Libertarianism

[LSD]

Socialism is a branch of Statism

And statism is a form of capitalism.

Communism, however, is stateless. Unlike any remotely realistic model of capitalism which will always require a state to keep the market forces in line.

[Freedom Works]

And statism is a form of capitalism.
Statism is diametrical opposed to Capitalism, because Capitalism and the participants of Capitalism suffer the more Statism is followed.


Communism, however, is stateless.
In theory.


Unlike any remotely realistic model of capitalism which will always require a state to keep the market forces in line.
Unless you aren't left and don't believe market forces need to be kept 'in line'.

[LSD]

Statism is diametrical opposed to Capitalism, because Capitalism and the participants of Capitalism suffer the more Statism is followed.

"diametrical"? Hardly.

If that were so, the US would hardly be touted as an example of capitalism, no matter how "oppressed".

"Diametric" opposites cannot co-exist, by definition. Yet clearly capitalism not only exists but thrives in statist systems.

The state is an invaluable part of any functioning capitalist society. Without it, the market would be the sole active agent and the natural hierarchy and stratification of capitalism would be unchallanged by any, even only obstensible, ballancing force.

That kind of blatant division of society would not last very long as people begin to realize that their very lives are subject to the abject whims of the wealthy.


In theory.

Since there has never been a communist society, obviously in theory.


Unless you aren't left and don't believe market forces need to be kept 'in line'.

I think there's a formal word for that: insane.

Without a check on the market, we'd have utter chaos. Those with wealth would not only be above the law, they would be the law, seeing as all justice would be "on the market".

You do realize, for instance, that the kind of society you envisage would see a massive spike in child abuse and rape, right? People abusing their children (and other people's children) to photograph and videotape.

How exactly would the "market" deal with this situation? Obviously there's a deman for child pornography, what else can the "market" do but provide it?

And since no one has the right to "initiate force" upon you or "infringe upon your property", no one can stop you from merrily raping your child and selling to result to happy satisfied pedophiles.

Capitalism without government is chaos and horror. Luckily, of course, it would never last. The re-emergence of centralized governance is inevitable.

[Freedom Works]

"diametrical"?
Typo.


If that were so, the US would hardly be touted as an example of capitalism, no matter how "oppressed".

Apologists of Statism have emotion on their side - Capitalism has logic.


Yet clearly capitalism not only exists but thrives in statist systems.
Sure, if you misdefine Capitalism as Statism.


The state is an invaluable part of any functioning capitalist society.
If you hate prosperity and freedom.


Without it, the market would be the sole active agent and the natural hierarchy and stratification of capitalism would be unchallanged by any, even only obstensible, ballancing force.
That's the goal!


That kind of blatant division of society would not last very long as people begin to realize that their very lives are subject to the abject whims of the wealthy.
Until they realize competition increases wealth for everyone.


I think there's a formal word for that: insane.
Great argument.


Without a check on the market, we'd have utter chaos.
According to the left, not the Austrian economists.


Those with wealth would not only be above the law, they would be the law, seeing as all justice would be "on the market".
Not true, justice would be with those that want it. If a commune wanted to have communal justice, no one would be stopping them.


You do realize, for instance, that the kind of society you envisage would see a massive spike in child abuse and rape, right?
You think the ONLY reason people don't go around abusing children and raping people is because of Statist police? You have GOT to be kidding yourself. It's because people are good by nature - it's in their best interest, they are not anti-social, and they live better, wealthier lives.


Capitalism without government is chaos and horror. Luckily, of course, it would never last. The re-emergence of centralized governance is inevitable.
Since there has never been a true capitalist society, this is obviously theory.

[LSD]

Not true, justice would be with those that want it.

You mean those who can buy it.

In your perfect state-free libertarian market society, what happens if a millionaire rapes a homeless person? What happens? Who would pay for her to get a trial? Who would pay for "justice"?

Even if some do-gooder did finance a trial, what would it matter? The millionaire's property is sacrasanct as is his life (especially with his armed guards and fortified compound) so who can touch him? Who can exact the penalty that the "free market" for-hire court comes up with -- assuming that he doesn't just buy it off in the first place.

No monopoly on force; no centralized authority; no recognized jurisdiction; utter and complete priviledge of power.

Seriously, how is that not chaos?


You think the ONLY reason people don't go around abusing children and raping people is because of Statist police?

No, but I think that it's a big one. Honestly, don't you?

Child pornogrpahy is manufactured today, despite the "statists", despite the dangers. Why? Because it pays. Because people are willing to spend a lot of money to buy it. That means that other people, unscrupulous people, are able to make a lot of money in producing it ...and do.

If the market were the sole agent, you seriously don't think that thsese people would continue? You don't think that many people presently in jail would do so as well? That others currently afraid of said jail would be willing to do so?

Pedophiles want child porn ergo there is demand and the market dictates that demand be satisfied, no matter what that demand is. After all, isn't that the point? That it's all so amoral?

I am weary to make predictions, but there is one thing I can be absolutely certain of. If we remove the state and the monopoly of legitimate force that goes with it, in a capitalist environment, child pornography will increase ...a lot. There's pretty much no way to avoid it.

If someone wants to buy something, somone else will sell it to them. That's the fundamental principle of your precious free market.

As a libertarian, I figured you realized that.


It's because people are good by nature


:lol:

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

Either people are intrinsically selfish or they're "good by nature". Which one is it?

Because if they're "good by nature" and are willing to sacrifice the tiddy profits reapable in the child porn market then basic capitalist theory is wrong. Personal material incentives are not the only way to make them work and non-capital economies are possible.

If people en masse are "good" enough to give up personal wealth for the "good of the children", then they're good enough for communism to work.


Capitalists seek to profit. This is not good OR bad, it simply is.

That's exactly right and it's exactly the problem, because often, very often, those things which result in profit hurt people.

Murder, assault, child abuse, extortion, all are remarkably profitable activities if done well. And the market supports them all.

There's a demand for murder for hire, it's being met right now. You take away impartial jurisprudence, even the joke of the system we have today, and you will see contract killing rates skyrocket. You take away the ability of the police to investigate child abuse and you will see Kiddy Porn Blockbusters before you can spell "lolita".

The market is indeed about profit, but there's a lot of profit in human misery. After all, "selfishness" is a "virtue", right?

[Freedom Works]

You mean those who can buy it.
Sure, completely disregard what I said about communal justice.


In your perfect state-free libertarian market society, what happens if a millionaire rapes a homeless person? What happens? Who would pay for her to get a trial? Who would pay for "justice"?
What happens now?


The millionaire's property is sacrasanct as is his life (especially with his armed guards and fortified compound) so who can touch him?
How does the millionaire make his money? Would anyone pay for his goods/services if he had killed someone? Would you buy from Microsoft if Bill Gates killed a homeless man? I wouldn't.


Who can exact the penalty that the "free market" for-hire court comes up with -- assuming that he doesn't just buy it off in the first place.
Who he chooses. If he wants to continue being a millionaire, do you really think he would NOT agree to a trial?


No monopoly on force; no centralized authority; no recognized jurisdiction; utter and complete priviledge of power.
Seriously, how is that not chaos?
Because social order does not stem from Statism.


No, but I think that it's a big one. Honestly, don't you?
I believe it's because the bourgeoisie keep the peace. What happened after the bourgeoisie left in NOLA? Chaos.


Child pornogrpahy is manufactured today, despite the "statists", despite the dangers. Why? Because it pays. Because people are willing to spend a lot of money to buy it. That means that other people, unscrupulous people, are able to make a lot of money in producing it ...and do.
It pays because prostitution is illegal, can't you realize that?
I am not saying I agree with prostitution, but more problems are caused by the criminalization of it than it itself.


If the market were the sole agent, you seriously don't think that thsese people would continue?
Sure, but their would be a lot less abuse.


Pedophiles want child porn ergo there is demand and the market dictates that demand be satisfied, no matter what that demand is.
My solution is MORE freedom, your's is LESS. Has prohibition ever increased general happiness?


I am weary to make predictions, but there is one thing I can be absolutely certain of. If we remove the state and the monopoly of legitimate force that goes with it, in a capitalist environment, child pornography will increase ...a lot. There's pretty much no way to avoid it.
I can be absolutely certain that it would decrease, and logic is on my side.


If someone wants to buy something, somone else will sell it to them. That's the fundamental principle of your precious free market.
As a libertarian, I figured you realized that.
Good job stating the obvious: That no matter how 'illegal' something is, it will still exist, and in a much worse form.


Either people are intrinsically selfish or they're "good by nature". Which one is it?
People are intrinsically good by nature BECAUSE they are selfish. Being selfish and amassing wealth through voluntary trade is much easier than going around shooting people to amass wealth (unless you can utilize a State).


That's exactly right and it's exactly the problem, because often, very often, those things which result in profit hurt people.
They happen to 'very often result in hurting people' because of Statist intervention.


Murder, assault, child abuse, extortion, all are remarkably profitable activities if done well. And the market supports them all.
If by 'done well' you mean 'utilizing a State'. Otherwise, you're simply wrong. Why isn't Microsoft shooting people at Apple if what you said was so?


There's a demand for murder for hire, it's being met right now. You take away impartial jurisprudence, even the joke of the system we have today, and you will see contract killing rates skyrocket. You take away the ability of the police to investigate child abuse and you will see Kiddy Porn Blockbusters before you can spell "lolita".
All theory, and not very well supported.


The market is indeed about profit, but there's a lot of profit in human misery.
Their is more in human leisure.


After all, "selfishness" is a "virtue", right?
Right.

[LSD]

How does the millionaire make his money?

Selling things.


Would anyone pay for his goods/services if he had killed someone?

Yes, absolutely.

How many people has coke killed in Latin America? How many people did the United Fruit Company kill in Guatamala?

Private corporations have been killing people for centuries ...they still sell product.

The fact is that capitalism induces selfish thinking, meaning that people are socialized to think about themselves and themselves alone. Most people know that Nike exploits its workers, they still buy Nike.

In a libertarian world in which corporate murder was more common, people would accept it. It would be commonplace. They would gripe and complain, but, in the end, they'd have to buy from someone and the "free market" will lead them to make the selfish choice, the cheaper choice, every time, even if that means buying from a murderer.

Fuck, man, they do it today.


Would you buy from Microsoft if Bill Gates killed a homeless man?

Probably.

For one thing, I doubt I would even hear about it. Billy can afford some pretty good PR and a whole lot of spin. He could easily pay off the media not to report and since there are no police and hence no impartial body to investigate, it would all be very quitely forgotten.

Even if people somehow did discover what he had done, capitalist theory encourages them to rationalize and forget. If they need to buy a new computer and Microsofts product is cheaper and better ...they'll "ignore" what its CEO may or may not have done.

It's called self-interest and it's the cornerstone of your particular ideology. It may not be pretty, but there it is.


