments. Molyneux has addressed everything this guy is talking about. I am definitely open to changing my beliefs but I need to hear legitimate arguments first. "I think things will be worse" is not a legitimate argument to justify forcing me to do anything...continued
@allanps1979 not impressed. If this is the intellectual giant you subscribe to then I think I am wasting my time. Thanks for your opinions but I remain unconvinced by your arguments. Molyneux has addressed everything this guy is talking about. I am definitely open to changing my beliefs but I need to hear legitimate arguments first. "I think things will be worse" is not a legitimate argument to justify forcing me to do anything...continued
@allanps1979 not impressed. If this is the intellectual giant you subscribe to then I think I am wasting my time. Thanks for your opinions but I remain unconvinced by your arguments. Molyneux has addressed everything this guy is talking about. I am definitely open to changing my beliefs but I need to hear legitimate arguments first. "I think things will be worse" is not a legitimate argument to justify forcing me to do anything...continued
@lukebessey I just dropped that video as a side thing. My FUNDAMENTAL point remains unaddressed. People with power make up the rules. Market anarchy would make the accumulation of power virtually LIMITLESS, especially due to the problem of legacy wealth. As far as I see it, this both unethical and impractical. The rules of market anarchy themselves could not endure the freedoms they would allow. Anyway, if you've had enough fine, I can keep going.
@allanps1979 I believe you lack a true understanding of the market. I will make a video explaining this. To summarize - this idea that wealth accumulates in a free market is unfounded in reality. It is true that wealth accumulates in a situation like we have today - state controlled capitalism. If your argument is "in market anarchy one firm will get so large and they will become the new state" , this is like saying "I don't want to rid my body of cancer because a new cancer MIGHT come back"
@allanps1979 I am not sure that I need to provide any explanation. My philosophy does not impose my will onto you, while your philosophy does. It seems to me that you are the one with the explaining to do. Again, "I think things will get really bad" is not a sufficient reason to force me to do something that I don't want to do.
@lukebessey Well, when I asked what would prevent the limitless accumulation of power in market anarchy your response was that I lacked a true understanding of the market. Now I ask again and you say you aren't sure if you need to provide an explanation. This is an honest and earnest question. What is it that I am not seeing about the pure free market which would slow down or limit the accumulation of power?
@allanps1979 I will record a video soon. I have personally started several businesses and as an entrepreneur I have experienced this phenomena first hand. I was not endowed with copious amounts of wealth yet I was able to penetrate a market ruled by a millionaire. I did this with an initial investment of $3,000 while my competitor was spending thousands upon thousands on marketing alone. I am currently very busy with my business but I will try to record the video tonight. Cheers!
@lukebessey the fact that you have had success in your personal life still does not answer my question or provide any information on what would prevent limitless power accumulation in market anarchy. i recently inherited a $400,000 apartment and i did not work for it. the title is mine. i can rent it and receive a large portion of the income of a random persons labor until I die...I did nothing to earn this.
@lukebessey that doesn't change the fact that I am able to absorb the product of another persons labor because I have a title even though I, as an INDIVIDUAL distinct from my family, did NO LABOR whatsoever to earn it. And I'd like to remind you that you still have not responded to my question of what would prevent limitless power accumulation in market anarchy.
Allan...Competition and Exposureto risk will limit cornerings of the market.
Competition in that EVERYONE is able to provide / produce goods and services that another provides / produces ... Patents, IP protection, Copyrights and all are protections from competition by the government - these would not exist in a true free market.
Exposure to risk is crucial in that EVERYONE who is a "owner" of a company is exposed to risk...(cont)
@helltrackrider I'm not talking about 'cornering of the market', but in any case, I don't agree with what you are saying nonetheless. I'm not going to get into why because it would be a red herring. My point was that generally speaking, the wealthy would continue to become wealthier while the poorer would continue to become poorer. So far the only thing which you or Luke has mentioned to prevent this is that the poorer would get crafty and compete better. I'm not buying this.
The wealthy would get "wealthier" by increasing the "wealth" of the poor...it is not a zero sum market; wealth is produced - not only by the "wealthy" ... but, by the poor who have worked to increase their wealth to invest into production / reasearch / design / etc...or by the banks that issue loans for business start-ups to people who seek to increase their wealth.
In every exchange; both parties benefit - or else the exchange would not occur.
@helltrackrider RELATIVELY wealthier helltrackrider. If I am dying of thirst and someone offers to give me a glass of water for $10,000, we both gain value but only relative to the situation. If the two had been on equal footing, the exchange would not have taken place. These are exchanges which take advantage of unequal power, aka exploitation. This is the REAL reason governmental coercive force is considered unethical by market anarchists but i don't think they want to fess up to that.
If someone offers you water for $10,000 ... tell them to piss off and take the next offer; or dig a deep hole - gather water - boil it / strain it and drink it.
Water is everwhere ... the necessities of life are present on Earth without seeking another persons service; if they were not - humanity wouldnt exist...It has just became more convenient to pay another man to provide for the necessities.
@helltrackrider My point was to illustrate what passive coercion is and to establish that it EXISTS. So far your rebuttal does nothing to discredit that. I think what you are saying is that passive coercion, or exploitation, would not occur because there would always be 'the next offer', but if all the other offers are within the same ballpark you're still be stuck in the same ballpark situation. It isn't the amount of offers that matters, it's what kind of offers are available.
Respond to this video...One could say the same thing about initiation of force, if someone holds a gun to my head, it may not be initiation of force because I could HYPOTHETICALLY just do a chuck Norris and kick the gun out of the persons hand. Dude, stop putting on this act like exploitation does not exist or is impossible. You can say it's a necessary side effect of a free society but I'm really tired ot pointing out the obvious
@helltrackrider And one more thing, none of your examples do not provide evidence that passive coercion isn't COERCIVE, just that it varies in forcefulness in changing contexts. But neither is a threat of direct coercive force either. I could theoretically kick the gun out of someones hand who threatening me. I could get all Rambo and kick big government out of my face. Does this mean it's less forceful? I don't think so. I think we need to be honest and have an genuine debate here.
The "wealthiest" would be limited to the amount of wealth that they could accumulate based on market characteristics - mainly competition and risk exposure.
Take a land the size of America for instance; once the idea for a new power source - say 90% effecient solar power - hits the market; everyone who wishes to risk their wealth or loans could profit from the technology - as no IP, copyrights or patents could exist...this limits one person from beoming super wealthy
By the way; why is "wealth" such an evil thing to you?
Who are the "wealthiest" in todays market?...those supported by the government subsidies, laws or actions...large farms, medicine, automotive, computer technology, cable companies, power companies, bankers...etc.
Their size of wealth is directly related to the amount of protection the government has given them and the amount of reduced competition the government has provided for them via regulation and law.
@helltrackrider Wealth is a symbol of power one might have over another person. It may not be forcefully coercive because the person with the money isn't holding a gun and forcing some exchange but it's still passively coercive. I am PRO-FREEDOM and so I want to see a world which minimizes both. Minimizing only direct coercive force sounds nice but if it opens doors to unlimited passive coercion I can not agree with it despite the appeal it has.
The reason i used the term excessive wealth as a means of power was due to the payment - direct or indirect - to people who will use force upon you or the building of prisons to house those who disagree with your philosophy of life...military and cops for example...
The "wealth" one acquires is not at all related to the "power" one siezes...
Direct coersion relies of violence (or the threat); Passive coersion relies on choice...which is voluntary.
@helltrackrider Passive coercion can be incredibly violent. The real difference is that the person with the upper hand isn't directly responsible for the other persons handicap. My philosophy is this: too great a disparity in power between individuals is CANCEROUS in society, especially when those who possess it did not directly earn it. I didn't say I disbelieve all forms of coercive force.
@helltrackrider I view things like this: WHO HAS THE POWER MAKES THE RULES. If a handful of people in a society have an absurd amount of power THEY will decide, not you and not me, what will occur in their society. Everything is corruptible. The point I am making is that if we can create a mechanism to MINIMIZE this, the problem will be minimized. And before I obsess over ethical theories I need to FRAME IT INSIDE THAT REALITY, not a fictional one.
@allanps1979 Forget that I am a statist and you are an anarchist and just try to focus on what I am saying. I see this problem: 1. rules will be determined by those in power. 2. if there is no limit on the amount of power a person can attain there is no way to limit what they will be able to do. 3. HOW is this anything except a promotion of the complete unknown? I would prefer a small amount of coercive force which is well justified to a magnified game of Russian roulette.
When is the last time you have actually taken time to refresh your brain on what Anarchy truely is?...It is essentially the REMOVAL of those "in Power"...leaving every man to be in control of his own life free of outside coersion - outside "influence" and "persuasion" would be common place as other individuals wish to exchange or interact with him; the voluntary choice not to do so still remains however.
@helltrackrider If market anarchy truly will remove those in power as you claim, how is it that there would still be hierarchies of power in market anarchy? This simply doesn't make ANY sense. If I have a zillion dollars and you have zero I will have FAR MORE power than you. What you are saying is simply FALSE. Just because the use of non-initiatory force is justifiable doesn't mean there would be no POWER to back it up. I'll make a video soon about some of this, I think.
