"The best way the agency can win such a dispute is to persuade its customers that it reasonably found him at fault – the best way it can win such a dispute is to ensure that justice is seen to be done, and the best way it can save money by ensuring it has the right clients is to allow justice to be done to those of its clients that create trouble. The clients want an agency that will do justice to those that do them wrong, and the agency wants clients that refrain from doing wrong."
http://jim.com/anarchy/

"According to the research of Terry L. Anderson and P. J. Hill, the Old West in the United States in the period of 1830 to 1900 was similar to anarcho-capitalism in that "private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved," and that the common popular perception that the Old West was chaotic with little respect for property rights is incorrect.[56] Since squatters had no claim to western lands under federal law, extra-legal organizations formed to fill the void. Benson explains:[57]

The land clubs and claim associations each adopted their own written contract setting out the laws that provided the means for defining and protecting property rights in the land. They established procedures for registration of land claims, as well as for protection of those claims against outsiders, and for adjudication of internal disputes that arose. The reciprocal arrangements for protection would be maintained only if a member complied with the association's rules and its court's rulings. Anyone who refused would be ostracized. Boycott by a land club meant that an individual had no protection against aggression other than what he could provide himself."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....italism

it isn't that simple. competition doesn't drive or motivate people a lot of the time. it often discourages them so they end up doing ugly things to eat rather than working. i'm talking about completely eliminating employment. work is voluntary, just like the volunteers at a clinic. the difference is that they actually get paid for it and they cannot get paid in any other way. there is no termination, no hiring process, because there is no employment.

you don't need to sign a contract to voluntarily become a slave. many slaves loved being slaves. they had masters that treated them great. my dog loves me. he's technically my slave. that has little to no bearing on whether or not it is right to own slaves, especially considering many slaves love their masters so much because of Stockholm Syndrome.

...............wow.

obviously history has failed the libertarians, eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon%27s_Rebellion

what standard of living? in the US it's pretty shitty compared to, say, the Netherlands.

first of all, rights aren't natural. we decide what our rights are based on our societal ideals. we can all agree that we would enjoy having the right to speak freely, act freely, think freely, etc. and that we want the same for everyone else as long as their right doesn't impinge on ours. that isn't a natural right, that is a decision we've made as a society to grant to the public. secondly, how is this right not being infringed upon with employment? we sell ourselves into working for someone who tells us how to work. he has control over us. that is a violation of our rights, plain and simple. i don't see how you could argue against this logically.

but that is not at all why i am calling people slaves to their wages:

i agree. it works the same in anarcho-syndicalism. at least we can agree on something

not in an authoritative manner though.

this limits the person's ability to get a job though. what if, like many Christians do, an entire group of Christian business owners formed an alliance and came to an agreement to fire any atheist workers upon finding out they were atheist? it is plausible and, though it isn't outspoken in society today, it is swept under the rug that atheists are often left out of employment simply because they are atheist, so many simply do not come forward about their atheism. because there are no business owners to be prejudiced and there is no employment to be had, discrimination like this cannot occur in a libertarian socialist society.

"Protection agencies will want clients who are peaceful, and law abiding (just as credit card agencies want clients who pay their just debts) and will have mechanisms in place to discriminate against the lawless. One such a mechanism is a system for determining justice in a dispute. Such a mechanism will effectively fine the somewhat lawless, and will leave the intolerably lawless unprotected and subject to private violence. If you are determined to be at fault, you will have to pay compensation or face grave danger of possibly lethal violence."

"If someone suffers an adverse judgment from a well respected court, and refuses to abide by that judgment, then the judgment will not automatically be enforced, but his reputation is damaged in a fashion that makes it comparatively safe to use violence against him."

"Courts are kept honest because they fear loss of respect, leading to loss of authority and thus revenue. Enforcement organizations generally, but not always, adhere to what the courts commend because they fear loss of respect, leading to violence from other enforcement organizations and loss of customers and clients."