It pays because prostitution is illegal, can't you realize that?

Sorry, that makes no sense.

Pedophiles are not buying child porn because prostitution is illegal, they're doing it because they're pedophiles.

Legalizing prostitution wouldn't have any impact on them, not unless your suggestion we allow the prostitution of prepupescent children.

Are you? Is that what libertarianism "has to offer"?


Sure, but their would be a lot less abuse.

How so?

Again, an unchecked free market would result in a massively increased child-porn trade as there would be no more threat of state action. That would mean that many people presently afraid of entering the child porn business would be willing to.

Would it mean that everyone would start raping children? Of course not. But if there were no police and money to be made... you honestly don't think that more people would be doing it?

Seriously, man, your position here isn't making any sense. Again, simply, how would the free market check child porn at all? The state may not be perfect, it may not even be good, but it does a reasonable job at keeping the child porn business risky. It makes it a dangerous field to go into. If you remove that danger, how do you stop the inevitable deluge of child porn from pouring out? How do you stop people from satisfying demand?


My solution is MORE freedom, your's is LESS.

You're damn right.

Freedom isn't an absolute principle. It depends on who's being freed and what they're being freed to do.

You want to give child abusers more freedom to abuse by removing the only current check against their mass sexual exploitation of children. It may be "MORE freedom", but it's morally indefensible.


Has prohibition ever increased general happiness?

Absolutely.

The prohibition on murder has increased happiness, as has the prohibtion on rape.

It's prohibiting victimless activities that is always counterproductive, preventing crimes with legitimate victims is not only effective but essential.


People are intrinsically good by nature BECAUSE they are selfish.

:lol:

No, no, you can't evade that easily! :P

Capitalism contends that people will not work for communal well-being and will only work if they recieve material compensation for it. If that is true then it means that people do not think in terms of society but only in terms of their own personal fiscal bennefit.

If that theory is accurate, it would mean that, when offered said material compensation, people (at least a good percentage of people) would be willing to do practically anything, regardless of the social cost.

That position is incongruous with the idea of humans as so "naturally good" that they would never make child porn even though it can offer incredible financial rewards.

Both views cannot be true. Either people are inately selfish and so capitalism (or something like it) is nescessary, or they're not and it isn't.

If you want to argue the former, you can, but you can't escape from the logical conclusions of that worldview, one of the more unpleasant being that if people are only concerned about money, they're only concerned about money.

And like it or not, child porn makes money.


Why isn't Microsoft shooting people at Apple if what you said was so?

Two words: "statist police".


All theory, and not very well supported.

It may be theory, but it's your theory. Fundamental "free market" theory to be precise.

Capitalism teaches that if there's a demand for something, someone will attempt to satisfy it. In terms of child porn and contract killing, we can see it happening right now.

Statistically speaking, as you are reading thing, someone somewhere in the world is being killed for money; somewhere right now, a child is being raped for the camera.

Those are facts. Demonstrable, established, statistical facts of the present economy. Taking away the only check on that economy, the state, can only increase those numbers.

And, again, I ask, how could it be otherwise? How could the market check itself from genuinely profitable activities?

Making, selling, and buying child porn is a "legitimate" economic activity. It is capitalist production and voluntary trade at its finest.

How can a "free market" possibly stop that?

[enigma2517]

Its beyond me how people can even begin to make absurd assumptions like this.

Yes, freedom of the market will make this all go away.

*sigh*

Eliminating the state will somehow not lead to more child pornography being manufactored and sold?

Its like one moment capitalism is this end all rational system of economics where its all about "property rights" and "freedom". The free market magically regulates itself by the invisible hand and everything is directed by profit. Profit is progress blah blah blah.

THIS ISN'T A PROBLEM OF THE "STATIST" GOVERNMENT. The child porn problem isn't a problem like national tariffs on imported textiles from China or something like that. THESE ARE HUMAN BEINGS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, CHILDREN! PEOPLE ARE NOT PROPERTY!

This is how the argument goes 99% of the time. That is until a logical fallacy occurs and you realize that oops, child porn is bad, and you make a retreat to some moralistic drivel about how now its people's "good conscience" that will prevent such a terrible thing.

Lets flip flop between an seemingly axiomatic materialist explanation and a bleeding heart moral appeal to capitalists and consumers to not engage or fund illicit activities or initiate violence.

Heh, so how does that work again?

Just kidding, please stop there and save yourself some embarassment.

[LSD]

Freedom Works, I'm still waiting for a response!

[Amusing Scrotum]

Freedom Works, I'm still waiting for a response!

He doesn't have one, therefore hes gone into hiding and is hoping one of the other more intelligent Cappies will help him out.

:lol:

[enigma2517]

Haha maybe he took my advice and just stopped talking ;)

Good cappie, good boy.

[Freedom Works]

I missed this thread.

But I can&#39;t post now anyway ><.

[Publius]

Avoiding this mess is the reason why I don&#39;t support anarchy of any sort.

A true misanthropist such as myself despises giving ANYONE to much power; statist police or unwashed masses.

Law and order is, I believe, one of the biggest problems of both marxism and anarcho-communism. Both of them are roughly (Actually, wholly) equatable to gang/vigilante justice.

If you think &#39;true&#39; communism would do any better in the law and order market, you&#39;re sadly mistaken.

Just for kicks, give me the rundowon on how law and order would run in YOUR society?

I agree with you that the anarcho-capitalist viewpoint is ignorant and naive; I believe yours is as well.

Leviathan is necessary. Hobbes was right. Deal with it.

[JKP]

But Publius, weren&#39;t you advocating "anarcho-capitalism" just a couple of weeks ago?

[Publius]

But Publius, weren&#39;t you advocating "anarcho-capitalism" just a couple of weeks ago?

I doubt it.

Perhaps I made a comment in favor of it or something, but I don&#39;t support it and I&#39;ve never been a supporter of it, for the record.

I&#39;m a minarchist of sorts.

[LSD]

But I can&#39;t post now anyway ><.

Of course not... :rolleyes:


Just for kicks, give me the rundowon on how law and order would run in YOUR society?

The point is in an anarcho-communist society there would be no method of coercing or motivating others commit acts on your behalf.

That is while the issue of individual and even small group violence will always be a problem, justice can be dispensed because there is no means of bribing or effectively threatening anyone in a non-capital economic environment.

No one can raise an army, for instance. Simply put, the soliders wouldn&#39;t fight. No one can bribe a jury or judge, there&#39;s no money.

That&#39;s my entire point. The market itself is, by definition, an instrument by which those with more money have more influence. There is no denying that, whatever your personal moreal convictions with regards to the market, it does create natural power discrepencies. In an non-statist environment, this power discrepensy becomes dominant as there is no more equalizing force to counterbalance it.

The only way to maintain a state-free society is to eliminate all forms of societal hierarchy.

And, on the topic of this thread, there would be no motivation in an anrcho-communist society to create child pornography. Whereas in a libertarian world, there is a lucrative career to be made, in a capital-free society, there is simply no incentive.

That doesn&#39;t mean, of course, that child abuse would end, there will always be sick and deranged people. But without their ability to "vote with their dollars", they will have no means of causing others to manufacture their filth for them.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 14 2005, 04:09 AM




The point is in an anarcho-communist society there would be no method of coercing or motivating others commit acts on your behalf.

Except for violence of course.

And the fact that you don&#39;t need to &#39;coerce&#39; others, just injure or kill them.



That is while the issue of individual and even small group violence will always be a problem, justice can be dispensed because there is no means of bribing or effectively threatening anyone in a non-capital economic environment.

Haha.

Oh wait, you&#39;re serious.

What if a group banded together for the sole purpose of collecting power?

A cabal or junta if you will.

How would you deal with this threat?



No one can raise an army, for instance. Simply put, the soliders wouldn&#39;t fight. No one can bribe a jury or judge, there&#39;s no money.

THe soldiers wouldn&#39;t fight?&#33;

Hahaha.

Just tell them that they&#39;ll be rich after the war, that they&#39;ll have personal slaves and be twice as rich as they are now and you couldn&#39;t sign them up fast enough.

Do you actually believe these fairy tales?

I don&#39;t think I can fully comprehend the delusion you are under, that all problems stem from &#39;class&#39; and &#39;heirachy&#39;.

Does class and heirarchy predicate violence or does violence predicate class and heirarchy.

And don&#39;t give me your bullshit Marxism answer, give me some facts, some science.

I can prove to you how Leviathan is necessary to restrain people; you can&#39;t prove how if class were abolished people would be good.

There were times when there was no such things as &#39;class&#39;; those ancient societies you hold up as pariahs, had murder rates hundreds of times ours and death rates in wars up to 60 times ours.

They didn&#39;t have class, what was the problem? THE LACK OF CLASS. The lack of a state, the lack of rules, the lack of law and order.




The only way to maintain a state-free society is to eliminate all forms of societal hierarchy.

No, that&#39;s the only way to creat a state-free society.

It&#39;s impossible to maintain.

Warlords will form their groups, and once a few are created, joining one will be necessary for survival. Before long everyone will a member of a wargroup vying form power and your utopia will be shattered.

That&#39;s my prediction.



And, on the topic of this thread, there would be no motivation in an anrcho-communist society to create child pornography. Whereas in a libertarian world, there is a lucrative career to be made, in a capital-free society, there is simply no incentive.

People don&#39;t make it for their profit, they make it because they themselves partake in it.

I have never heard of a single case of anyone joining that industry simply for the money; they do it because they sick, disgusting perverts.

&#39;No incentive&#39;? No incentive to be sexually aroused?



That doesn&#39;t mean, of course, that child abuse would end, there will always be sick and deranged people. But without their ability to "vote with their dollars", they will have no means of causing others to manufacture their filth for them.

Most of it is traded. They join networks with each other to trade the sick shit.

Communism would only make it easier to distribute; no Leviathan to get in the way.

Just kidnap a kid here or there and voila.

Who&#39;s going to investigate when there are no police?


That&#39;s my entire point. The market itself is, by definition, an instrument by which those with more money have more influence. There is no denying that, whatever your personal moreal convictions with regards to the market, it does create natural power discrepencies. In an non-statist environment, this power discrepensy becomes dominant as there is no more equalizing force to counterbalance it.

[JKP]

For anarchists, "crime" can best be described as anti-social acts, or behaviour which harms someone else or which invades their personal space. Anarchists argue that the root cause for crime is not some perversity of human nature or "original sin," but is due to the type of society by which people are moulded. For example, anarchists point out that by eliminating private property, crime could be reduced by about 90 percent, since about 90 percent of crime is currently motivated by evils stemming from private property such as poverty, homelessness, unemployment, and alienation. Moreover, by adopting anarchist methods of non-authoritarian child rearing and education, most of the remaining crimes could also be eliminated, because they are largely due to the anti-social, perverse, and cruel "secondary drives" that develop because of authoritarian, pleasure-negative child-rearing practices (See section J.6 -- "What methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate?")