@allanps1979 You need to really snap out of this idea that having more money does not symbolize having more power in society. Even within the eggshell-fragile framework of the non aggression principle in market anarchy, there would still be people with incredible power over others. How can you deny this? Why would you deny something so obvious?
I think you are mixing up "Power" and "Authority"...
Power is nothing if the person whom you are trying to assert power over simply says "Guess what...you have no jurisdiction here; bye bye"...
Authority, on the other hand, is based on the false notion of jurisdiction over another persons body - as the Governments claim to have...of course they dont come out and say "We own you" and of course they teach you that "America is free"...but we know better; hopefully you do.
@helltrackrider I think you are trying to separate authority from of power in a way which does not conform to reality. If someone has POWER they do not have to OBEY your rules. Is that CLEAR? I don't see why you keep trying to walk backwards here and prove that such a person who can accumulate virtually limitless power will have to obey anything. WHY would somebody with limitless power care about your philosophy of non initiation of force?
@helltrackrider I feel like the philosophy of market anarchy is strung together with a few cheap language tricks and the accident fallacy. If people can have limitless power you are only inviting limitless CORRUPTION. As I see it, market anarchy is just Russian roulette. Nobody debates it anymore because it's also impractical. You think a tiny amount of coercive force is so bad that it's worth gambling with limitless coercive force? nothing personal but f-that.
@allanps1979 We play Russian Roulette with 1 bullet in the chamber while you prefer to play it with a totally loaded gun. We are saying lets not give all the sociopaths in society all the guns without any work on their part to gather the resources besides a few speeches and political prowess.
Who has more resources at their disposal, the guys from Google or Barrack Obama? Who did more work proving themselves to be worthy of controlling those resources? This is a no-brainer my brother.
@lukebessey For such creative thinkers, you guys have forgotten that the same sort of creativity could be applied to diversify the power of a state. Why does it have to be a pyramid? Couldn't it be a flat form of governing like market anarchy? If market anarchists, as sole individuals, can uphold the non aggression principle involuntarily why can't a group of individuals uphold the illegitimacy of inheritance and unearned wealth rule? According to market anarchists this should be possible.
@allanps1979 Free thinkers and true value creators do not go into the state apparatus. We have too much stuff to accomplish instead of dedicating our lives to stealing and spending other peoples' money. There is a reason that good people do not choose to become politicians. How about this for a thought experiment - would you consider running for your local office? This is a serious question. One that you should really think about. If your answer is NO you should really think about why...cont
@lukebessey Like I said in my previous comment, wouldn't it be possible for a group of 'individuals' to uphold both the non aggression principle and agree to have a ceiling in terms of how much power one person can have over another. Maybe this would be 'social anarchy' or something. It certainly isn't market anarchy because market anarchy allows for the possibility of not having such a limitation. So you need to explain why we can allow limitless power and not expect corruption.
@lukebessey and it would take the control out of the hands of those sociopaths. At this point all you can argue is the ethics imo. Is it more ethical to allow individuals limitless and often unearned power which grows without end, or is it more ethical to control how much power individuals can attain based on a wise forecast that this will lead to disaster? Without the hierarchy of power it cuts off authority at it's roots imo.
@allanps1979 I AM only arguing ethics, which is really all that should matter. You are asking the wrong questions. Instead of "is it ethical to let someone accumulate wealth?" you should be asking "is it ethical to initiate violence against innocent people?". I am not sure why you think this is not the more important ethical question. You have never answered my question - where are you going to find these angels in society to not use their power to benefit the few at the expense at the many?
@lukebessey I do think it is ethical to initiate violence in an attempt to stop people from accumulating limitless power in relation to one another. I've already said this to you, and I provided my reasons. You and helltrackrider have not provided any reasons why it is more ethical to allow people to accumulate limitless power over one another. Anarchists? I would say you and helltrackrider are completely the opposite, you are hierarchists.
@lukebessey I also explained to you that if you believe a society of people collectively upholding the non aggression principle by force and without contract is possible and ethical privately, then why couldn't the same type of society uphold a ceiling to the amount of power a person can attain? Where will I find these angels? The same place you are finding your angels who uphold the non aggression principle voluntarily.
@lukebessey There would be nobody with any significant power in the society I am proposing so how would they use it to benefit the few? In your society there would be a green light to attain LIMITLESS power and the only thing preventing corruption would be a principle you say people should abide by. Well why should they care about your principle? At least with my idea nobody could attain vast quantities of power, with yours it's limitless.
@allanps1979 What is your idea? If it is to have a state then you are most certainly putting power into the hands of the few at the expense of the many. One of your comments was that a community could get together and agree to not let too much wealth accumulate to one person. This would be totally acceptable within the confines of market anarchy seeing as the people AGREED to the arrangement. If the government or laws or rules are voluntary then we have no problem. Does that make sense?
@lukebessey Luke, you do realize that people in market anarchy have not agreed to the non aggression principle. For me, having vast hierarchies of power in society is like this to you. I can't accept it. I do not think it would be ethical to allow people even the option of opting out. This, to me, is like pandoras box. Unlimited power leads to unlimited degrees of corruption. I am promoting anarchy, you are promoting hierarchy, imo.
@allanps1979 ...if the guys at Google want to build a nuclear missile how would they do it? There are hundreds of people who would have to approve this decision and they would be SPENDING THEIR OWN MONEY! This is the difference. When Obama starts a war he is not spending his own money. Wars would not happen without the state because people are way too greedy. It is only when people are not spending their own money that we see this kind of behavior.
@lukebessey I also think your critique is based on abstracts, not concretes. I've heard anarchists talk about privatizing nuclear weapons. To me this is the ultimate proof of a philosophy which is detached from concretes and no disrespect, but I think there is no footing in reality once we begin debating the ethics of privatizing nuclear and biological weapons.
1) In a voluntary world; your "power" ends at another persons property or free will...so, the "limitless power" is a ridiculous argument.
2) Russian roulette ... this and Anarchy have one thing in common; voluntary choice.
3) Impractical --- seriously?...It has seldomly been tried and never been 100% integrated into any society. You know what was practical, Slavery...that doesnt make it the right avenue to pursue.
Name one aspect of your life or action that you do during the day that isnt limited to or regulated by the Government...then, maybe you can open your eyes to the coersion all around you.
Drive your car to the mall?...Cars are regulated, roads are regulated, gas is taxed, gotta have your license, gotta be old enough (as if the moment you turn 16 you are capable)
Take a Shit?...TP is taxed, Toilet capacity is regulated, sewer services are monopolized
Spare me with the video; your logic is all across the board.
Power is irrelevant; power is everywhere - will always be everywhere should the entity opt to seek or use it.
What we can do as rational humans with a highly developed conscious (although i doubt humanity the more and more i watch news) is understand that the initiation of force against others is, for the most part, completely evil.
The use of "Power" cannot be shown or proven to be 99% evil.
@helltrackrider "power is irrelevant" really? wtf. You just said market anarchy is essentially the removal of those in power in response to the crystal clear points I just made. Now it's irrelevant?...now that I disproved that statement? And MY logic is all across the board? I am going to make a few more videos on this subject in the future, not specifically to you but on the subjects we are talking about.
Sorry...didnt mean to use the word "Power" in two different ways (English language is filled with this); "In power" being those of people / positions which claim Authority of you, me and Luke...all by pointing a gun at us of course.
In todays government controlled world, risk is absorbed by the Corporation itself and limited to the wealth of the "Corporation"...the shareholders who actually own the company only risk losing the value of the comnpany they own - they are not and cannot be held accountable for the actions of the company within the market...is this plausible? ... certainly not, it was designed to benefit one group of people over another - as governments typically do.
Lets also look at where "Power" is derived from...essentially, throughout history, excessive wealth or the "belief" in certain religions has led to power .... I'll steer clear of the religious motives as they are based on a fallacious entity / entities.
Wealth is money; Money today is what the government says is money...money in a free market will vary dependant upon certain needs and geographic regions...(cont)
@helltrackrider I am assuming we will be discussing a market anarchist society which has collectively agreed to use some particular standard of currency. I think the barter societies in market anarchy would be the most natural, peaceful and the least likely to be able to compete and would be destroyed when people start bending and breaking the non aggression principle here and there because they realize there is no higher authority to stop them.
Why can I not accept 5 bails of whiskey from you for 10 days of labor?...government says No.
You are right; no "higher authority" will stop them ... but, insurances and underwriters will assure that the damaged party is made full and guilty parties name would be put on blast by similar entities like angies list or rating systems such as ebay; warning people to not do business with this individual
@helltrackrider A group of independent people agreeing can be described as a collective. And I think you are really gambling a lot on 'online ratings lists', although i won't argue that such a list would provide some information about an entity, I doubt it could provide all information or that such a list is incorruptible. How do we even know if some market anarchy communities would have internet connections? Or even telephones? Or even electricity? Hmmm.