^^^ all from your article. idk if you support this "private violence", but if you do, your form of anarcho-capitalism is, in my opinion, a monstrosity. the idea is to limit violence at all costs in my mind. violence is the most primitive method of social order possible.

you ever played Hold 'em? when you have all the money you have control. if you have as high a percentage of the chips on the table as, say, Standard Oil did the money in the oil industry, you would be able to throw money around and scare competitors off by bluffing or simply putting other people all-in which, to you, is only a small sum of money, but it will bankrupt them, making it a logical decision not to compete.

no, it shows how that transitionary forms of society can easily be crushed by force by an already existing government during a civil war once all the warring calms down. that is all anarchist Spain was. while it was large scale it still only got a chance to exist because it crept in while the other two parties weren't looking. that is why when you look up the Spanish civil war you will see no mention of anarchism. if anything this shows how difficult it would be, outside of an odd circumstance as such, to implement libertarian socialism on a massive scale.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

"To answer the last question first, it should be clear that a legal code is necessary to lay down precise guidelines for the private courts. If, for example, Court A decides that all redheads are inherently evil and must be punished, it is clear that such decisions are the reverse of libertarian, that such a law would constitute an invasion of the rights of redheads. Hence, any such decision would be illegal in terms of libertarian principle, and could not be upheld by the rest of society. It then becomes necessary to have a legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow. The legal code, simply, would insist on the libertarian principle of no aggression against person or property, define property rights in accordance with libertarian principle, set up rules of evidence (such as currently apply) in deciding who are the wrongdoers in any dispute, and set up a code of maximum punishment for any particular crime." - murray rothburd

"You pay private law enforcement agencies to protect you from certain things which you may find harmful and they cover them in their policy. Depending on current issues, these agencies are expected to be flexible in creating new policies and specializing in the new fields. Court law should be based on universal moral rules which are based on objective standards."

http://www.graveyardofthegods.com/forum....p159953

And to add to that court law should be based on universal objective standards to ensure they can attract the most consumers.

Also, "Since safety is a very basic human value, I suspect that poor people would generally be willing to spend much of their income to attain it. So instead, it's probably more accurate to say that the vast majority of people would have enough to buy security, but perhaps not enough to buy very many other things after that.

Stats to bolster my argument: In 2001, U.S. Justice spending per capita was $586, despite the fact that (1) Labor expenses for police officers and judicial officials is much higher in the U.S. than in countries where $586/year would be a prohibitive amount of money (2) The U.S. government, states, and cities subsidizes justice nearly 100% (spending would presumably be lower in a free market, even if everyone could afford all the justice they wanted) and (3) the U.S. has some of the highest detention rates in the nation, with crimes from which no one would buy protection composing a significant percentage of inmates. On the other hand, in 2000, only about 10.6% of the world population made less than $2 a day, many of these only because of statist interference, so that the great majority of people, especially in capitalist (granted, state capitalist) countries could afford the expense of protection and justice even at very high U.S. rates, even while having a small amount of money to spend on food and shelter.
That governments of poor countries often decrease the safety of their citizens clinches the argument in my favor, I believe. It is apparent that capitalism offers people enough wealth to pay for more than enough protection. On the other hand, relying on socialist control of the protection industry can apparently leave poor people with a protection industry that does more harm than good."
http://www.graveyardofthegods.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=5421

yes, i did. that's why i was saying that those specific libertarians aren't keen to history. i didn't say you were. i did a poor job of wording that. i apologize.

and as i've stated, forgetting my philosophical rant on natural rights, employment DOES violate these natural rights.

i was specifically speaking of the Netherlands' dual health care system that, by the conservative standards of the US, would be considered "unAmerican".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_Netherlands

and herein lies the problem. you don't care about philosophy, sociology, physiology, anthropology, psychology, or any of the other social or biological sciences that pertain specifically to the dealings of a society.

absolutely, and i stated this in my previous comment.