"Crime", therefore, cannot be divorced from the society within which it occurs. Society, in Emma Goldman&#39;s words, gets the criminals it deserves. For example, anarchists do not think it unusual nor unexpected that crime exploded under the pro-free market capitalist regimes of Thatcher and Reagan. Crime, the most obvious symptom of social crisis, took 30 years to double in Britain (from 1 million incidents in 1950 to 2.2 million in 1979). However, between 1979 and 1992 the crime rate more than doubled, exceeding the 5 million mark in 1992. These 13 years were marked by a government firmly committed to the "free market" and "individual responsibility." It was entirely predictable that the social disruption, atomisation of individuals, and increased poverty caused by freeing capitalism from social controls would rip society apart and increase criminal activity. Also unsurprisingly (from an anarchist viewpoint), under these pro-market governments we also saw a reduction in civil liberties, increased state centralisation, and the destruction of local government. As Malatesta put it, the classical liberalism which these governments represented could have had no other effect, for "the government&#39;s powers of repression must perforce increase as free competition results in more discord and inequality." [Anarchy, p. 46]

Hence the paradox of governments committed to "individual rights," the "free market" and "getting the state off our backs" increasing state power and reducing rights while holding office during a crime explosion is no paradox at all. "The conjuncture of the rhetoric of individual freedom and a vast increase in state power," argues Carole Pateman, "is not unexpected at a time when the influence of contract doctrine is extending into the last, most intimate nooks and crannies of social life. Taken to a conclusion, contract undermines the conditions of its own existence. Hobbes showed long ago that contract -- all the way down -- requires absolutism and the sword to keep war at bay." [The Sexual Contract, p. 232]

Capitalism, and the contract theory on which it is built, will inevitably rip apart society. Capitalism is based upon a vision of humanity as isolated individuals with no connection other than that of money and contract. Such a vision cannot help but institutionalise anti-social acts. As Kropotkin argued "it is not love and not even sympathy upon which Society is based in mankind. It is the conscience -- be it only at the stage of an instinct -- of human solidarity. It is the unconscious recognition of the force that is borrowed by each man [and woman] from the practice of mutual aid; of the close dependency of every one&#39;s happiness upon the happiness of all; and of the sense of justice, or equity, which brings the individual to consider the rights of every other individual as equal to his [or her] own." [Mutual Aid, p. 16]

The social atomisation required and created by capitalism destroys the basic bonds of society - namely human solidarity - and hierarchy crushes the individuality required to understand that we share a common humanity with others and so understand why we must be ethical and respect others rights.

We should also point out that prisons have numerous negative affects on society as well as often re-enforcing criminal (i.e. anti-social) behaviour. Kropotkin originated the accurate description of prisons as "Universities of Crime" wherein the first-time criminal learns new techniques and have adapt to the prevailing ethical standards within them. Hence, prisons would have the effect of increasing the criminal tendencies of those sent there and so prove to be counter-productive. In addition, prisons do not affect the social conditions which promote many forms of crime.

We are not saying, however, that anarchists reject the concept of individual responsibility. While recognising that rape, for example, is the result of a social system which represses sexuality and is based on patriarchy (i.e. rape has more to do with power than sex), anarchists do not "sit back" and say "it&#39;s society&#39;s fault." Individuals have to take responsibility for their own actions and recognise that consequences of those actions. Part of the current problem with "law codes" is that individuals have been deprived of the responsibility for developing their own ethical code, and so are less likely to develop "civilised" social standards (see section I.7.3).

Therefore, while anarchists reject the ideas of law and a specialised justice system, they are not blind to the fact that anti-social action may not totally disappear in a free society. Therefore, some sort of "court" system would still be necessary to deal with the remaining crimes and to adjudicate disputes between citizens.

These courts would function in one of two ways. One possibility is that the parties involved agree to hand their case to a third party. Then the "court" in question would be the arrangements made by those parties. The second possibility is when the parties cannot not agree (or if the victim was dead). Then the issue could be raised at a communal assembly and a "court" appointed to look into the issue. These "courts" would be independent from the commune, their independence strengthened by popular election instead of executive appointment of judges, by protecting the jury system of selection of random citizens by lot, and by informing jurors of their right to judge the law itself, according to their conscience, as well as the facts of a case. As Malatesta pointed out, "when differences were to arise between men [sic&#33;], would not arbitration voluntarily accepted, or pressure of public opinion, be perhaps more likely to establish where the right lies than through an irresponsible magistrate which has the right to adjudicate on everything and everybody and is inevitably incompetent and therefore unjust?" [Anarchy, p. 43]

In the case of a "police force," this would not exist either as a public or private specialised body or company. If a local community did consider that public safety required a body of people who could be called upon for help, we imagine that a new system would be created. Such a system would "not be entrusted to, as it is today, to a special, official body: all able-bodied inhabitants [of a commune] will be called upon to take turns in the security measures instituted by the commune." [James Guillaume, Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 371] This system would be based around a voluntary militia system, in which all members of the community could serve if they so desired. Those who served would not constitute a professional body; instead the service would be made up of local people who would join for short periods of time and be replaced if they abused their position. Hence the likelihood that a communal militia would become corrupted by power, like the current police force or a private security firm exercising a policing function, would be vastly reduced. Moreover, by accustoming a population to intervene in anti-social as part of the militia, they would be empowered to do so when not an active part of it, so reducing the need for its services even more.

Such a body would not have a monopoly on protecting others, but would simply be on call if others required it. It would no more be a monopoly of defence (i.e. a "police force") than the current fire service is a monopoly. Individuals are not banned from putting out fires today because the fire service exists, similarly individuals will be free to help stop anti-social crime by themselves, or in association with others, in an anarchist society.

Of course there are anti-social acts which occur without witnesses and so the "guilty" party cannot be readily identified. If such acts did occur we can imagine an anarchist community taking two courses of action. The injured party may look into the facts themselves or appoint an agent to do so or, more likely, an ad hoc group would be elected at a community assembly to investigate specific crimes of this sort. Such a group would be given the necessary "authority" to investigate the crime and be subject to recall by the community if they start trying to abuse whatever authority they had. Once the investigating body thought it had enough evidence it would inform the community as well as the affected parties and then organise a court. Of course, a free society will produce different solutions to such problems, solutions no-one has considered yet and so these suggestions are just that, suggestions.

As is often stated, prevention is better than cure. This is as true of crime as of disease. In other words, crime is best fought by rooting out its causes as opposed to punishing those who act in response to these causes. For example, it is hardly surprising that a culture that promotes individual profit and consumerism would produce individuals who do not respect other people (or themselves) and see them as purely means to an end (usually increased consumption). And, like everything else in a capitalist system, such as honour and pride, conscience is also available at the right price -- hardly an environment which encourages consideration for others, or even for oneself.

In addition, a society based on hierarchical authority will also tend to produce anti-social activity because the free development and expression it suppresses. Thus, irrational authority (which is often claimed to be the only cure for crime) actually helps produce it. As Emma Goldman argued, crime "is naught but misdirected energy. So long as every institution of today, economic, political, social, moral conspires to misdirect human energy into wrong channels; so long as most people are out of place doing things they hate to do, living a life they loathe to live, crime will be inevitable, and all the laws on the statues can only increase, but never do away with, crime" [Red Emma Speaks, p. 57]

Eric Fromm, decades latter, makes the same point:

"It would seem that the amount of destructiveness to be found in individuals is proportionate to the amount to which expansiveness of life is curtailed. By this we do not refer to individual frustrations of this or that instinctive desire but to the thwarting of the whole of life, the blockage of spontaneity of the growth and expression of man&#39;s sensuous, emotional, and intellectual capacities. Life has an inner dynamism of its own; it tends to grow, to be expressed, to be lived . . . the drive for life and the drive for destruction are not mutually interdependent factors but are in a reversed interdependence. The more the drive towards life is thwarted, the stronger is the drive towards destruction; the more life is realised, the less is the strength of destructiveness. Destructiveness is the outcome of unlived life. Those individual and social conditions that make for suppression of life produce the passion for destruction that forms, so to speak, the reservoir from which particular hostile tendencies -- either against others or against oneself -- are nourished" [The Fear of Freedom, p. 158]

Therefore, by reorganising society so that it empowers everyone and actively encourages the use of all our intellectual, emotional and sensuous abilities, crime would soon cease to be the huge problem that it is now. As for the anti-social behaviour or clashes between individuals that might still exist in such a society, it would be dealt with in a system based on respect for the individual and a recognition of the social roots of the problem. Restraint would be kept to a minimum.

Anarchists think that public opinion and social pressure would be the main means of preventing anti-social acts in an anarchist society, with such actions as boycotting and ostracising used as powerful sanctions to convince those attempting them of the errors of their way. Extensive non-co-operation by neighbours, friends and work mates would be the best means of stopping acts which harmed others.

An anarchist system of justice, we should note, would have a lot to learn from aboriginal societies simply because they are examples of social order without the state. Indeed many of the ideas we consider as essential to justice today can be found in such societies. As Kropotkin argued, "when we imagine that we have made great advances in introducing, for instance, the jury, all we have done is to return to the institutions of the so-called &#39;barbarians&#39; after having changed it to the advantage of the ruling classes." [The State: Its Historic Role, p. 18]

Like aboriginal justice (as documented by Rupert Ross in Returning to the Teachings: Exploring Aboriginal Justice) anarchists contend that offenders should not be punished but justice achieved by the teaching and healing of all involved. Public condemnation of the wrongdoing would be a key aspect of this process, but the wrong doer would remain part of the community and so see the effects of their actions on others in terms of grief and pain caused. It would be likely that wrong doers would be expected to try to make amends for their act by community service or helping victims and their families.

So, from a practical viewpoint, almost all anarchists oppose prisons on both practical grounds (they do not work) and ethical grounds ("We know what prisons mean -- they mean broken down body and spirit, degradation, consumption, insanity" Voltairine de Cleyre, quoted by Paul Avrich in An American Anarchist, p. 146]). The Makhnovists took the usual anarchist position on prisons:

"Prisons are the symbol of the servitude of the people, they are always built only to subjugate the people, the workers and peasants. . . Free people have no use for prisons. Wherever prisons exist, the people are not free. . . In keeping with this attitude, they [the Makhnovists] demolished prisons wherever they went." [Peter Arshinov, The History of the Makhnovist Movement, p. 153]

With the exception of Benjamin Tucker, no major anarchist writer supported the institution. Few anarchists think that private prisons (like private policemen) are compatible with their notions of freedom. However, all anarchists are against the current "justice" system which seems to them to be organised around revenge and punishing effects and not fixing causes.