The online rating is an example of a free market force; not specifically saying that is what would be present...local and regional rating agencies would be prevalent; exchanging information amongst each other, in competition for the business of individuals and companies ... etc ... having numerous agencies would be more than enough "check" on corruption; im sure some corruption would still take place - but to what extent?...as large as the Mortgage Derivatives?...No.
@helltrackrider Let me get this straight...Corruption of the non aggression principle would be drastically reduced because each defense agency would have a rating system which is secured because there would be many rating systems? I don't think the AMOUNT of rating systems would leave the slightest dent in corruption. I, and a few other DRO's have massive weaponry and we are all kept in check by a few ratings systems? Sorry this sounds like a house made out of straw that would blow down fast
Cornering the "money" market in a free economy would essentially be impossible as needs will always vary ... by needs; aside from food and water which is essentially infinite...lets just look at oil / gold / silver as forms of money --- should one entity, theoretically of course, amass a huge market share of these...how can the market react?...simple, develop cheaper forms of energy and seek other forms of currency which would meet the demands of the market.
@helltrackrider What do you mean in specific when you say 'other forms of currency' which would meet the demands of the market? Are you saying there would multiple forms of currency floating around even in one specific community? If this community agreed to use these multiple forms as legal tender wouldn't the price of the bills just be relative to the amount printed? It would be irrelevant.
"other forms" excluding money out of authoritarian fiat.
Copper, Seeds, Cotton....etc; things that are limited in supply and are in demand out of necessity; not law. There is an abundance of things used for currency through the history ... none of which were ever "Debt" - until modern times.
Isnt it funny...so much more enlightened today and yet people still seek a higher authority to tell them their median of exchange...aliens would laugh.
@helltrackrider I am actually a promoter of living off land, barter, private property and minimal government involvement. I'm just not a market anarchist or a conservative or a socialist. I believe in self sufficiency and living a creative and fulfilled life and i think the government seriously blocks this, but I don't think full blown anarchy is the solution. i'm not sure exactly what is, but I see market anarchy as a bad form of ethics because it has a big time blind spot...just my opinion.
you are just going to get the old objection claiming that property is an initiation of force, because they assume for some reason that the whole planet is something like a heritage of all the living.
MirageScience 3 weeks ago
We'll have to carry this conversation on another time. I'll come back to look at your comments later. Thanx for the debate.
dick391 1 month ago
That cuts both ways obviously. No-one can predict the future 100%, including an Anarchist who believes his system would result in less violence should there be no state intervention.
But really, you've just made an argument that invalidates all scientific endeavor and critical thinking. If we can't argue about what will minimize co-ercion overall taking into account the future, what's the point of having this argument. Sounds like Keynesians in the long run we're all dead attitude.
dick391 1 month ago
I don't believe any such thing. I just know that I should NEVER initiate violence against an innocent person that I don't even know who poses no threat to me. Very simple. You have the wonderful task of explaining to me why certain people have this right and the rest of us don't. Universality is a crucial component to any legit theory. My theory has it. Yours doesn't.
I have no idea what an anarchist society will look like. I claim that I should not punch you for no reason. Pretty basic stuff.
lukebessey 1 month ago
@lukebessey Really dude. You think you should NEVER, ever initiate violence against an innocent person. So if I see an innocent person about to be hit by an oncoming bus, I shouldn't be allowed to shove him out of the way to prevent certain injury. What a strange moral claim.
Libertarianism says that people should be free to pursue their objectives, provided you do not prevent others from doing the same. Anarchism lacksthe second part of that statement, in effect making freedom meaningless.
dick391 1 month ago
@dick391 Digging deep aren't you? I will let you answer your own straw man. I like your definition of libertarianism. Unfortunately for you there is no room for "the state" in such a definition. Mow that over a few times.
lukebessey 1 month ago
@lukebessey Of course in an anarchist society, I would be free to punch you in the face. In a Libertarian society I wouldn't be allowed to. Violence will perpetuated against innocent people in either system. The question once again is how to minimize it. You're taking the fork in the road once again.
dick391 1 month ago
The statist's claim is pretty remarkable. You claim that a good state reflects the will of the people, and yet you claim that without violence the will of the people will change. With a state people will vote to do the right thing, but without the state these same people will resort to evil. Simply remarkable!
lukebessey 1 month ago
Either everyone is evil, in which case a state is meaningless; everyone is good, in which case we dont need a state; or some people are good and some evil, in which case we cannot afford to have a state because the evil will seek power over the good (see every example of statism ever!)
lukebessey 1 month ago
@dick391
You are free to do what people will allow.
Why do you assume people will allow you to be violent simply because there is no state?
blackacidlizzard 3 weeks ago
@blackacidlizzard "Allow" has nothing do to with it. A group possessing greater power than another has the "ability" to coerce, steal, and violate the will of that other group. Sadly, human nature is such that these people will always exist (absent extreme social-engineering).
Coercion takes place with gov't and in the absense of gov't. Although by no means perfect, I think democratic, constitutionally limited gov'ts achieve the fairest allocation of coercion overall.
dick391 2 weeks ago
@dick391
"A group possessing greater power than another has the "ability" to coerce, steal, and violate the will of that other group"
"in an anarchist society, I would be free to punch you in the face"
Why do you believe that you will have greater power than the person you are talking to in the absence of a state?
blackacidlizzard 2 weeks ago
I am not a minarchist. Markets can only produce goods and services more efficiently when 1. they are competitive and 2. when people are free to co-operate voluntarily. Markets depend on trust and the government has an important role in protecting them. The freest form of market is one where government enforces contracts, provides courts of law, etc. Anarchic markets are not as free. Socialist, fascist and communist markets are the least free. Libertarian are the most free.
dick391 1 month ago
You are a minarchist. You believe in a tiny but necessary state. Those are just assertions. You have no proof that "Markets depend on trust and the government has an important role in protecting them. The freest form of market is one where government enforces contracts, provides courts of law, etc. Anarchic markets are not as free." Anyone can just make claims. This is not impressive at all.
Explain to me why you should be able to initiate violence against me, even though I pose you no threat.
lukebessey 1 month ago
@lukebessey People obviously will not co-operate voluntarily with each other if they do not trust each other. When I give the storekeep $1 for a chocolate bar, I expect to get a chocolate bar. If I give him the $1 and he can keep it without providing a service, I have no incentive to transact with him. Absent basic property laws, there are no incentives to earn and hold wealth.
The argument for state to initiate "violence" against you is that in its absense you would experience more.
dick391 1 month ago
You wouldn't trust someone without the police? You obviously have no market experience. Most arbitration is handled privately because the state apparatus is too clunky and slow. The shopkeeper could take your dollar, and you could have a defense agency that protects your property. Lets say you can't afford a defense agency. You may only shop at places that you trust, and you only trust places that you or your family know well. Do you think you wouldnt have any friends without the state? Family?
lukebessey 1 month ago
@dick391 I have to go for a few hours. Send me a message if you don't mind. Youtube commenting is awful (which is why my new startup will destroy them!!!!) lol. Search "Streable" in youtube to see what I am talking about. Cheers!
lukebessey 1 month ago
If I'm going to spend anytime reading this supposedly magical book addressing all my "errors", give me at least two or three plausible defenses against the points I have made from the book. Otherwise its not worth wasting my time.
dick391 1 month ago
@dick391 You claim that the way to protect persons and property is to violate those persons and property (see statism). This is analogous to curing a headache with a guillotine. This violates the law of non-contradiction.
lukebessey 1 month ago
@lukebessey Again, there is no such thing as society free of theft. So statism violates this "law" no more than anarchism. You can only minimize the total amount of theft. I get the sense that too many anarchists live in a dream world.
A better analogy would be cutting of a leg to prevent the spread of disease resulting in death. You have two ugly choices. Pick one. Don't take the fork in the road as Yogi Berra says.
dick391 1 month ago
@dick391 You are right, but there can be a society that does not legislate theft, and make it relatively easy for criminals to steal (see statism). Please, take the time to read that book. I have a feeling you will benefit greatly from it. It is not magic, it just lays out the case for private defense in a way that crushes this justification for the state.
lukebessey 1 month ago
Just because one system isn't perfect, doesn't mean that the alternative is better. No system is perfect obviously, because humanity is perfect. Basic reasoning man. Either show that the alternative is better, or you have nothing.
dick391 1 month ago
@dick391 I am simply saying that the initiation of violence is wrong, and any society that operates around it is going to have problems. Societies that operate around voluntary interaction tend to do much better than those that operate around coercion. Violence against an innocent is wrong. Explain to me how it is not.
lukebessey 1 month ago
@lukebessey I agree. So the question is how to best arrive at a society of voluntary interaction. Anarchism does not result in the kind of society that you want. Libertarianism doesn't either, but its better. What you really are is a kid that wants to live in heaven. Sorry, nirvana is not for this world.
dick391 1 month ago
@dick391 "anarchism does not..." Textbook assertion. I am not a kid that wants to live in heaven. I am a person who realizes what the state is, and is not fooled by the propaganda that has been shoved down my throat since I was a child.