when the labor of a person is being exploited, which is exactly what is going on in employment, the boss is making money off of his employee much like a pimp would a whore. the boss owns your labor, reaps the benefits of said labor, and gives you a small percentage. the boss gets to decide if and when you are terminated from your position for whatever reason he pleases, can give your future employer an unfavorable report, and has control over your actions and many of your rights while at work. for example, your right to free speech may be revoked by an employer, your right to free association (ie: no dating amongst co-workers), your right to free expression, etc. most of the time this is just while at work but there are contracts that extend outside of work with their rights violations as well. all they have to do is claim that since that person is representing their business, they need to conform to their policies, ie rules where one has to keep up a specific appearance for work.

when the population is 80% Christian and only 2% atheist, i'd say there are plenty of other fish in the sea and other Christians do not often object to atheists being fired for their atheism, plus businesses do a good job of not letting it be known why they fired someone.

this hasn't got a thing to do with choosing not to hire anyone, it has to do with keeping a specific small group of people out of the workplace.

not in a country where 80% are Christian and don't care that atheists are being discriminated against.

we have concluded that natural monopolies are impossible, but we have in no way agreed that predatory pricing is impossible. while there has been no documented example of proven predatory pricing, there are ways that have been tested that show, in theory, predatory pricing could work. there are also things like price discrimination, rebates, etc. which you contest are fine, even though they perpetuate the classist division which you continually contest would lead to favoritism amongst people with money (even though it already does in our current society).

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Idk how to put it in more simpler terms than that. Maybe somebody from the forum I go to occasionally can make it more clear if you're still not convinced. http://www.graveyardofthegods.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=26 Just know that if you try to start a debate on the site the people there are on a whole other level than everyone is here.

didn't say i was specifically condoning it (or negating it. i personally don't give a fuck about it lol). i was giving you an example of a society who runs things in a more socialized fashion than the US that has a greater quality of life, proving that the whole "socialized = high poverty/low quality of life, privatized = little poverty/high quality of life" ideology is false. there are several more socialized states that fit much higher when it comes to quality of life than many privatized states and this goes to show you that the problem is more complex than the text in the quotation marks shows.

the school of thought you follow shows little to no regard for humanity or the human aspects of society. it treats society as a well-oiled machine that functions solely on an economic and legal basis. we are not a system of monies or a society of contracts, we are people with our complexities, wide array of differences, and most importantly of all emotions. and we get sick and we get injured and things happen to us because we are frail. these factors do not factor into your thought process because you think by some miraculous chance the "natural" laws of the market will regulate them. and please don't bother me with the "but my society leads us out of poverty anyways, so what you're saying is irrelevant" stuff because as i've stated above, it is more complex than what you are saying. there are, in fact, many societies where the quality of life in a socialist environment is actually higher than that of a capitalist environment. there are other factors in play there that need to be considered. let's first start off, however, with a system that has the potential to be best for humanity and every time a problem arises, fine tune it. a competitive environment, while it may be conducive to some levels of productivity (although it has been stated that anarchist Spain was actually more productive under collectivism than under capitalism), competition has been proven time and time again to have nasty repercussions for society and the individuals within it.

just like indentured servitude, only it is easier to opt out.

which are a small fraction of the benefits he reaps, which means that the boss is exploiting your labor and this fits perfectly with my pimps and hoes analogy.

yes. the boss makes his workers supply his/her product or service and demands a certain amount of money for it, of which he gives you a minute wage of some sort that barely helps you pay your gas bill every month.

and so then you can also give power for your previous employer to fuck you even more than he/she already did when you were working for them (if, of course, that person was an asshole).

i'll check it out.

and not a thing comes of them. and even then, do you know how easy it is for an employer just to sweep something like that under the rug? they have the power to hire and fire at their discretion. there is nothing else to it. when you have that power over an employee, it is very easy to do that. by eliminating power, it becomes impossible for this to happen. how is that not the best solution?

how would it not be an issue in your society? as long as there are businesses where power is vested in individuals this will always be an issue.

there are tactics (though most may be dirty/illegal) to make competitors irrelevant or even dissolve competitors. and predatory pricing isn't the only thing keeping certain businesses in control of a market. you can control a market using what are, by today's standard, considered crooked tactics that aren't considered crooked in your society and it gives certain individuals an edge over the rest of society. those people then suffer the psychological, sociological, physiological, etc. side effects that i spoke of previously and so an entire class of people in society are mentally bound to a socially poor class and the upper class flexes their power over them. in my system, not only is equality a staple with which people can do well for themselves, but people at the bottom who would normally be discouraged are now encouraged to do better.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