However, there are psychopaths and other people in any society who are too dangerous to be allowed to walk freely. Restraint in this case would be the only option and such people may have to be isolated from others for their own, and others, safety. Perhaps mental hospitals would be used, or an area quarantined for their use created (perhaps an island, for example). However, such cases (we hope) would be rare.

So instead of prisons and a legal code based on the concept of punishment and revenge, anarchists support the use of pubic opinion and pressure to stop anti-social acts and the need to therapeutically rehabilitate those who commit anti-social acts. As Kropotkin argued, "liberty, equality, and practical human sympathy are the most effective barriers we can oppose to the anti-social instinct of certain among us" and not a parasitic legal system. [The Anarchist Reader, p. 117]

From the FAQ.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 11:10 PM



For anarchists, "crime" can best be described as anti-social acts, or behaviour which harms someone else or which invades their personal space. Anarchists argue that the root cause for crime is not some perversity of human nature or "original sin," but is due to the type of society by which people are moulded. For example, anarchists point out that by eliminating private property, crime could be reduced by about 90 percent, since about 90 percent of crime is currently motivated by evils stemming from private property such as poverty, homelessness, unemployment, and alienation. Moreover, by adopting anarchist methods of non-authoritarian child rearing and education, most of the remaining crimes could also be eliminated, because they are largely due to the anti-social, perverse, and cruel "secondary drives" that develop because of authoritarian, pleasure-negative child-rearing practices (See section J.6 -- "What methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate?")

Which of course is backed up by zero scientific, psychological evidence.

&#39;Scientific socialism&#39; is pitifully out of the loop on evolutionary psychology and child rearing.

LInk me to the studies that prove that &#39;Anarchist child rearing&#39; is effective, or that 90% of crimes would be reduced with the abolition of property.

You can&#39;t do it.

There is little evidence that crime is a product of society; that&#39;s been largely disproven in recent years and is another socialist myth.

All of the listed problems occured in plenty of non-capitalist countries, so it&#39;s quite a non-issue.

Societies without private property, classes or heirachy had murder rates 100s of times higher than ours and death rates in war 60 times ours.

This, actual scientific evidence, absolutely flies in the face of your claims; claims that are as reputable as a Christian saying that you&#39;ll be absolved of sin if you believe in God. Ask him for proof and what do you get?


"Crime", therefore, cannot be divorced from the society within which it occurs. Society, in Emma Goldman&#39;s words, gets the criminals it deserves. For example, anarchists do not think it unusual nor unexpected that crime exploded under the pro-free market capitalist regimes of Thatcher and Reagan. Crime, the most obvious symptom of social crisis, took 30 years to double in Britain (from 1 million incidents in 1950 to 2.2 million in 1979). However, between 1979 and 1992 the crime rate more than doubled, exceeding the 5 million mark in 1992. These 13 years were marked by a government firmly committed to the "free market" and "individual responsibility." It was entirely predictable that the social disruption, atomisation of individuals, and increased poverty caused by freeing capitalism from social controls would rip society apart and increase criminal activity. Also unsurprisingly (from an anarchist viewpoint), under these pro-market governments we also saw a reduction in civil liberties, increased state centralisation, and the destruction of local government. As Malatesta put it, the classical liberalism which these governments represented could have had no other effect, for "the government&#39;s powers of repression must perforce increase as free competition results in more discord and inequality." [Anarchy, p. 46]

Only referencing anarchists? How am I supposed to buy this shit?

Because Emma Goldman said so?

Tell me; what caused the decrease in crime in the 90s? Why did crime increase in America DRASTICALLY in the late 60s, as the Great Society was being implemented?

Here&#39;s a hint: It has to do with birth rates and men&#39;s natural aggression at a certain age.


Hence the paradox of governments committed to "individual rights," the "free market" and "getting the state off our backs" increasing state power and reducing rights while holding office during a crime explosion is no paradox at all. "The conjuncture of the rhetoric of individual freedom and a vast increase in state power," argues Carole Pateman, "is not unexpected at a time when the influence of contract doctrine is extending into the last, most intimate nooks and crannies of social life. Taken to a conclusion, contract undermines the conditions of its own existence. Hobbes showed long ago that contract -- all the way down -- requires absolutism and the sword to keep war at bay." [The Sexual Contract, p. 232]

That&#39;s only a paradox in their minds.

IT&#39;s a false dichotomy and a strawman argument.

And I absolutley love the sourse.


Capitalism, and the contract theory on which it is built, will inevitably rip apart society. Capitalism is based upon a vision of humanity as isolated individuals with no connection other than that of money and contract. Such a vision cannot help but institutionalise anti-social acts. As Kropotkin argued "it is not love and not even sympathy upon which Society is based in mankind. It is the conscience -- be it only at the stage of an instinct -- of human solidarity. It is the unconscious recognition of the force that is borrowed by each man [and woman] from the practice of mutual aid; of the close dependency of every one&#39;s happiness upon the happiness of all; and of the sense of justice, or equity, which brings the individual to consider the rights of every other individual as equal to his [or her] own." [Mutual Aid, p. 16]

And I mean Kropotkin was a such a great psychologist.

He&#39;s obviously a real authority on this subject.

IF you want to invoke second-rate philosophers, am I allowed to bring in Ayn Rand?

And tell me, what will social relations be like in communism that makes them &#39;better&#39;?

Is the profit motive &#39;worse&#39; than otherwise?

Tell me how putting people in a democratic culture where they constantly vote against each others interests can turn out well.



The social atomisation required and created by capitalism destroys the basic bonds of society - namely human solidarity - and hierarchy crushes the individuality required to understand that we share a common humanity with others and so understand why we must be ethical and respect others rights.

So capitalism&#39;s emphasis on individuality crushes individuality?

Can this thing stay self-consistant for 3 paragraphs?



We should also point out that prisons have numerous negative affects on society as well as often re-enforcing criminal (i.e. anti-social) behaviour. Kropotkin originated the accurate description of prisons as "Universities of Crime" wherein the first-time criminal learns new techniques and have adapt to the prevailing ethical standards within them. Hence, prisons would have the effect of increasing the criminal tendencies of those sent there and so prove to be counter-productive. In addition, prisons do not affect the social conditions which promote many forms of crime.

If this were legitimate, it would reference Zimbardo&#39;s prison study or something similar.

But I can explain that one just as easily.

Why not use Zimbardo, who did a study on this? Why use Kropotkin, who knows nearly nothing about the subject?

That paragraph is absolutely littered with errors.

How does prison re-enforce criminal tendancies?

Anyone?

Bueller?


We are not saying, however, that anarchists reject the concept of individual responsibility. While recognising that rape, for example, is the result of a social system which represses sexuality and is based on patriarchy (i.e. rape has more to do with power than sex), anarchists do not "sit back" and say "it&#39;s society&#39;s fault." Individuals have to take responsibility for their own actions and recognise that consequences of those actions. Part of the current problem with "law codes" is that individuals have been deprived of the responsibility for developing their own ethical code, and so are less likely to develop "civilised" social standards (see section I.7.3).

Rape has nothing to do with &#39;power&#39; and everything to do with sex.

Do you know what the recidivism rate for rape is? Do you know what the recidisim rate for people who were chemically castrated is?

If rape were all about power, chemical castration should have little or no effect, right?

Tell me, why do the ages where men are most sexually interested happen to be the ages where most men rape?

Why do they all of a sudden &#39;lose their socialization&#39;.

Answer: They don&#39;t.

Explain date rape: The man goes from wanting sex one second, and as soon as the woman says no, wants power?

At that EXACT second his motives change?



Therefore, while anarchists reject the ideas of law and a specialised justice system, they are not blind to the fact that anti-social action may not totally disappear in a free society. Therefore, some sort of "court" system would still be necessary to deal with the remaining crimes and to adjudicate disputes between citizens.

I can only imagine how effective they would be.



These courts would function in one of two ways. One possibility is that the parties involved agree to hand their case to a third party. Then the "court" in question would be the arrangements made by those parties. The second possibility is when the parties cannot not agree (or if the victim was dead). Then the issue could be raised at a communal assembly and a "court" appointed to look into the issue. These "courts" would be independent from the commune, their independence strengthened by popular election instead of executive appointment of judges, by protecting the jury system of selection of random citizens by lot, and by informing jurors of their right to judge the law itself, according to their conscience, as well as the facts of a case. As Malatesta pointed out, "when differences were to arise between men [sic&#33;], would not arbitration voluntarily accepted, or pressure of public opinion, be perhaps more likely to establish where the right lies than through an irresponsible magistrate which has the right to adjudicate on everything and everybody and is inevitably incompetent and therefore unjust?" [Anarchy, p. 43]

The parties agree to a third party? THat&#39;s a laughable as the anarcho-capitalist idea.

And I&#39;m sure the third party will be TOTALLY disinterested, right?

A communal assembly? People vote on who goes to jail? I can&#39;t find any flaws in THAT one&#33;

:D

What would you do about psychopaths, who comprise 4% of the population?


In the case of a "police force," this would not exist either as a public or private specialised body or company. If a local community did consider that public safety required a body of people who could be called upon for help, we imagine that a new system would be created. Such a system would "not be entrusted to, as it is today, to a special, official body: all able-bodied inhabitants [of a commune] will be called upon to take turns in the security measures instituted by the commune." [James Guillaume, Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 371] This system would be based around a voluntary militia system, in which all members of the community could serve if they so desired. Those who served would not constitute a professional body; instead the service would be made up of local people who would join for short periods of time and be replaced if they abused their position. Hence the likelihood that a communal militia would become corrupted by power, like the current police force or a private security firm exercising a policing function, would be vastly reduced. Moreover, by accustoming a population to intervene in anti-social as part of the militia, they would be empowered to do so when not an active part of it, so reducing the need for its services even more.

Share police duty? Another brilliant idea.

A voluntary militia?

And I&#39;m to take it as an article of faith that the lilkihood they would turn vigilante is to be reduced?

:D

What does the militia have to be afraid of?

Tell me, where would be the first place expectant criminals would go?

Hmm...



Such a body would not have a monopoly on protecting others, but would simply be on call if others required it. It would no more be a monopoly of defence (i.e. a "police force") than the current fire service is a monopoly. Individuals are not banned from putting out fires today because the fire service exists, similarly individuals will be free to help stop anti-social crime by themselves, or in association with others, in an anarchist society.


So basically, vigilante justice.

ROughly the same as anarcho-capitalism.

The logical extentsion of this is people banding together for protection; these groups disputing each other making the need for joining said group even more pressing; a Hobbesian trap is created.