I was on your side of the argument a few years ago, and I actually apologized to those who were trying to help me see clearly. You seem to be on the right road, so keep searching. After you get your ass kicked by anarchists for a few months you will come around.
lukebessey 1 month ago
Well I'm still waiting for this supposed "ass-kicking" as I've debated many anarchists and never found any of the arguments compelling. I also have no illusions about the efficacy of the state (after all I'm a Libertarian). I take the Grover Norquist view of shrinking government down to the size I can flush down my toilet.
Again, no-one has made a convincing argument to me that Anarchism would lead to less co-ercion (overall) then Libertarianism. That's the real question here.
dick391 1 month ago
@dick391 After all you are a minarchist. Big difference. If you understand markets at all you will know how they can produce goods and services at a lower cost and a higher quality than the state. The fact that you refuse to apply these basic principles to all goods and services will keep you up at night, until you eventually collapse under the weight of your own contradictions. It happens to the best of us buddy. Sleep on it, and if you still have issues send me a message tomorrow. Cheers!
lukebessey 1 month ago
Sorry, made a couple of spelling errors there. That should read gang of "BIGGER" not the other word I used (crap).
The second comment should read "no such thing as absense of theft of property".
dick391 1 month ago
The irony of course is that your description of anarchy in the intro is the exact opposite of its practice. In anarchy, one group of humans is free to "own" another group of humans without legal repercussion from the state. A peaceful society is not possible without the ability of the state to co-erce. If someone is free to kill or steal from me, is that peace?
Anarchy is rife with basic logical flaws. I'm not an anarchist, precisely because peace and voluntary co-operation is my end goal.
dick391 1 month ago
@dick391 You would also be free to protect yourself. What amazes me is that you live in this world and still make these claims. Are you awake? Have you looked at the last 2000 years of human history?
States are by far the most dangerous thing when it comes to human life and liberty. The irony lies in you claiming that anarchy is riddled with logical flaws when statism by definition violates the law of non-contradiction. "We are going to protect your property by stealing half of your property."
lukebessey 1 month ago
@lukebessey Again, I'm Libertarian precisely because I have looked at the last 2000 years of history. You've just made the basic logical error of grouping all forms of statism together. It is only the last few hundred years, with relatively free markets, rule of law, and democracy that we have advanced as much as we have.
There is no logical flaw there because there is such thing as absense of theft of property. That's human nature. The question is how to minimize it obviously.
dick391 1 month ago
@dick391 There are plenty of examples of private law that you can look at. Iceland survived for hundreds of years with a private law system. Early Pennsylvania is another example of a stateless society that did quite well.
I am sorry, but you will never be able to convince me that we need to steal from innocent people in order to protect them. It is such a ridiculous idea that it literally takes years of brainwash for people to ever believe. Good luck to you on your journey.
lukebessey 1 month ago
@lukebessey I find neither of those examples (Iceland, Pennsylvania) particularly compelling. The mere fact that they survived isn't compelling evidence. The real question is counterfactual: would either society have been better off under a Libertarian system then an Anarchist one. It doesn't follow that replacing the present system with an Anarchist one would result in less violence, etc.
dick391 1 month ago
@dick391 All claims made by statists are counterfactual. Again, libertarianism is the basis for anarchism (non-agression axiom). Minarchism is what you are defending. I am a true libertarian. I don't think we should be 95% free, I think we should be 100% free. This does not mean that we are free to kill others, because those others are free to protect themselves. Basic game theory will lead you to the conclusion of a relatively peaceful society in the absence of a state.
lukebessey 1 month ago
@lukebessey There is no such thing as 100% freedom, obviously. Under an anarchist system you are not 100% free. Others can kill you, steal from you, etc. Under a Libertarian system you are not 100% free either. The question is which one maximizes freedom.
dick391 1 month ago
The question is not "which system maximizes freedom?" because this questions assumes that we can predict the future, which we can't. The question is "what should our actions be right now?" and the answer is we should not initiate violence against innocent people because we THINK that the world will be better off. We cannot predict the future. We can only control our bodies in this moment. Don't aggress against me because you THINK your way is right. Accord me the same respect that I accord you.
lukebessey 1 month ago
Without state co-ercion, the ideals of voluntarysm (voluntary co-operation) are unrealizable. Put another way, you are not free to co-operate in a voluntary manner if another individual can kill you, steal from you etc without legal repercussions
If your goal truly is a society based on voluntary cooperation, you have two options: 1 Libertarianism (government only big enough to prevent others from infringing) or 2 Social engineering Hilter-style to remove ppl that don't co-operate voluntarily
dick391 1 month ago
@dick391 I disagree, Dick. Voluntaryists dont claim that there will be no crime without a state, we only demand that we are free to choose how we protect ourselves. People will purchase defense services in a free society.
The rational conclusion of Libertarian philosophy is voluntaryism.
Sorry, but your arguments are old and boring. There are plenty of counter arguments to your claims, but I just don't have the time to go over them. Read Hoppe's Private Production of Defense for starters.
lukebessey 1 month ago
@lukebessey
Are you serious dude? How free is an individual to protect himself if he cannot afford the necessary defensive services. If a gang of nigger more powerful thugs are "free" to steal from you, how free are you to defend yourself. You strip "freedom" of all meaning.
If you have counter-arguments, feel free to actually make them. Sorry, the only stale and boring arguments made are the ones that you have presented. If you can't make a rational defense, don't waste my time thanx.
dick391 1 month ago
@dick391 You approached me, and I gave you a short book that you can find for free online. It is under 50 pages and addresses all of your mistakes.
So you are saying that right now we have terminal cancer that will kill us. But you would hate to get rid of the tumor because another one MIGHT come back. Awesome.
The poor in this country are not protected by the state at all. They are terrified of the police. You obviously don't get out much.
lukebessey 1 month ago
persuasion vs coercion but great video nonetheless.
CloverfieldMonster95 3 months ago
Well said! And makes me wonder what your reaction would be to the piece linked below, which in some ways 'broadens' the central point you're making:
What He Didn't See (ergovillage-dot-com/media/what-he-didnt-see)
russnm 7 months ago
@russnm I enjoyed that, thanks!
lukebessey 7 months ago
is not property a concept, i.e. a legal right? When you're buying a house, the house is not the property, you're actually acquiring the title which is proof of property, i.e. you have property in something (e.g. the house). In order for property to exist you need an enforcer to enforce the legal right,.... it could be a government or something/someone else. I think the common misconception is to mistake property for rightful possession.
bergweg 8 months ago
@bergweg We do not have any rights (rights are a manmade construct). But we can still claim that a theory is invalid because it lacks universality. This is true for ethical theories. If I say that one group of men will be the authority and that another group must submit to this authority my theory is obviously invalid due to the fact that it is not universal. A theory involving property rights and the non-agression principle, however, can be universal. I am not sure if I answered you:)
lukebessey 8 months ago
wow, one minute in and you've demonstrated you don't understand a/s.
strawprophet 8 months ago
@strawprophet what is it that I don't understand? Be more constructive with your feedback :)
lukebessey 8 months ago
@lukebessey sure, i'll try to make a response when i get time. sorry my initial comment was short and unhelpful. :)
strawprophet 8 months ago
But what about the people with no property? Violence exists, babies die during birth sometimes. Mother tiger must eat, mother ah... racoon to feed baby tigers and all baby racoons die of hunger. My question is, you say about how the violence of forcing people to do things, so you don't see as violence the dissonances of power and wealth and influence no matter how far apart they get? Continue...
tironi333 8 months ago
@tironi333 ... Like, what guarantees, if not the State in a market system, that an employer will not dispose of a female employee because she got pregnant? He must "voluntarily" support her? All the people should "voluntarily" support her if it is for her and the baby not to wither and die? Is it really "violence" to rule out that everyone must be attended on basic human needs be it you don't give a fuck about them or be it not?
tironi333 8 months ago
@tironi333 So you think that the state actually protects the mother who has gotten pregnant? I would encourage you to look at the empirical evidence of what the state is and how the state handles situations.
Violence is a terrible way to handle problems. If you think that the best way to handle problems such as poverty and other social dilemmas is to point guns at people I fear that you may not be seeing clearly. There are literally millions of ways to deal with these situations peacefully.
lukebessey 8 months ago
@lukebessey like what?
tironi333 8 months ago
@tironi333 I am not sure if I understand your question. Do you want me to list peaceful ways to take care of poverty? Charity, getting rid of minimum wage laws...etc
Right now it costs several thousand dollars to start a business selling cookies on the side of the road because of government regulations. I believe that getting rid of the state would improve the current conditions in regards to poverty. I hope I answered your question:)
lukebessey 8 months ago
property, without a legal system is only what you can keep. A broad legal system allows us to disambiguate property titles. Without this, property only exists insofar as you can keep a hold of it. if I leave a home in a lawless place and come back to find people living there, I may consider it 'my house' but if they can prevent me from reacquiring it, it's no longer mine. I feel like libertarians and anarchists have an idealistic notion of property which has no ground in reality.
allanps1979 10 months ago
@allanps1979 Anarchy does not mean without rules, it means without rulers. Again, the key is voluntary vs. coercive. The state is illegitimate because it is a coercive institution. If you were buying a home you would probably belong to a homeowners association that "governed" your neighborhood. The difference is you entered into the contract voluntarily. Voluntaryists are not opposed to governance, we are opposed to the state. Cheers!
lukebessey 10 months ago
@lukebessey nobody has signed an agreement not to be coercive to you either, don't forget that.
allanps1979 10 months ago
@allanps1979 That is true. What's your point? Isn't it clear that I have the best claim over my body? And shouldn't I be free to protect myself?