What I don't understand is that there are societies that work very very close to how my society would work like and they are all very prosperous and advance societies that have maintained themselves at that level yet you try to attack my ideas as if my society will automatically fail. You even go as far as saying that regulation is needed yet the 4 asian tigers that have VERY LITTLE (there are tariffs and taxes like that but that's because they're controlled by China and they want to make money off of them) regulation and they are extremely successful plus people predict they will become even more successful later on.

This shits tiring I'm not completing this post yet, I'm takin a short break from this debate cuz I feel like we've spent an eternity arguing about this crap which is fun but imo kinda pointless because I highly doubt either society would arise in my lifetime.

lol like i said, i was just going by their healthcare system considering that is something that is often flaunted from European countries where socialized healthcare is praised and everyone complains that America hasn't followed suit.

"A Standard of Living Index has been published annually since 1980 by International Living Magazine. As at 31 December 2009 this showed 1 France, 2 Australia, 3 Switzerland, 4 Germany, 5 New Zealand, 6 Luxembourg, 7 USA, 8 Belgium, 9 Canada, 10 Italy, 25 UK, 47 Israel, 194 Somalia.[1][2][3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living

"Despite significant liberalisation over the past 15 years, the government continues to play a significant role in the economy: government spending, at 53% of GDP in 2001, is the highest in the G-7. Labour conditions and wages are highly regulated. The government continues to own shares in corporations in a range of sectors, including banking, energy production and distribution, automobiles, transportation, and telecommunications which differs from countries like the U.S or U.K where most of these companies are privatised."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_France

here's the thing. i do not ever assume a system will fail, including yours. i strongly believe that when it comes to societies, there's more than one way to skin the cat that will work. but what does work mean? we need to come together and figure out our common goals. the current system here in the US, which is highly laissez faire, has lead to many atrocious things that i would never condone in a million years. but hey, it works. i live in America and i'm proud that i live here and not in Somalia or El Salvador. does that mean that it can't be better? does that mean that there aren't serious problems that need remedy and that these problems can be remedied with the system we have as of now? no. it means that we have a system that works, but what does it work to do? that is why we need to come to a realization of common goals and build from there. the system i base my beliefs on is what i believe to be the most humane solution for an ideal society.

economically they are successful, absolutely, but the people in China face serious adversity including religious oppression, continued (though reversing) poverty issues and a wealth gap that is growing steadily.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Do you know any socialist countries that have a high standard of living that doesn't have a shit load of natural resources to exploit? I understand you think some regulation is needed, but countries like France and others really have some idiotic regulations that defy logic. The fact that they heavily regulate wages makes it really hard to small businesses to arise. Which is funny because I thought socialists like mom&pop shops. And basically leaving less competition for big businesses already well established in the industry. There's no need for businesses to try to make their processes more efficient so basically they're producing a bunch of crap and they're not going to find out a way to use less of our limited resources any time soon.

I'm not going to get into banking because it's too complicated but pretty much is the reason why the U.S. is going thru its recession which will turn into a depression. Especially with the inflation still going on.

As for energy production, govn't control is so bad. Because there's no reason to find new ways to be more efficient with our energies if one entity controls all of the energy production. Now maybe you understand why I always think of the government as a monopoly?

I mean, instead of thinking of the govn't as the government, just imagine it's a corporation that can use force against people. That's pretty much what the govn't is and why I want to eliminate it. To me, they're the only company that uses the mafia techniques on ppl (threatening violence against people if they don't pay for protection), and they try do anything possible in order to gain more money (which is a bad thing to me because they violate people's rights, and hurt so many in order to do this and there's nothing you can do about it). They're the only company that's allowed to bend the rules of the market. And it wouldn't be much of a problem if they were atleast fucking decent at the things that they do but they're not. Which is why I ask you to tell me a socialist country with a real high standard of living that don't have much natural resources to exploit.