Of course there are anti-social acts which occur without witnesses and so the "guilty" party cannot be readily identified. If such acts did occur we can imagine an anarchist community taking two courses of action. The injured party may look into the facts themselves or appoint an agent to do so or, more likely, an ad hoc group would be elected at a community assembly to investigate specific crimes of this sort. Such a group would be given the necessary "authority" to investigate the crime and be subject to recall by the community if they start trying to abuse whatever authority they had. Once the investigating body thought it had enough evidence it would inform the community as well as the affected parties and then organise a court. Of course, a free society will produce different solutions to such problems, solutions no-one has considered yet and so these suggestions are just that, suggestions.

So basically, we have no fucking clue how things would work.

Just come out and say it, these theories are laughable.

Just say, "It&#39;s going to be a jungle."



As is often stated, prevention is better than cure. This is as true of crime as of disease. In other words, crime is best fought by rooting out its causes as opposed to punishing those who act in response to these causes. For example, it is hardly surprising that a culture that promotes individual profit and consumerism would produce individuals who do not respect other people (or themselves) and see them as purely means to an end (usually increased consumption). And, like everything else in a capitalist system, such as honour and pride, conscience is also available at the right price -- hardly an environment which encourages consideration for others, or even for oneself.

A change in culture would have some effect in crime, yes; but who are you to say what that effect would be?

I think in a state of lawlessness (As that&#39;s what your system will turn into) crime will be rampant.


In addition, a society based on hierarchical authority will also tend to produce anti-social activity because the free development and expression it suppresses. Thus, irrational authority (which is often claimed to be the only cure for crime) actually helps produce it. As Emma Goldman argued, crime "is naught but misdirected energy. So long as every institution of today, economic, political, social, moral conspires to misdirect human energy into wrong channels; so long as most people are out of place doing things they hate to do, living a life they loathe to live, crime will be inevitable, and all the laws on the statues can only increase, but never do away with, crime" [Red Emma Speaks, p. 57]

So basically; the world sucks and people commit crime.

I got an idea&#33; Let&#39;s just make the world perfect, then crime will go away&#33;

Nope, no logical flaws here&#33;


Eric Fromm, decades latter, makes the same point:

"It would seem that the amount of destructiveness to be found in individuals is proportionate to the amount to which expansiveness of life is curtailed. By this we do not refer to individual frustrations of this or that instinctive desire but to the thwarting of the whole of life, the blockage of spontaneity of the growth and expression of man&#39;s sensuous, emotional, and intellectual capacities. Life has an inner dynamism of its own; it tends to grow, to be expressed, to be lived . . . the drive for life and the drive for destruction are not mutually interdependent factors but are in a reversed interdependence. The more the drive towards life is thwarted, the stronger is the drive towards destruction; the more life is realised, the less is the strength of destructiveness. Destructiveness is the outcome of unlived life. Those individual and social conditions that make for suppression of life produce the passion for destruction that forms, so to speak, the reservoir from which particular hostile tendencies -- either against others or against oneself -- are nourished" [The Fear of Freedom, p. 158]

Anarchist writers are boring and shitty.

&#39;Destriveness is the outcome of an un-lived life&#39;. Are you sure this isn&#39;t Bill Shakespeare?&#33;

Again, I would like some psychological studies or anecdotal evidence not bloviation and verbiage from some anarchist hack.



Therefore, by reorganising society so that it empowers everyone and actively encourages the use of all our intellectual, emotional and sensuous abilities, crime would soon cease to be the huge problem that it is now. As for the anti-social behaviour or clashes between individuals that might still exist in such a society, it would be dealt with in a system based on respect for the individual and a recognition of the social roots of the problem. Restraint would be kept to a minimum.

&#39;Empoweres everyone&#39;? That&#39;s the problem. I don&#39;t want other people to have power over me. Period.

I don&#39;t want you empowered, I want you weak so you can&#39;t fuck up my life.

Tell me how you respect the individual when you vote democratically for everything?



Anarchists think that public opinion and social pressure would be the main means of preventing anti-social acts in an anarchist society, with such actions as boycotting and ostracising used as powerful sanctions to convince those attempting them of the errors of their way. Extensive non-co-operation by neighbours, friends and work mates would be the best means of stopping acts which harmed others.

Psycopaths would care about none of this.

Also, some people are simiply anti-social. How do you shun them?



An anarchist system of justice, we should note, would have a lot to learn from aboriginal societies simply because they are examples of social order without the state. Indeed many of the ideas we consider as essential to justice today can be found in such societies. As Kropotkin argued, "when we imagine that we have made great advances in introducing, for instance, the jury, all we have done is to return to the institutions of the so-called &#39;barbarians&#39; after having changed it to the advantage of the ruling classes." [The State: Its Historic Role, p. 18]

Aborigian societies with murder rates hundreds of times higher than ours certainly do have a lot to teach us about law and order.

Aboriginal societies were in constant warfare with eachother, raping and murdering eachother.

Death rates were 60 times as high.

This is bullshit, not backed up by any science.

&#39;Scientific socialism&#39; my left nut; this is faith. This is religion. You buy this shit because it comes with the package; it&#39;s no better than the fucking Bible.

"People are naturally good because Kropotkin says so&#33;" "People are naturally bad because the Bible says so&#33;".

It&#39;s the same shit.

Fuck Kropotkin and fuck Jesus, give me science not faith.

JUst because one&#39;s an &#39;anarchist&#39; and one&#39;s a &#39;Christian&#39; doesn&#39;t mean their theories are both wrong.




Like aboriginal justice (as documented by Rupert Ross in Returning to the Teachings: Exploring Aboriginal Justice) anarchists contend that offenders should not be punished but justice achieved by the teaching and healing of all involved. Public condemnation of the wrongdoing would be a key aspect of this process, but the wrong doer would remain part of the community and so see the effects of their actions on others in terms of grief and pain caused. It would be likely that wrong doers would be expected to try to make amends for their act by community service or helping victims and their families.

Since you&#39;re presumably an expert, tell me about justice in the Yanomamo tribe. How did they go about justice?



So, from a practical viewpoint, almost all anarchists oppose prisons on both practical grounds (they do not work) and ethical grounds ("We know what prisons mean -- they mean broken down body and spirit, degradation, consumption, insanity" Voltairine de Cleyre, quoted by Paul Avrich in An American Anarchist, p. 146]). The Makhnovists took the usual anarchist position on prisons:

So instead of quoting a real psychologist or study, you quote an anarchist.

Brilliant.

PRove to me they don&#39;t work. PRove it.

Prove to me they are un-ethical. Give me the case.



With the exception of Benjamin Tucker, no major anarchist writer supported the institution. Few anarchists think that private prisons (like private policemen) are compatible with their notions of freedom. However, all anarchists are against the current "justice" system which seems to them to be organised around revenge and punishing effects and not fixing causes.

Why not do both?




However, there are psychopaths and other people in any society who are too dangerous to be allowed to walk freely. Restraint in this case would be the only option and such people may have to be isolated from others for their own, and others, safety. Perhaps mental hospitals would be used, or an area quarantined for their use created (perhaps an island, for example). However, such cases (we hope) would be rare.

They comprise 4% of the population.

THey&#39;re not &#39;rare&#39;.

And tell me how those places differ from prisons? Not one iota.

So much for your individual fucking rights, hypocrites.

Isn&#39;t telling them what to do and where to live a form of HIERARCHY? Yes, it fucking is, but ignore the logical contradiction when reality gets in the way of your shitty ideology.

WHy just change the fucking motto to "Destory classes and hierarchy&#33; (When it&#39;s expedient&#33;)."

At least be self-consistant.




So instead of prisons and a legal code based on the concept of punishment and revenge, anarchists support the use of pubic opinion and pressure to stop anti-social acts and the need to therapeutically rehabilitate those who commit anti-social acts. As Kropotkin argued, "liberty, equality, and practical human sympathy are the most effective barriers we can oppose to the anti-social instinct of certain among us" and not a parasitic legal system. [The Anarchist Reader, p. 117]

Now all you&#39;re missing is the evidence that any of this would work.

Good luck with that.

[Publius]

And I wanted your response, not some anarchist FAQ&#39;s.

[LSD]

Except for violence of course.

What, fight for me or I&#39;ll kill you? :lol:

That doesn&#39;t make sense. You can&#39;t personally threaten together an army. No individual has that kind of personal power.

More importantly, you can&#39;t maintain an army through that kind of terror without some ability to back it up.

Convincing a significant group of people to be willing to fight and potentially die in fighting against a free and prosperous society so that someone else can gain power? Sorry, I don&#39;t see the motivation.


What if a group banded together for the sole purpose of collecting power?

A cabal or junta if you will.

How would you deal with this threat?

Depends on what they did.

If they sat around eating cookies and talking about their "rise to power", we leave them alone. If they attempt to size power, we kill them.

It&#39;s really that simple.


Just tell them that they&#39;ll be rich after the war, that they&#39;ll have personal slaves and be twice as rich as they are now and you couldn&#39;t sign them up fast enough.

But they aren&#39;t "rich now", nor could they be "twice as".

Again, you persist in viewing this situation through a capital paradigm. This is a non-materialist environment. There is no issue of "personal" wealth.

These "potential" recruits that you see lining around the corner to fight and die will already be living in a society in which their needs and wants are met. No, they won&#39;t have slaves. But, seriously, you are not going to convince a happy and well-fed man or woman to fight and die on the possibility of one day getting slaves.

Slaves are fun and all, but they ain&#39;t all that.

There&#39;s no "underprivaledged" or "desperate" in a communist economy. There is no one so desolute and hopeless that a possibility will sustain them.

It takes a lot to get a man to risk his own life and be willing to take the lives of others. In capitalism, most of that work is done. In communism, it will be nearly impossible.


There were times when there was no such things as &#39;class&#39;

Not in any post-neolithic society there weren&#39;t.


Warlords will form their groups

No they won&#39;t.

See? Aren&#39;t naked asserions fun&#33; :)


I have never heard of a single case of anyone joining that industry simply for the money; they do it because they sick, disgusting perverts.

The people who actually rape the kids, yeah ...mostly.

But the question is why do they record it? More importantly who records, distributes, copies, and sells it?

Sure pedophiles are out there no matter the economic system, but a whole bunch of them would not record their actions if there was not profit in it. More importantly, without the capital incentive they would have a hell of a time getting their product out there.

The people who host the websites, who upload the video, who make ads and send emails. Most of them are not "sick", at least not in the way that you mean. The only "sickness" that they suffer from is the disease called capitalism.

A sick econmomic model that encourges the commission of any act, any dispicable atrocity so long as someone else is willing to "vote with their dollars" for it.


Communism would only make it easier to distribute; no Leviathan to get in the way.

No, something better: society.

How exactly do you envisage pedophiles trading said product in a communist environment anyways?

No server would host their filth, no network allow it. No press would print it, no video store sell them tape, no film store sell them cameras.

They would be driven far more underground than your "leviathan" has done, because instead of it being merely the state against them -- while the market supports them, it would be all of society.