People think that anarchists are unaware or naive about the evil nature of some humans. I am an anarchist precisely because I am aware of how evil people can be. I just believe that giving all the guns to the sociopaths is a bad way to solve social problems.
lukebessey 10 months ago
@lukebessey My point is that your claim that others should not use coercive force against you is illegitimate because they did not sign a contractual agreement with you not to use coercive force. You may not like what they are doing but it is not illegitimate or against any agreement. If you brush that aside don't be surprised when statists are brushing your argument aside that you didn't get into a contractual agreement with the state about this and that, and therefore it's illegitimate.
allanps1979 10 months ago
@lukebessey statists if we set aside the whole lack of contractual agreement discontent with the state, you have plain moral arguments. people can protect themselves to the extent in which they fail to be able to do so, and many are unable to do so whether they are free or not. if i truly thought it was moral that everyone should be protected i think the best way to do that would be to have everyone collectively protect one another in an efficient way.
allanps1979 10 months ago
@allanps1979 I couldn't agree with you more. But to jump from there to "the best way to protect persons and property is by stealing half of the property of said persons" is illogical.
I am not against collectivism as long as its voluntary. It is true that some people would not be able to protect themselves in a stateless society. Some people are not able to kill and filet their own cows but that does not mean that they don't get steak. Markets can provide defense services. Wouldn't you agree?
lukebessey 10 months ago
@lukebessey sometimes it seems like what you are saying is that voluntary contractual agreements between two people determine the moral justification of a behavior limitation at the threat of force, yet other times you seem to be saying there are inherent body-claims which determine the moral justification of a behavior limit at the threat of force, prior to a contractual agreement. my problem is that you seem to be going back and forth. which one is it?
allanps1979 10 months ago
@allanps1979 I am not sure if I understand what you mean. Forgive me if this response is not relevant. If I enter into a contract with you and the contract states that you will give me your shoes and I will give you a painting, and you fullfil your obligation and I do not, then your use of force is not the initiation of force, rather it is self defense, because I have initiated force against you.
My claim is pretty simple. The initiation of force is immoral.
Did I even come close? :)
lukebessey 10 months ago
@lukebessey i am interpreting what you are saying as: 1. breaking contractual agreements is unethical and 2. initiating force, even without a contractual agreement not to do this, is unethical due to a 'body claim'. My problem is that these issues OVERLAP, my question to you is 'which one over rules the other'? If a contractual agreement I made violates my personal 'body claim' is the contract invalid or is the body claim invalid. I'm pretty sure what I'm saying is clear, please respond.thx
allanps1979 10 months ago
@allanps1979 i guess my main issue is this: if you expect people to not initiate coercive force against you even though they have NOT SIGNED AN AGREEMENT to curb coercive force against you why do market anarchists get upset when other people expect them to do things even though they have not signed an agreement? just something to think about...Market anarchists DO expect behavior of others who have NOT signed an agreement and yet complain when the tables are turned on them.
allanps1979 10 months ago
@allanps1979 I think I get what you are saying yet I would love to hear what you think about it. Please submit a video explaining your philosophy and how you would view this issue. Here is my stab at it.
For a contract to exist there does not have to be a signed piece of paper. There are millions of implicit contracts that are entered into everyday. For instance, if I invite you into my house there is an implicit contract that I won't kill you. You do not need to sign any paper...continued
lukebessey 10 months ago
@lukebessey It seems to me that if you are going to dress the non aggression principle up as an 'implicit contract' a statist can do the same thing and say their rules of conduct that you did not sign an agreement to were implicit contracts all along and therefore justified. For instance, many socialists think it is an implicit contract between human beings to provide health care to one another while market anarchists feel only the non aggression principle is implicit. It's cherry picking.
allanps1979 10 months ago
@allanps1979 "For instance, many socialists think it is an implicit contract between human beings to provide health care.." Verbal or written or otherwise expressed contracts trump any non verbal, or non written contracts. It may be the case that a socialist thinks that I have agreed to give him money, which is absurd and I would argue that no socialists actually thinks this, but the second he comes to get it and I express that I do not want to give him money should he be able to take it?
lukebessey 10 months ago
@allanps1979 My claim is not that others should not use coercive force against me (although I do believe that). My claim is there should not exist an institution that has given itself the legal right to initiate force against me. All I ask is that I am allowed to protect myself from agressors, and with the state it is clear that I am not. My philosophy allows for the existence of people who disagree with me as long as they keep their hands off of me....continued
lukebessey 10 months ago
@lukebessey you say you don't have a problem with individuals using coercive force against you and yet you do. I don't think what you are saying and what you really believe are in alignment. I also don't see why every possible type of state will not allow you to protect yourself from aggressors. There are many states I could imagine which would surely allow you to defend yourself. I am a strong advocate of gun ownership, so I know where you are coming from there.
allanps1979 10 months ago
@allanps1979 I should have been more clear. When I said "...that others should not use..." I was trying to say that I am not expecting private individuals to never initiate violence against me, but I will surely use self defense in those situations. Youtube's ridiculous restricted comment system gets me into trouble sometimes:) ....cont
lukebessey 10 months ago
@allanps1979 I would love to continue this discussion but I find youtube terribly annoying. If you would like send me a personal message or make a video. I would prefer the video because then the conversation can benefit others.
Forgive me if I am making a mistake, but it seems like you do believe the state is legitimate. I would like to know your justification for this in your message (or video). Cheers!
lukebessey 10 months ago
@allanps1979 To answer your main issue. Market anarchists do not demand that people have positive obligations (pay for war, pay for welfare, pay for anything), while statists do make these demands. Statists demand that innocent people pay for things that they don't want. All a market anarchist is saying is "do not make me do anything and I will not make you do anything". This is clearly different. A statists is forcing people to act, while an anarchist is not. Did this make sense?
lukebessey 10 months ago
@lukebessey it is different, I agree, but it is not positive or negative, it's in the various gradations of freedom the obligation prevents. Those pos/neg distinctions are language issues not physical ones. I could, for instance phrase any action in a positive or negative way. Example: (neg. obligation) You must refrain from doing anything except provide me with health insurance now. Or better yet (pos. obligation) you absolutely MUST do something other than initiate force against me.
allanps1979 10 months ago
@allanps1979 You are stretching for this one :) These are completely different and I think you know that. "You must refrain from doing anything except provide me with health insurance now"? "You absolutely MUST do something other than initiate force against me."
In the first example you still have a positive obligation. The second example you are not asserting a particular positive obligation at all. "You must pay for this war" is a better example. You see the difference, right?
lukebessey 10 months ago
@lukebessey The words 'negative' and 'positive' are language based 'you must' is positive, 'you can't' is negative. I never said there wasn't a distinction to be made, just that positive and negative is erroneous. I think you are saying the first is positive because you are defining 'positive' as that which limits your freedom in a maximal or near maximal way whereas negative is the minimal limitation. I'm not denying there is a difference I am just saying pos/neg is not accurate.
allanps1979 10 months ago
@allanps1979 I do not follow. The state coerces you into a positive obligation. I am not talking about language, I am talking about actions. As a market anarchist I would not coerce you into a positive obligation. Saying that "you must do anything besides hurt me" is not coercing someone into a positive obligation. "You must pay for this war" is.
lukebessey 10 months ago
@lukebessey My point is this simple: The demarcation between where negative ends and positive begins is ambiguous, defined by you virtually as 'you know...' well, it's still basically ambiguous. This is a key distinction to be made in my opinion and keeping it all hazy leaves room for linguistics sleight of hand. I agree youtube comments is a bad platform. Maybe I'll make a video if I can get around to it.
allanps1979 10 months ago
@allanps1979 I still disagree. It is not a continuum problem (10 ft above ground opposed to 40 ft). There is a fundamental, black and white difference between the two types of interactions. Forced positive obligations make someone do something that they wouldn't otherwise do, while no forced positive obligations do not force people to do something that they wouldn't otherwise do. I am not sure why this is not clear, but I look forward to your video :) Thanks!
lukebessey 10 months ago
@lukebessey Positive obligations are obligations where an entity has only has one or few options available under the obligation, negative obligations allow for a wide range of possible options with the exclusion of one or a few. There are gradations in between and no specific line which separates the two. You don't have to believe me, but I think I have provided logical examples, and that I have explained myself clearly and efficiently enough that I am satisfied. Thanks.
allanps1979 10 months ago
@allanps1979 I know what they are. Still not sure what you are advocating for or why you do not agree with market anarchy. thanks for your time.
lukebessey 10 months ago
@lukebessey i'm advocating human rights. you think human rights only extend to the non aggression principle, I think they extend further. The reason I don't agree with market anarchy is because most of the arguments for it are irrational and composed of language trickery and logical fallacies, such as the accident fallacy among others. no problem. i enjoy exposing bs. lol
allanps1979 10 months ago
@allanps1979 Care to elaborate? video? What arguments are irrational? Could you point out the logical fallacies in my argument?