Do you honestly think that the govn't has so much regulation and taxes in order to protect the people? They do it strictly for monetary purposes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

it is the state that has a monopoly on violence, not the government. one of the problems with anarcho-capitalist thinking is that you guys confuse the two. while government and state overlap and the government can even be defined as a result of the state, the state, being defined by the territory it rules over, is not defined as the government. the state has a distinct property -- it rules over a region, therefore claiming ownership over that region, therefore having a monopoly of force over that region. by this definition, a PDA, or any business that claims ownership over a specific area, or even privately owned portion of land, is actually a state. this is why Menace and i say that you don't believe in antistatism, therefore your ideology isn't anarchistic in nature. this is not an argument over semantics either. it is an argument over a principle; one that we hold dear and that you claim to follow as well. your beliefs are also authoritarian in that the hierarchy that is allowed (and actually encouraged) within these states gives power (in the form of authority) to specific individuals over others, and the inherent classism of this system distributes power to elites, making them inherent rulers.

i'm saying there's a correlation there.

and btw, Indonesia, one of the foremost free market capitalist countries in the world, is slated to see a rise in it's poverty rate in 2010 to a staggering 14%:

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/6855312.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Indonesia

btw, do you follow Murray Rothbard's vision of anarcho-capitalism, David Friedman's vision, or do you have a completely different vision?

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

And I find it most intriguing when anarcho-capitalists try to bring up the "tyranny of the majority" card as if it is a problem only people that aren't anarcho-capitalists have to face. Smell the roses! If you want to accept the tyranny of the majority as a problem (which, btw, is usually only brought up by right wing, non-anarchist nutters to try to justify having a tyrannical government rule over everyone) then you must recognize that it isn't a problem only relative to people that aren't anarcho-capitalists. Tell me, what in your theory will prevent tyranny of the majority? What makes you think it will even be an issue in a traditional anarchist society?

And yet and still, by my observation, the numbers of the anarcho-capitalists are growing. Why? What is so appealing about it? Why, if they believe in abolishing the state and creating a flat hierarchical structure, do they not think business should run the same, especially in light of so many recent instances of corporate corruption that only improved after government regulation (though would have been solved much more efficiently with social regulation)? And they just continue to grow in ranks. What is attracting so many?

Another thing I find hilarious is the constant perversion of quotes by great anarchist leaders such as Ben Tucker to make them seem like anarcho-capitalists.

Seriously though, the only way anyone could make anarcho-capitalism into a system that is not built on greed is if we redefine capitalism (which many anarcho-capitalists happily do). In order for a market to truly be free it's workers need to also be free. If a country isn't truly free under hierarchical power then why would a market be free if there is hierarchy inherent within it, and within each business itself? Even if each worker was an independent contractor hiring themselves out to another independent contractor to be an assistant to him/her, they are still creating hierarchy because the money has to trickle down and the man who the money trickles down to has to obey the person that is paying him (or else no pay). This would be acceptable in the circumstance of the man getting his house painted, but in the case of an ongoing business relationship, it is only going to lead to the boss getting a large sum of money for doing work that isn't necessarily any greater or more important than the man he is paying and that man is going to get pennies.

Are anarcho-capitalists even against hierarchy? If they say no, then in essence, they have just admitted to not actually being an anarchist. That's equivalent to an atheist saying "but I believe in a higher power". AnARCHY is against any type of ARCHY including hierARCHY and what is the point of capitalism if it doesn't allow hierarchy? It is a liberally defined word, that's what.

So why is anarcho-capitalism... Actually, let's label it what it should truly be called -- corporatocracy... Gaining steam?

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Man I guarantee, if Obama were to start using the word "Corporatism" in his speeches he would catch peoples ears, especially if he associates it with the economic crisis. We could then begin to define the evils of capitalism on a widespread scale so that people could understand. Corporatism just has an ominous vibe to it anyway.

Because seriously, it is valid to give our system a new name. It has become something never before encountered.