Undoubtable there would be people who would investigate and search for these criminals. Certainly concerted efforts would be made to track them down. Since people are free to pursue their own interests, I can guarantee that a good many of us are intersted in stopping child-rape.

In libertarianism, of course, people are only free to pursue those interests which pay, and even then only insofar as their resources permit. If the pedo pays more than the mother ...well, that&#39;s that ballgame.

Even more importantly, what happens once a pedophile ring is identified? In a communist society, there would be no way for them to transport their materials. In a libertarian one, they would simply throw their distributer an extra 50 a month.

Again, it&#39;s the market that&#39;s the problem. It doesn&#39;t cause evil, it just gives it power.

[Freedom Works]

Selling things.
And it&#39;s quite hard to sell things that were made by a briber.



How many people has coke killed in Latin America? How many people did the United Fruit Company kill in Guatamala?
You’re right, people kill people in the name of a ‘class’-less, ‘state’-less society every day, yet people still support those ideas.


Private corporations have been killing people for centuries ...they still sell product.
Private companies don&#39;t kill people. PEOPLE kill people.


The fact is that capitalism induces selfish thinking, meaning that people are socialized to think about themselves and themselves alone.
It&#39;s not &#39;socialized&#39; it is human nature. And it&#39;s not themselves alone, it is things in their perceived best interest. They believe it is good to treat their offspring nicely, because they believe having the good feeling is more &#39;profitable&#39; than not being nice, in conjunction with the benefit of having their kids take care of them when they are old.


Most people know that Nike exploits its workers, they still buy Nike.
Nike does not exploit workers, so that is a pointless argument.


In a libertarian world in which corporate murder was more common, people would accept it.
In the world we currently live in, people accept police killings and military killings. Weak argument.


They would gripe and complain, but, in the end, they&#39;d have to buy from someone and the "free market" will lead them to make the selfish choice, the cheaper choice, every time, even if that means buying from a murderer.
Naive capitalist, do you not understand that people don&#39;t like the feeling of buying from a murderer, and will instead choose to buy from people who are not murders (even at the slightly higher cost)?


Fuck, man, they do it today.
Prove it.


Probably.
You are a sick, sick person.


For one thing, I doubt I would even hear about it. Billy can afford some pretty good PR and a whole lot of spin. He could easily pay off the media not to report and since there are no police and hence no impartial body to investigate, it would all be very quitely forgotten.
He can easily pay off the media? So what happens when his profit margin is falling because people believe that he has killed someone, do you not believe that he will want to subject himself to a court so he can make more money?
You have this view that you can stop freedom by having a State. It is simply an ignorant pitiful argument. Sure, you can suppress freedom to a great degree, but it is EXTREMELY hard.
Note the tagline of Serenity (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379786/): Can&#39;t stop the signal.
The signal represents the truth, and freedom.
Remember “Life will find a way.” from Jurassic Park?


Even if people somehow did discover what he had done, capitalist theory encourages them to rationalize and forget. If they need to buy a new computer and Microsofts product is cheaper and better ...they&#39;ll "ignore" what its CEO may or may not have done.
Straw man.

Recycling is arguably BAD for the environment (not reducing or reusing, those are good, recycling) because it IS NOT profitable, and yet it still goes on, why?
2 reasons:
-"government" education indoctrinated people to believe they are &#39;helping Mother Earth&#39; –they like the feeling of recycling.

Concede the point - people like to do what makes them feel good, and will work hard to get there - capitalism is not solely based upon &#39;getting the best deal&#39; it is in respect to monetary profits, but mental profits can only be judged by the individual.

Tolkien asked his readers to buy the book he was personally publishing with, and most did. The few that didn&#39;t still acted in their perceived best interest - and the poor were allowed to buy the cheaper books&#33; Capitalism really is heartful.


It&#39;s called self-interest and it&#39;s the cornerstone of your particular ideology. It may not be pretty, but there it is.
That is NOT self-interest; that is some sort of personal utilitarianism. To believe that is self-interest is to have a horrible knowledge of Capitalism.



Sorry, that makes no sense.
Not to people who believe that the ONLY reason people aren’t involved with child porn is because of Statist Police.


Pedophiles are not buying child porn because prostitution is illegal, they&#39;re doing it because they&#39;re pedophiles.
Proof? I believe it is because it is much easier to scare children into prostitution than to pay a voluntary woman.


Legalizing prostitution wouldn&#39;t have any impact on them, not unless your suggestion we allow the prostitution of prepupescent children.
I suggest that arbitrary numbers based on the rotation around a star is illegitimate, in a free society, it would be much less rigid. Contracts are vaild regardless of how old you are.


Is that what libertarianism "has to offer"?
Anyway, comparing domestic totalitariansm to libertarianism IS CRAZY.


How so?
There would be no State telling people that prostitution/polygamy is wrong.


Again, an unchecked free market would result in a massively increased child-porn trade as there would be no more threat of state action.
How completely delusional you are&#33; It&#39;s not DESPITE the State, it&#39;s BECAUSE of the State. I&#39;m not saying without a State there would be no child porn, but without it do you think vigilantes would hesitate to stop child porn if they do not fear being convicted? Do you really believe a jury would convict a man of killing a child molester?


But if there were no police and money to be made... you honestly don&#39;t think that more people would be doing it?
Why do you assume a free society to be one without police (one&#39;s that actually DEFEND instead of ATTACK)?
I am against Statism, not protection.



You want to give child abusers more freedom to abuse by removing the only current check against their mass sexual exploitation of children. It may be "MORE freedom", but it&#39;s morally indefensible.
Not if I am also giving vigilantes the freedom of stopping it.
Besides, to believe that if I do not support Statist involvement with child porn is like believing that because I do not support Statist involvement with cannabis I must want everyone to smoke it. It’s an ‘if you aren’t with us, you’re against us’ argument, and it is logically invalid.


The prohibition on murder has increased happiness, as has the prohibtion on rape.
Both are not prohibited by the State, they are prohibited by the INDIVIDUAL. That is why it is wrong for vice crimes to exist: the individual consents, and thus it is not prohibited&#33;


No, no, you can&#39;t evade that easily&#33; :P
Evade? I don&#39;t even know what I was responding to&#33;


Capitalism contends that people will not work for communal well-being and will only work if they recieve material compensation for it.
BULLSHIT&#33; It argues that the individual is the best one to judge self-interest - not society. The individual exists, but society is a fictional idea, just like a community.

For instance, what is the community of an online AND syndicated radio show? The people who CAN listen in the cities it is in? The people who listen online? Any person with the ability to listen online? The people who listen? How long do they have to listen before they are part of the &#39;community&#39;?


If that is true then it means that people do not think in terms of society but only in terms of their own personal fiscal bennefit.
Capitalism does NOT disregard mental profits - so enough with your strawmen arguments.


If that theory is accurate, it would mean that, when offered said material compensation, people (at least a good percentage of people) would be willing to do practically anything, regardless of the social cost.
Capitalism does not agree this irrefutably STUPID idea&#33;


Both views cannot be true. Either people are inately selfish and so capitalism (or something like it) is nescessary, or they&#39;re not and it isn&#39;t.
Or mental profits and losses exist and so capitalism is truly the best system for the individual - and thus society.


And like it or not, child porn makes money.
How profitable would it be if the added costs vigilante justice were not suppressed by Statist Police? What if the vigilantes did not fear going to jail for killing child porn people?


Two words: "statist police".
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
That may be the absolutely STUPIDEST idea I have ever heard (I don&#39;t know though, &#39;Socialism does not have to be totalitarian&#39; is up there&#33;).


It may be theory, but it&#39;s your theory. Fundamental "free market" theory to be precise.
I don’t know what I was responding to, where did I post this?


Capitalism teaches that if there&#39;s a demand for something, someone will attempt to satisfy it. In terms of child porn and contract killing, we can see it happening right now.
You don’t think one iota of that is caused by the effects of a State?


Statistically speaking, as you are reading thing, someone somewhere in the world is being killed for money; somewhere right now, a child is being raped for the camera.
Just proves my point, Statist Police SUCK&#33; They can’t even protect children&#33;
Those are facts. Demonstrable, established, statistical facts of the present economy.
Taking away the only check on that economy, the state, can only increase those numbers.
Sure, if your level of economic knowledge is even less than that of Adam Smith.


And, again, I ask, how could it be otherwise? How could the market check itself from genuinely profitable activities?
Good protection – private protection, not horrible Statist Police.


Making, selling, and buying child porn is a "legitimate" economic activity. It is capitalist production and voluntary trade at its finest.
It is only voluntary if the child is voluntarily entering into the agreement – rape is so far from voluntary you are crazy to suggest it is.


How can a "free market" possibly stop that?
Private police PROTECTING the PEOPLE, not the STATE&#33;

[LSD]

And it&#39;s quite hard to sell things that were made by a briber.


No it isn&#39;t.

Unscrupulous companies make money all the time, just look at WorldCom.

I guess the "market" didn&#39;t "accout" for that one, eh?


You’re right, people kill people in the name of a ‘class’-less, ‘state’-less society every day, yet people still support those ideas.

Are you conceding the point, then?

You admit that people will purchase from corporations that murder?


Private companies don&#39;t kill people. PEOPLE kill people.

:rolleyes:

Wow, that was helpfull.

When a person who works for a private company kills under orders from said company for the bennefit of that company then it is not incorrect to say that that company killed.

Now, if you&#39;re done with semantic bullshit, can we move on?


It&#39;s not &#39;socialized&#39; it is human nature.

Yes, I was waiting for that old gem to come around. :lol:

I don&#39;t suppose you&#39;ve bothered to update that particular crop of shit at all. Perhaps by offering some evidence?


And it&#39;s not themselves alone, it is things in their perceived best interest.

Right, their percieved best interest; them personally.

That means that if they have the choice between a 2000 dollar computer made by a company they know nothing about and a 1000 dollar computer made by a company that they suspect of having possible killed people they never knew, never met, and never saw ...they&#39;ll pick the latter.

For a good deal of them it isn&#39;t even a choice&#33; If they don&#39;t have the money for the former, they simply don&#39;t have the money.

That&#39;s one of the more ingenious aspects of the market. Although it cloaks itself in the language of chocie, it is ultimately based in coercion. Because a significant proportion of the population will always be in debt and because a significatn proportion will always be strapped for cash, you can pretty much assure that people will have to take the better deal even if they wish they didn&#39;t.

They may not like Microsoft, but they&#39;ll still buy from her.


In the world we currently live in, people accept police killings and military killings. Weak argument.


um... didn&#39;t you just make my case for me?

People know that the state kills, they know that the police kills and yet they still en masse support both institutions.

Likewise in a libertarian world they will "accept" corporate killing for the same reason: they feel powerless to stop it.