I believe that it is clear that a human is the sole owner of his body and no other man has a legitimate claim over it. Property rights are just a way to talk about who has a more legitimate claim over something. I would love to hear more about the bs that you have exposed. It may be that I am missing the point, or it may be that your point is not worth catching:)
lukebessey 10 months ago
@lukebessey market anarchy is entirely based on an ACCIDENT FALLACY. And the concept of 'ownership' without even an agreement between people, let alone a legal body, is as imaginary as theism. And a 'belief' in a right is nothing but an idea, how can market anarchists know that everyone will agree to believe in the same rights if they wont even create a minarchy state to accomplish this? And fictitious sciences, like positive and negative action simply DO NOT EXIST irl.
allanps1979 10 months ago
@allanps1979 Every system of social arrangement believes in "ownership", even the socialists do. Does minarchy, or whatever you believe in, not?
How does the creation of a state help in disagreements? It seems to me that even with the state the guy who has more resources still wins the day (even more so).
So there is no observable difference between me not making you do something using force and me making you do something using force?
lukebessey 10 months ago
@lukebessey 'ownership' is not a belief it's a description of an agreement by the use of sufficient force. A nightwatchman state definitely defends self ownership. And as per your question...What state? What disagreement? Like I said already twice, there is a difference, it just has nothing to do with positive and negative.
allanps1979 10 months ago
@allanps1979 okay, every situation of social arrangement aims to use sufficient force to keep stuff. I feel like you are not really wanting to share knowledge or seek truth. It seems that you are more interested in wasting time. Do we really need to bicker about semantics when it is clear as to what I mean?
Please, show some respect and get to the point. I watched several videos of your friend and I must say that if you are anything like that, this discussion is over. Not impressed at all.
lukebessey 10 months ago
@lukebessey I think you are upset because I'm not buying it and I have a developed argument. If you don't like inmendham that's fine. But i think I've been pretty respectful and have provided nothing but concrete counter arguments. If you don't want to continue responding that's fine. I'm going to continue responding with counter arguments until you convince me I am wrong. So far it's not convincing. What will prevent the development of limitless power accumulation in market anarchism?
allanps1979 10 months ago
@lukebessey And i do not believe the philosophy is that the human is the sole owner of the body. If it were, that would justify the enforcement of the non aggression principle via a night watchman state. Yet no. simply because this would require one single TAX or at least an agreement for people to uphold these principles via workshare...Anarchists therefore believe it should be OPTIONAL for people to OPT OUT of the non aggression principle, and the whole sole-ownership stuff.
allanps1979 10 months ago
@allanps1979 In the real world whatever entity possesses the most power sets whatever rules they may or may not enforce. Market anarchy does nothing to prevent the consolidation of power and completely ignores the said principle as if it were irrelevant. I find that extraordinary. Market anarchists seem to want to open Pandora's box where any random entity could control limitless power left unchecked, and they assume everyone will follow anarchist rules. It's appallingly unconvincing.
allanps1979 10 months ago
@allanps1979 I have no idea where to start. You make no convincing argument as to why a state is preferable. You obviously have a lot to say, so why don't you make a video explaining your beliefs?
"Anarchists...believe you should be able to OPT out..." I have no clue as to what you are talking about. Please, help me understand.
You seem to be advocating for minarchy. Is this correct?
lukebessey 10 months ago
@lukebessey Opt out of paying for taxes in order to create a night watchman state upholding the sufficent defense of the non aggression principle for everyone, as opposed to anarchy, where obviously the wealthier you are the more elite your self defense would be. Try looking this up also: watch?v=XSZDQBhUBBg
allanps1979 10 months ago
@allanps1979 not impressed. If this is the intellectual giant you subscribe to then I think I am wasting my time. Thanks for your opinions but I remain unconvinced by your arguments. Molyneux has addressed everything this guy is talking about. I am definitely open to changing my beliefs but I need to hear legitimate arguments first. "I think things will be worse" is not a legitimate argument to justify forcing me to do anything...continued
lukebessey 10 months ago
@allanps1979 not impressed. If this is the intellectual giant you subscribe to then I think I am wasting my time. Thanks for your opinions but I remain unconvinced by your arguments. Molyneux has addressed everything this guy is talking about. I am definitely open to changing my beliefs but I need to hear legitimate arguments first. "I think things will be worse" is not a legitimate argument to justify forcing me to do anything...continued
lukebessey 10 months ago
@allanps1979 not impressed. If this is the intellectual giant you subscribe to then I think I am wasting my time. Thanks for your opinions but I remain unconvinced by your arguments. Molyneux has addressed everything this guy is talking about. I am definitely open to changing my beliefs but I need to hear legitimate arguments first. "I think things will be worse" is not a legitimate argument to justify forcing me to do anything...continued
lukebessey 10 months ago
@lukebessey I just dropped that video as a side thing. My FUNDAMENTAL point remains unaddressed. People with power make up the rules. Market anarchy would make the accumulation of power virtually LIMITLESS, especially due to the problem of legacy wealth. As far as I see it, this both unethical and impractical. The rules of market anarchy themselves could not endure the freedoms they would allow. Anyway, if you've had enough fine, I can keep going.
allanps1979 10 months ago
@allanps1979 I believe you lack a true understanding of the market. I will make a video explaining this. To summarize - this idea that wealth accumulates in a free market is unfounded in reality. It is true that wealth accumulates in a situation like we have today - state controlled capitalism. If your argument is "in market anarchy one firm will get so large and they will become the new state" , this is like saying "I don't want to rid my body of cancer because a new cancer MIGHT come back"
lukebessey 10 months ago
@lukebessey So far you haven't explained what would prevent the LIMITLESS accumulation of power in market anarchy.
allanps1979 10 months ago
@allanps1979 I am not sure that I need to provide any explanation. My philosophy does not impose my will onto you, while your philosophy does. It seems to me that you are the one with the explaining to do. Again, "I think things will get really bad" is not a sufficient reason to force me to do something that I don't want to do.
lukebessey 10 months ago
@lukebessey Well, when I asked what would prevent the limitless accumulation of power in market anarchy your response was that I lacked a true understanding of the market. Now I ask again and you say you aren't sure if you need to provide an explanation. This is an honest and earnest question. What is it that I am not seeing about the pure free market which would slow down or limit the accumulation of power?
allanps1979 10 months ago
@allanps1979 I will record a video soon. I have personally started several businesses and as an entrepreneur I have experienced this phenomena first hand. I was not endowed with copious amounts of wealth yet I was able to penetrate a market ruled by a millionaire. I did this with an initial investment of $3,000 while my competitor was spending thousands upon thousands on marketing alone. I am currently very busy with my business but I will try to record the video tonight. Cheers!
lukebessey 10 months ago
@lukebessey the fact that you have had success in your personal life still does not answer my question or provide any information on what would prevent limitless power accumulation in market anarchy. i recently inherited a $400,000 apartment and i did not work for it. the title is mine. i can rent it and receive a large portion of the income of a random persons labor until I die...I did nothing to earn this.
allanps1979 10 months ago
@allanps1979 Did your family do something to earn this?
lukebessey 10 months ago
@lukebessey that doesn't change the fact that I am able to absorb the product of another persons labor because I have a title even though I, as an INDIVIDUAL distinct from my family, did NO LABOR whatsoever to earn it. And I'd like to remind you that you still have not responded to my question of what would prevent limitless power accumulation in market anarchy.
allanps1979 10 months ago
@allanps1979 So what if you did not labor personally? This relationship is voluntary, and any voluntary relationship is mutually beneficial.
I plan on making a video explaining markets and addressing your concerns, I have just been swamped lately.
For the meantime, what prevents limitless power accumulation now?
lukebessey 10 months ago
@allanps1979
Allan...Competition and Exposureto risk will limit cornerings of the market.
Competition in that EVERYONE is able to provide / produce goods and services that another provides / produces ... Patents, IP protection, Copyrights and all are protections from competition by the government - these would not exist in a true free market.
Exposure to risk is crucial in that EVERYONE who is a "owner" of a company is exposed to risk...(cont)
helltrackrider 9 months ago
@helltrackrider I'm not talking about 'cornering of the market', but in any case, I don't agree with what you are saying nonetheless. I'm not going to get into why because it would be a red herring. My point was that generally speaking, the wealthy would continue to become wealthier while the poorer would continue to become poorer. So far the only thing which you or Luke has mentioned to prevent this is that the poorer would get crafty and compete better. I'm not buying this.
allanps1979 9 months ago
@allanps1979
The wealthy would get "wealthier" by increasing the "wealth" of the poor...it is not a zero sum market; wealth is produced - not only by the "wealthy" ... but, by the poor who have worked to increase their wealth to invest into production / reasearch / design / etc...or by the banks that issue loans for business start-ups to people who seek to increase their wealth.