Sure they can "vote with their dollars" but they can "vote" for the state too, you know ...with votes.

It doesn&#39;t matter. Every government kills, every police force abuses its position. It&#39;s not about who has the job, it&#39;s the nature of the job that is oppressive. The same is true for corporate power.

There aren&#39;t "nice" companies and "bad" companies. All corporations are psychopaths, it&#39;s the fidutiary obligation to their stockholders to be antisocial. Anything else is fiscal negligence.

That means that in your dreamworld every company would be killing. It, after all, increases profits when you kill those trying to lower profits.

Other companies would, of course, defend themselves, as would individuals with the means to do so (read: the rich). That means gangland warfare and virtual civil war with one corporation fighting the other fighting the other.

Once you demolish the state monopoly on force, you disperse that force into the population. But unless you eliminate social hierarchy at the same time, you create power inblances that can only result in violence.


Naive capitalist, do you not understand that people don&#39;t like the feeling of buying from a murderer, and will instead choose to buy from people who are not murders (even at the slightly higher cost)?

And what is the "feeling" of buying from a murderer? Seriously tell me. You, after all, have almost certainly done so.

So have I, of course. So have most of us. Drink companies, oil companies, clothing companies. Private corporations are killing across the third world today. They generally are unable to do so in the first world because they are unable to exert sufficient control over the state.

It&#39;s harder to buy off a first world government.

...and did you just call me a capitalist? :huh:


He can easily pay off the media?

Sure. Slip a few quid to the various news directors to keep it under their hats. Easy as pie.


So what happens when his profit margin is falling because people believe that he has killed someone, do you not believe that he will want to subject himself to a court so he can make more money?

Firstly, why would his profit margin slip?

Even if people found out what he did, it really woudn&#39;t be that uncommon. More importantly, even if they were angered, again, most of them couldn&#39;t afford to switch products. In the case of Microsoft, of course, they hardly even have the option&#33;

But, let&#39;s take your hypothetical. Let&#39;s sayt that he starts loosing market share (I don&#39;t know, 90% to 85%) and decides to stage a court date for PR.

So what? It&#39;s already given what the result will be, he&#39;s the richest man in world for fuck&#39;s sake; he&#39;ll pay off the judge&#33;.

Now, I know what you&#39;ll say. Something like the judge won&#39;t accept a bribe because he needs a reputation for honesty to keep clients ..and that may be true but how much do you think such a judge would make a year? Maybe 60, 70 grand max?

If Gates offered him double that, say 150,000&#036; (about 1/4000th of Billy&#39;s wealth, by the way) to find him innocent, you don&#39;t think he&#39;d riskt it?

He&#39;s getting double his yearly income for one trial and there&#39;s a good chance that he&#39;d never get found out. If he&#39;s smart, he can come up with some good excuse for letting Gates off. That, of course, is the genius of it all. Once Gates pays him the first half, it&#39;s in his interest to find him innocent. That way he gets the second half and saves himself from who he knows to be a murdered (he&#39;s his judge after all&#33;).


Concede the point - people like to do what makes them feel good, and will work hard to get there

I never denied that.


Proof? I believe it is because it is much easier to scare children into prostitution than to pay a voluntary woman.

Clearly you completely misunderstand the nature of pedophilia.

Pedophilia is not about guys who can&#39;t get laid, it&#39;s about a psychosexual PARAPHILIA. It&#39;s a psychological disorder that makes children sexually attractive.

These guys don&#39;t want to fuck a woman, they want to fuck kids and get off watching other people fucking kids.

Legalizing prostitution isn&#39;t going to change what they are or what they want.


I suggest that arbitrary numbers based on the rotation around a star is illegitimate, in a free society, it would be much less rigid. Contracts are vaild regardless of how old you are.

So a six year old should be able to "consent" to sexual intercourse with a 30 year old?

How about a six moth old? Or do they have to be able to read before you&#39;ll allow them to be prostitutes. Oh well, maybe if someone read them the contract very slowly...

Legalizing child prostition ...wow, well at least we know where you stand. :angry:


I&#39;m not saying without a State there would be no child porn, but without it do you think vigilantes would hesitate to stop child porn if they do not fear being convicted?

I think that it would be a dangerous and costly business to go into.

The pedophiles would doubtlessly defend themselves, and there&#39;s no money to be made in it (who would pay?).

But don&#39;t you see the bigger point here? You are talking, openly, about large-scale vigilante justice as an institution. You are proposing it as a viable solution.

You claim that libertarianism will not lead to an increase in crime and then talk about wild vigilatnes roaming the streets hunting for pedophiles. Well, who else would they hunt?

How about gays? In the Christian bible, homosexuals are about as "sinful" as child abusers, more so in fact. What about all the zealots out there looking to do more of "God&#39;s work"?

By what means could they be stopped? If the pedophile-hunters would be free to hunt their quarry, so would the gay-bashers ...and the KKK and the Aryan Brotherhood ...and the Crips and Bloods and the mafia and the homocidal maniacs.

You simply can&#39;t liberate one without liberating them all.


Do you really believe a jury would convict a man of killing a child molester?

Depends on the jury, I suppose.

I can tell you that juries have in the past done exactly that. Obviously those were "statist" juries and not "free market" ones, though.

And on the subject of juries, how do they have any authority anyways? Let&#39;s say on of these "market" courts finds you guilty, then what?

Do they have a private police force that arrests you, binds you, and puts you in a private prison? Well, who pays for all of that? Who keeps the prison running and staffed?

As ludicrous as it sounds, how do assure that particularly wealthy "inmate" (or his associates) doesn&#39;t just buy the prison outright?

It&#39;s a crazy scenario, but it&#39;s what could happen.


Besides, to believe that if I do not support Statist involvement with child porn is like believing that because I do not support Statist involvement with cannabis I must want everyone to smoke it. It’s an ‘if you aren’t with us, you’re against us’ argument, and it is logically invalid.

I never claimed that you supported child porn, I said that your economic plan would facilititate it.

This isn&#39;t "personal".


Both are not prohibited by the State, they are prohibited by the INDIVIDUAL.

Murder isn&#39;t against the law?

Obviously the victim opposes the action, but in practice that opposition is often not enough. Rape victims, by definition, don&#39;t want to be raped, but they usualy are unable to stop it from happening nonetheless.

In other words, the "individual prohibition" is functionaly useless as a deterrent. The criminal knows that they oppose them ...and doesn&#39;t care.

Insofar as the state opposing them, however, they do care because the state has a monpoloy of legalized force meaning that it is by definition much stronger than they are. This strength is then, by association, transfered to potential victims at least in part such that they are worried about state action should they attack someone.

Without the state, they only have to make sure that the specific person that they attack is unable to defend themselves or retaliate. So long as they find someone weak and helpless (like, say, a child), they have nothing to worry about.


BULLSHIT&#33; It argues that the individual is the best one to judge self-interest - not society.

...and that they will attempt to meet it. Didn&#39;t you just claim that? That it was "human nature" or somesuch?

Again, either it&#39;s one or the other. Either "human nature" dictates that people will act selfishly or it dicates that they will act communally.

If it&#39;s the former, then capitalism may be nescessary but child porn will be made and made a lot. If it&#39;s the latter than your entire economic ideology is flawed.

If I were you I&#39;d just concede that point and admit that unbriddled market capitalism means that demand for product will always be met even if that demand is for something that you or me consider to be morally reprehensible.

Isn&#39;t that, after all, the point? That if someone wants something they can voluntarily trade for it, no matter what someone else thinks about it?

Isn&#39;t that the "freedom" that "works"?


How profitable would it be if the added costs vigilante justice were not suppressed by Statist Police?

Significantly more than it is today.

The porn pruducers, you see, are on the same level with the vigilantes, perhaps even a stronger one.

They have money, they have resources, and they&#39;ll undoubtably have guns. They&#39;ll probably organize self-defense groups to protect themselves and take out the vigilantes.

Unlike with the government, they are not outmatched in terms of size and power and so have a much better chance in a fair fight. More importantly even, these vigilantes will not have the tools that the state did.

They cannot subpoena records or compell an ISP to turn over names. How will they even manage to identify let alone "kill" the people making the porn?


What if the vigilantes did not fear going to jail for killing child porn people?

What if the "child porn people" did not fear going to jail for killing them back?

Your "people won&#39;t buy from murderers" line doesn&#39;t really works when we&#39;re talking about pedophiles and kiddy-rapists does it?


HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
That may be the absolutely STUPIDEST idea I have ever heard

What, that the presence of murder laws prevents murder?

You honestly don&#39;t think that people are afraid of the police? Of going to jail? Of being killed?

What happened to people acting in their best interests?


You don’t think one iota of that is caused by the effects of a State?

Not in terms of the market, no.

Again, don&#39;t evade the issue. The market dicates that realistic deman will be met. There is a very real demand for child pornography and it is relatively inexpensive to make. So according to your own economic ideology, child porn must be sold.


Just proves my point, Statist Police SUCK&#33;

Yes they do, but private "vigilantes" suck more.


Good protection – private protection, not horrible Statist Police.

The think about "horrible Statist Police" is that they&#39;re equally "horrible".

Private protection might indeed be better, but only for those who can afford it. Who&#39;s going to pay for a private security force to protect a homeless girl? Who&#39;s going to pay for a rescue team if she&#39;s abducted and raped?

Your market is predicated on inequality. If everyone had the same amount of money, then, yeah, this might all be able to work. But if everyone had the same amount of money, it wouldn&#39;t be capitalism, would it?


rape is so far from voluntary you are crazy to suggest it is.

:(

It&#39;s rape whether the child realizes it or not.


It is only voluntary if the child is voluntarily entering into the agreement


Well, most "starlets" in CP films do "consent", because they are too young and too confused to understand what they are "consenting" to.

Because they want to please the adult in question, most of the time they "agree" to being fucked on camera.

..and that&#39;s enough for you?

The fact that an 11 year old says she "wants" to be analy penetrated by her 30 year old father is enough for you to accept it as legitmate?

Seriously, man, forget about the politics for a second, forget about all of this; this is more important than politics

Children, prepupescent young children cannot consent to sex. If you aren&#39;t understanding that, we have a problem.

I don&#39;t know anything about you, obviously; I don&#39;t know what your education or life experiences have been, but honestly, if you don&#39;t get that simple fact, you need to do some research on the subject now.

This isn&#39;t rhetoric, this isn&#39;t facetious mocking. I am honestly unsure if you understand what exactly sexual abuse is ...and that is so dangerous I can&#39;t even tell you.

Chidren CANNOT consent to sex.

[slim]

In a liberatarian society the local people would just beat the shit out of the father with no one to stop them. Justice will find a way in a more natural way than if it was enforced in a court with the power of the pen of someone who has no idea.

Liberatarianism brings natural justice rather than artificial justice.