In every exchange; both parties benefit - or else the exchange would not occur.
helltrackrider 9 months ago
@helltrackrider RELATIVELY wealthier helltrackrider. If I am dying of thirst and someone offers to give me a glass of water for $10,000, we both gain value but only relative to the situation. If the two had been on equal footing, the exchange would not have taken place. These are exchanges which take advantage of unequal power, aka exploitation. This is the REAL reason governmental coercive force is considered unethical by market anarchists but i don't think they want to fess up to that.
allanps1979 9 months ago
@allanps1979
You used a great word..."offers"
If someone offers you water for $10,000 ... tell them to piss off and take the next offer; or dig a deep hole - gather water - boil it / strain it and drink it.
Water is everwhere ... the necessities of life are present on Earth without seeking another persons service; if they were not - humanity wouldnt exist...It has just became more convenient to pay another man to provide for the necessities.
helltrackrider 9 months ago
@helltrackrider My point was to illustrate what passive coercion is and to establish that it EXISTS. So far your rebuttal does nothing to discredit that. I think what you are saying is that passive coercion, or exploitation, would not occur because there would always be 'the next offer', but if all the other offers are within the same ballpark you're still be stuck in the same ballpark situation. It isn't the amount of offers that matters, it's what kind of offers are available.
allanps1979 9 months ago
@allanps1979
And if all the offers are relatively the same; that is the market price...
Give it up...you lose.
helltrackrider 9 months ago
Respond to this video...One could say the same thing about initiation of force, if someone holds a gun to my head, it may not be initiation of force because I could HYPOTHETICALLY just do a chuck Norris and kick the gun out of the persons hand. Dude, stop putting on this act like exploitation does not exist or is impossible. You can say it's a necessary side effect of a free society but I'm really tired ot pointing out the obvious
allanps1979 9 months ago
@helltrackrider And one more thing, none of your examples do not provide evidence that passive coercion isn't COERCIVE, just that it varies in forcefulness in changing contexts. But neither is a threat of direct coercive force either. I could theoretically kick the gun out of someones hand who threatening me. I could get all Rambo and kick big government out of my face. Does this mean it's less forceful? I don't think so. I think we need to be honest and have an genuine debate here.
allanps1979 9 months ago
@allanps1979
Government = Coersion; Force
Free Market = Persuasion; Choice
Big difference.
helltrackrider 9 months ago
@allanps1979
The "wealthiest" would be limited to the amount of wealth that they could accumulate based on market characteristics - mainly competition and risk exposure.
Take a land the size of America for instance; once the idea for a new power source - say 90% effecient solar power - hits the market; everyone who wishes to risk their wealth or loans could profit from the technology - as no IP, copyrights or patents could exist...this limits one person from beoming super wealthy
helltrackrider 9 months ago
@allanps1979
By the way; why is "wealth" such an evil thing to you?
Who are the "wealthiest" in todays market?...those supported by the government subsidies, laws or actions...large farms, medicine, automotive, computer technology, cable companies, power companies, bankers...etc.
Their size of wealth is directly related to the amount of protection the government has given them and the amount of reduced competition the government has provided for them via regulation and law.
helltrackrider 9 months ago
@helltrackrider Wealth is a symbol of power one might have over another person. It may not be forcefully coercive because the person with the money isn't holding a gun and forcing some exchange but it's still passively coercive. I am PRO-FREEDOM and so I want to see a world which minimizes both. Minimizing only direct coercive force sounds nice but if it opens doors to unlimited passive coercion I can not agree with it despite the appeal it has.
allanps1979 9 months ago
@allanps1979
The reason i used the term excessive wealth as a means of power was due to the payment - direct or indirect - to people who will use force upon you or the building of prisons to house those who disagree with your philosophy of life...military and cops for example...
The "wealth" one acquires is not at all related to the "power" one siezes...
Direct coersion relies of violence (or the threat); Passive coersion relies on choice...which is voluntary.
helltrackrider 9 months ago
@helltrackrider Passive coercion can be incredibly violent. The real difference is that the person with the upper hand isn't directly responsible for the other persons handicap. My philosophy is this: too great a disparity in power between individuals is CANCEROUS in society, especially when those who possess it did not directly earn it. I didn't say I disbelieve all forms of coercive force.
allanps1979 9 months ago
@helltrackrider I view things like this: WHO HAS THE POWER MAKES THE RULES. If a handful of people in a society have an absurd amount of power THEY will decide, not you and not me, what will occur in their society. Everything is corruptible. The point I am making is that if we can create a mechanism to MINIMIZE this, the problem will be minimized. And before I obsess over ethical theories I need to FRAME IT INSIDE THAT REALITY, not a fictional one.
allanps1979 9 months ago
@allanps1979 Forget that I am a statist and you are an anarchist and just try to focus on what I am saying. I see this problem: 1. rules will be determined by those in power. 2. if there is no limit on the amount of power a person can attain there is no way to limit what they will be able to do. 3. HOW is this anything except a promotion of the complete unknown? I would prefer a small amount of coercive force which is well justified to a magnified game of Russian roulette.
allanps1979 9 months ago
@allanps1979
You keep going back to those "in Power"...
When is the last time you have actually taken time to refresh your brain on what Anarchy truely is?...It is essentially the REMOVAL of those "in Power"...leaving every man to be in control of his own life free of outside coersion - outside "influence" and "persuasion" would be common place as other individuals wish to exchange or interact with him; the voluntary choice not to do so still remains however.
helltrackrider 9 months ago
@helltrackrider If market anarchy truly will remove those in power as you claim, how is it that there would still be hierarchies of power in market anarchy? This simply doesn't make ANY sense. If I have a zillion dollars and you have zero I will have FAR MORE power than you. What you are saying is simply FALSE. Just because the use of non-initiatory force is justifiable doesn't mean there would be no POWER to back it up. I'll make a video soon about some of this, I think.
allanps1979 9 months ago
@allanps1979 You need to really snap out of this idea that having more money does not symbolize having more power in society. Even within the eggshell-fragile framework of the non aggression principle in market anarchy, there would still be people with incredible power over others. How can you deny this? Why would you deny something so obvious?
allanps1979 9 months ago
@allanps1979
I think you are mixing up "Power" and "Authority"...
Power is nothing if the person whom you are trying to assert power over simply says "Guess what...you have no jurisdiction here; bye bye"...
Authority, on the other hand, is based on the false notion of jurisdiction over another persons body - as the Governments claim to have...of course they dont come out and say "We own you" and of course they teach you that "America is free"...but we know better; hopefully you do.
helltrackrider 9 months ago
@helltrackrider I think you are trying to separate authority from of power in a way which does not conform to reality. If someone has POWER they do not have to OBEY your rules. Is that CLEAR? I don't see why you keep trying to walk backwards here and prove that such a person who can accumulate virtually limitless power will have to obey anything. WHY would somebody with limitless power care about your philosophy of non initiation of force?
allanps1979 9 months ago
@helltrackrider I feel like the philosophy of market anarchy is strung together with a few cheap language tricks and the accident fallacy. If people can have limitless power you are only inviting limitless CORRUPTION. As I see it, market anarchy is just Russian roulette. Nobody debates it anymore because it's also impractical. You think a tiny amount of coercive force is so bad that it's worth gambling with limitless coercive force? nothing personal but f-that.
allanps1979 9 months ago
@allanps1979 We play Russian Roulette with 1 bullet in the chamber while you prefer to play it with a totally loaded gun. We are saying lets not give all the sociopaths in society all the guns without any work on their part to gather the resources besides a few speeches and political prowess.
Who has more resources at their disposal, the guys from Google or Barrack Obama? Who did more work proving themselves to be worthy of controlling those resources? This is a no-brainer my brother.
lukebessey 9 months ago
@lukebessey For such creative thinkers, you guys have forgotten that the same sort of creativity could be applied to diversify the power of a state. Why does it have to be a pyramid? Couldn't it be a flat form of governing like market anarchy? If market anarchists, as sole individuals, can uphold the non aggression principle involuntarily why can't a group of individuals uphold the illegitimacy of inheritance and unearned wealth rule? According to market anarchists this should be possible.
allanps1979 9 months ago
@allanps1979 Free thinkers and true value creators do not go into the state apparatus. We have too much stuff to accomplish instead of dedicating our lives to stealing and spending other peoples' money. There is a reason that good people do not choose to become politicians. How about this for a thought experiment - would you consider running for your local office? This is a serious question. One that you should really think about. If your answer is NO you should really think about why...cont
lukebessey 9 months ago
@lukebessey Like I said in my previous comment, wouldn't it be possible for a group of 'individuals' to uphold both the non aggression principle and agree to have a ceiling in terms of how much power one person can have over another. Maybe this would be 'social anarchy' or something. It certainly isn't market anarchy because market anarchy allows for the possibility of not having such a limitation. So you need to explain why we can allow limitless power and not expect corruption.
allanps1979 9 months ago
@lukebessey and it would take the control out of the hands of those sociopaths. At this point all you can argue is the ethics imo. Is it more ethical to allow individuals limitless and often unearned power which grows without end, or is it more ethical to control how much power individuals can attain based on a wise forecast that this will lead to disaster? Without the hierarchy of power it cuts off authority at it's roots imo.
allanps1979 9 months ago
@allanps1979 I AM only arguing ethics, which is really all that should matter. You are asking the wrong questions. Instead of "is it ethical to let someone accumulate wealth?" you should be asking "is it ethical to initiate violence against innocent people?". I am not sure why you think this is not the more important ethical question. You have never answered my question - where are you going to find these angels in society to not use their power to benefit the few at the expense at the many?
lukebessey 9 months ago
@lukebessey I do think it is ethical to initiate violence in an attempt to stop people from accumulating limitless power in relation to one another. I've already said this to you, and I provided my reasons. You and helltrackrider have not provided any reasons why it is more ethical to allow people to accumulate limitless power over one another. Anarchists? I would say you and helltrackrider are completely the opposite, you are hierarchists.
allanps1979 9 months ago
@lukebessey I also explained to you that if you believe a society of people collectively upholding the non aggression principle by force and without contract is possible and ethical privately, then why couldn't the same type of society uphold a ceiling to the amount of power a person can attain? Where will I find these angels? The same place you are finding your angels who uphold the non aggression principle voluntarily.
allanps1979 9 months ago
@lukebessey There would be nobody with any significant power in the society I am proposing so how would they use it to benefit the few? In your society there would be a green light to attain LIMITLESS power and the only thing preventing corruption would be a principle you say people should abide by. Well why should they care about your principle? At least with my idea nobody could attain vast quantities of power, with yours it's limitless.
allanps1979 9 months ago
@allanps1979 What is your idea? If it is to have a state then you are most certainly putting power into the hands of the few at the expense of the many. One of your comments was that a community could get together and agree to not let too much wealth accumulate to one person. This would be totally acceptable within the confines of market anarchy seeing as the people AGREED to the arrangement. If the government or laws or rules are voluntary then we have no problem. Does that make sense?
lukebessey 9 months ago
@lukebessey Luke, you do realize that people in market anarchy have not agreed to the non aggression principle. For me, having vast hierarchies of power in society is like this to you. I can't accept it. I do not think it would be ethical to allow people even the option of opting out. This, to me, is like pandoras box. Unlimited power leads to unlimited degrees of corruption. I am promoting anarchy, you are promoting hierarchy, imo.
allanps1979 9 months ago
@allanps1979 ...if the guys at Google want to build a nuclear missile how would they do it? There are hundreds of people who would have to approve this decision and they would be SPENDING THEIR OWN MONEY! This is the difference. When Obama starts a war he is not spending his own money. Wars would not happen without the state because people are way too greedy. It is only when people are not spending their own money that we see this kind of behavior.
lukebessey 9 months ago
@lukebessey I also think your critique is based on abstracts, not concretes. I've heard anarchists talk about privatizing nuclear weapons. To me this is the ultimate proof of a philosophy which is detached from concretes and no disrespect, but I think there is no footing in reality once we begin debating the ethics of privatizing nuclear and biological weapons.
allanps1979 9 months ago
@allanps1979
1) In a voluntary world; your "power" ends at another persons property or free will...so, the "limitless power" is a ridiculous argument.
2) Russian roulette ... this and Anarchy have one thing in common; voluntary choice.
3) Impractical --- seriously?...It has seldomly been tried and never been 100% integrated into any society. You know what was practical, Slavery...that doesnt make it the right avenue to pursue.
4) Tiny amount of coercive force today - Hahaha!
helltrackrider 9 months ago
@allanps1979
Name one aspect of your life or action that you do during the day that isnt limited to or regulated by the Government...then, maybe you can open your eyes to the coersion all around you.
Drive your car to the mall?...Cars are regulated, roads are regulated, gas is taxed, gotta have your license, gotta be old enough (as if the moment you turn 16 you are capable)
Take a Shit?...TP is taxed, Toilet capacity is regulated, sewer services are monopolized
EVERYTHING!
helltrackrider 9 months ago
@allanps1979
Spare me with the video; your logic is all across the board.
Power is irrelevant; power is everywhere - will always be everywhere should the entity opt to seek or use it.
What we can do as rational humans with a highly developed conscious (although i doubt humanity the more and more i watch news) is understand that the initiation of force against others is, for the most part, completely evil.
The use of "Power" cannot be shown or proven to be 99% evil.
helltrackrider 9 months ago
@helltrackrider "power is irrelevant" really? wtf. You just said market anarchy is essentially the removal of those in power in response to the crystal clear points I just made. Now it's irrelevant?...now that I disproved that statement? And MY logic is all across the board? I am going to make a few more videos on this subject in the future, not specifically to you but on the subjects we are talking about.
allanps1979 9 months ago
@allanps1979
Sorry...didnt mean to use the word "Power" in two different ways (English language is filled with this); "In power" being those of people / positions which claim Authority of you, me and Luke...all by pointing a gun at us of course.
helltrackrider 9 months ago
@allanps1979
In todays government controlled world, risk is absorbed by the Corporation itself and limited to the wealth of the "Corporation"...the shareholders who actually own the company only risk losing the value of the comnpany they own - they are not and cannot be held accountable for the actions of the company within the market...is this plausible? ... certainly not, it was designed to benefit one group of people over another - as governments typically do.
helltrackrider 9 months ago
@allanps1979
Lets also look at where "Power" is derived from...essentially, throughout history, excessive wealth or the "belief" in certain religions has led to power .... I'll steer clear of the religious motives as they are based on a fallacious entity / entities.
Wealth is money; Money today is what the government says is money...money in a free market will vary dependant upon certain needs and geographic regions...(cont)
helltrackrider 9 months ago
@helltrackrider I am assuming we will be discussing a market anarchist society which has collectively agreed to use some particular standard of currency. I think the barter societies in market anarchy would be the most natural, peaceful and the least likely to be able to compete and would be destroyed when people start bending and breaking the non aggression principle here and there because they realize there is no higher authority to stop them.
allanps1979 9 months ago
@allanps1979
"Collectively agreed"....No.
Independetely agreed; yes.
Why can I not accept 5 bails of whiskey from you for 10 days of labor?...government says No.
You are right; no "higher authority" will stop them ... but, insurances and underwriters will assure that the damaged party is made full and guilty parties name would be put on blast by similar entities like angies list or rating systems such as ebay; warning people to not do business with this individual
helltrackrider 9 months ago
@helltrackrider A group of independent people agreeing can be described as a collective. And I think you are really gambling a lot on 'online ratings lists', although i won't argue that such a list would provide some information about an entity, I doubt it could provide all information or that such a list is incorruptible. How do we even know if some market anarchy communities would have internet connections? Or even telephones? Or even electricity? Hmmm.
allanps1979 9 months ago
@allanps1979
The online rating is an example of a free market force; not specifically saying that is what would be present...local and regional rating agencies would be prevalent; exchanging information amongst each other, in competition for the business of individuals and companies ... etc ... having numerous agencies would be more than enough "check" on corruption; im sure some corruption would still take place - but to what extent?...as large as the Mortgage Derivatives?...No.
helltrackrider 9 months ago
@helltrackrider Let me get this straight...Corruption of the non aggression principle would be drastically reduced because each defense agency would have a rating system which is secured because there would be many rating systems? I don't think the AMOUNT of rating systems would leave the slightest dent in corruption. I, and a few other DRO's have massive weaponry and we are all kept in check by a few ratings systems? Sorry this sounds like a house made out of straw that would blow down fast
allanps1979 9 months ago
@allanps1979
Cornering the "money" market in a free economy would essentially be impossible as needs will always vary ... by needs; aside from food and water which is essentially infinite...lets just look at oil / gold / silver as forms of money --- should one entity, theoretically of course, amass a huge market share of these...how can the market react?...simple, develop cheaper forms of energy and seek other forms of currency which would meet the demands of the market.
helltrackrider 9 months ago
@helltrackrider What do you mean in specific when you say 'other forms of currency' which would meet the demands of the market? Are you saying there would multiple forms of currency floating around even in one specific community? If this community agreed to use these multiple forms as legal tender wouldn't the price of the bills just be relative to the amount printed? It would be irrelevant.
allanps1979 9 months ago
@allanps1979
"other forms" excluding money out of authoritarian fiat.
Copper, Seeds, Cotton....etc; things that are limited in supply and are in demand out of necessity; not law. There is an abundance of things used for currency through the history ... none of which were ever "Debt" - until modern times.
Isnt it funny...so much more enlightened today and yet people still seek a higher authority to tell them their median of exchange...aliens would laugh.
helltrackrider 9 months ago
@helltrackrider I am actually a promoter of living off land, barter, private property and minimal government involvement. I'm just not a market anarchist or a conservative or a socialist. I believe in self sufficiency and living a creative and fulfilled life and i think the government seriously blocks this, but I don't think full blown anarchy is the solution. i'm not sure exactly what is, but I see market anarchy as a bad form of ethics because it has a big time blind spot...just my opinion.
allanps1979 9 months ago