[Amusing Scrotum]

In a liberatarian society the local people would just beat the shit out of the father with no one to stop them. Justice will find a way in a more natural way than if it was enforced in a court with the power of the pen of someone who has no idea.

Liberatarianism brings natural justice rather than artificial justice.

Have you converted or something?

There is a good reason why vigilante justice is not something that is preferable. For a start with vigilante justice the standard of evidence is abolished. If I was allowed to beat up someone I suspected of a crime, his possible innocence would not factor into my decision to beat him up. This natural justice is no more than barbarism.

The artificial justice you look down on has been proven to be the most efficient system of delivering justice when it is free from outside influence. Judges and jury&#39;s&#39; do not know the accused or the victim not because of some abstract bourgeois legalism, but rather because by not knowing personally those involved in the proceedings. Their decisions are based more on evidence and less on emotion.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 15 2005, 01:38 AM









What, fight for me or I&#39;ll kill you? :lol:

That doesn&#39;t make sense. You can&#39;t personally threaten together an army. No individual has that kind of personal power.

Hitler?

&#39;Fight for me or I&#39;ll kill you&#39; was his motto.

All you need is some level of popular support, some thuggish followers, and the rest falls into place.



More importantly, you can&#39;t maintain an army through that kind of terror without some ability to back it up.

Convincing a significant group of people to be willing to fight and potentially die in fighting against a free and prosperous society so that someone else can gain power? Sorry, I don&#39;t see the motivation.

Using your logic, wars would never happen.

It&#39;s like saying "WW2 didn&#39;t happen&#33; People wouldn&#39;t give up living in a free, relatively prosperous society just to kill some Jews and Ruskies&#33; That&#39;s absurd&#33;".

It is. But they did.

People fight for other people all the time. People fight for despots, authoritarians and murderers.

And I so very much doubt that communism would be &#39;free&#39; or &#39;prosperous&#39;, it&#39;s a moot point.




Depends on what they did.

If they sat around eating cookies and talking about their "rise to power", we leave them alone. If they attempt to size power, we kill them.

It&#39;s really that simple.

Good luck.

As soon as some group figures out it can have more if it bands together and takes it, it will.


But they aren&#39;t "rich now", nor could they be "twice as".

Again, you persist in viewing this situation through a capital paradigm. This is a non-materialist environment. There is no issue of "personal" wealth.

Bullshit.

That&#39;s like saying "In my perfect society people won&#39;t kill each other, because people will be nice and happy&#33;".

IT&#39;s an avoidance.

Tell me, HOW you will shift this paradigm.

Give me every single step in the chain.

Or is it just:

1. Revolution&#33;
2. ??????????
3. Paradise&#33;



These "potential" recruits that you see lining around the corner to fight and die will already be living in a society in which their needs and wants are met. No, they won&#39;t have slaves. But, seriously, you are not going to convince a happy and well-fed man or woman to fight and die on the possibility of one day getting slaves.

Slaves are fun and all, but they ain&#39;t all that.

There&#39;s no "underprivaledged" or "desperate" in a communist economy. There is no one so desolute and hopeless that a possibility will sustain them.

It takes a lot to get a man to risk his own life and be willing to take the lives of others. In capitalism, most of that work is done. In communism, it will be nearly impossible.

What evidence is there that communism will solve every problem and cure every social ill?

Arguing from that stance that "Since communism is perfect, nobody would want to do anything bad" is the worse debate logic I&#39;ve had the displeasure of seeing.

Well no shit.

My point is that communism won&#39;t be like that. People won&#39;t have their needs met and they will band together and take what they want. That&#39;s all a governmetn really is.



Not in any post-neolithic society there weren&#39;t.

And thus &#39;class&#39; becomes meaningless.


No they won&#39;t.

See? Aren&#39;t naked asserions fun&#33; :)

What happens in a vacuum of power?

What happend in Somalia? Albania?


The people who actually rape the kids, yeah ...mostly.

But the question is why do they record it? More importantly who records, distributes, copies, and sells it?

Other paedophiles.

They get off on this sort of thing. Voyeurism.



Sure pedophiles are out there no matter the economic system, but a whole bunch of them would not record their actions if there was not profit in it. More importantly, without the capital incentive they would have a hell of a time getting their product out there.

Alright, so instead of recording and selling it, they just kidnip a kid for their own use.

Instead of selling it and buying it, they just partake in it.

Part of the &#39;paradigm shift&#39; I assume?

&#39;Buying&#39; and &#39;selling&#39; it aren&#39;t the problem; it happening is the problem.



The people who host the websites, who upload the video, who make ads and send emails. Most of them are not "sick", at least not in the way that you mean. The only "sickness" that they suffer from is the disease called capitalism.

Ever heard of Freenet?



A sick econmomic model that encourges the commission of any act, any dispicable atrocity so long as someone else is willing to "vote with their dollars" for it.

That&#39;s why we have laws.


No, something better: society.

How exactly do you envisage pedophiles trading said product in a communist environment anyways?

No server would host their filth, no network allow it. No press would print it, no video store sell them tape, no film store sell them cameras.

No press prints it out now, except for UNDERGROUND. No video stores host them now.

How would you know where the camera and ink are going so as to stop the sale to perverts?

By spying on them or something?



They would be driven far more underground than your "leviathan" has done, because instead of it being merely the state against them -- while the market supports them, it would be all of society.

Wheras today society wholeheartedly supports them&#33;

:rolleyes:



Undoubtable there would be people who would investigate and search for these criminals.

Sort of like &#39;police&#39;?



Certainly concerted efforts would be made to track them down. Since people are free to pursue their own interests, I can guarantee that a good many of us are intersted in stopping child-rape.

How would you track them down? Would they just invite them in their homes or something?

Or would these people have the authority to just stroll into to anyone&#39;s home?

How can the police work without the ability to temper individual&#39;s rights and use force?



In libertarianism, of course, people are only free to pursue those interests which pay, and even then only insofar as their resources permit. If the pedo pays more than the mother ...well, that&#39;s that ballgame.

Even more importantly, what happens once a pedophile ring is identified? In a communist society, there would be no way for them to transport their materials. In a libertarian one, they would simply throw their distributer an extra 50 a month.

Again, it&#39;s the market that&#39;s the problem. It doesn&#39;t cause evil, it just gives it power.

No, it&#39;s people that are the problem, and people that always will the problem. Why can&#39;t you see that?

No &#39;system&#39; will ever work because it has stupid people fucking it up, capitalism included.

[LSD]

Hitler?

&#39;Fight for me or I&#39;ll kill you&#39; was his motto.


More like fight for Germany and the Aryan race.

Hitler didn&#39;t sieze power by personal force of arms, he did it by managing to convince a whole mess of people that he could solve the many problems in their lives.

The wehrmacht wasn&#39;t frightened, it was convinced.


It&#39;s like saying "WW2 didn&#39;t happen&#33; People wouldn&#39;t give up living in a free, relatively prosperous society just to kill some Jews and Ruskies&#33; That&#39;s absurd&#33;".

Except it wasn&#39;t free nor prosperous, that&#39;s the point.

As I already said, when people are genuinely desperate they can be easily manipuated.


As soon as some group figures out it can have more if it bands together and takes it, it will.

"have more"? "Have more" than what?

Again, in communism they already have everything.


That&#39;s like saying "In my perfect society people won&#39;t kill each other, because people will be nice and happy&#33;".

IT&#39;s an avoidance.


That&#39;s not what I said at all.

Of course people will still kill each other. No one&#39;s pretending that communism would be a paradise. What I am contending is that without the ability to offer material incentives, it will be much harder to convince others to fight for one. And that the more prosperous, free, and comfortable people are the less likely they are to risk their lives for a nebulous potentiary gain.


Tell me, HOW you will shift this paradigm.

:lol:

I didn&#39;t say that society needs to shift paradigms, I said that you do&#33;

You need to stop looking at a theoretical communist economy as if people still accumulated wealth. Otherwise you&#39;re not really analysing communism at all.


What evidence is there that communism will solve every problem and cure every social ill?

None, because it won&#39;t.

All that it will do is solve those social ills and problems caused by the present economic system; disparity, inequality, poverty, hunger, etc...


And thus &#39;class&#39; becomes meaningless.

Pervasive doesn&#39;t mean meaningless.

Every human society has had language, but that doesn&#39;t mean that language isn&#39;t important.

Likewise, classes have been around as long as advanced agricultural societies, but that in no way diminishes their social significance.



What happend in Somalia? Albania?

Warlords, chaos, general unrest. What&#39;s your point?

I&#39;m sure that not even you are daft enough to claim that either of those countries were remotely communist or attempts at communism.

Abolishing government is not an option in such societies because they have not advanced the social technolological infustructure to support a stateless, classless society.



Other paedophiles.

Not exclusively. There simply aren&#39;t enough of them in key positions nor enough of them period.

They can&#39;t rely that they&#39;ll be pedophile running an ISP or a pedophile with a film store. Instead they "vote with their dollars" and buy the things they need, an option which they will not have under communism.


Alright, so instead of recording and selling it, they just kidnip a kid for their own use.

They&#39;d probably do that anyway, and you&#39;re right communism wouldn&#39;t fix that problem.

But that&#39;s irrelevent.

The point of this thread is to expose how a libertarian society would see an increase in the production and distribution of child pornography.

How to solve child abuse generally is another discussion.


&#39;Buying&#39; and &#39;selling&#39; it aren&#39;t the problem; it happening is the problem.


Of course, but the point is that it&#39;s the buying and selling that often causes it to happen.


No press prints it out now, except for UNDERGROUND. No video stores host them now.

Well someone hosts them, and they do it for money.

Servers, networks, newsgroup carriers, p2p cores, they allow the free flow of child pornography because it helps their profit margins.

They can feign ignorance, but most of them know it goes on. They may be personally disgusted by it, they may try not to think about it, but they know. They don&#39;t do anything, however, because disgusted as they may be, they are more afraid of losing money than they are of moral judgment, more afraid even than of the police.


Wheras today society wholeheartedly supports them&#33;


No it doesn&#39;t, but the market does.

The destruction of the market, therefore, would allow the collective disgust of society to have far more power.


How would you track them down?

Rather easily. It&#39;s actually quite simple now. The point is it&#39;s all tied up in legal nonesense and bourgeois legalism today so we can&#39;t actually do anything about it.

I, for instance, could tell you right off the bad 2 or 3 newsgroups that carry child porn in the open ...but "nothing can be done".

Why? Because the newsgroup companies don&#39;t want to lose revenue, the ISP&#39;s don&#39;t want to lose customers, and the pedos aren&#39;t talking.

In a communist society, the ISP would not be concerned about it&#39;s "market share" and so would have no compunction in identifying pedophiles. No video store would be willing to have "under the counter" specials. No "back alley" shops would even exist so the pedos would have to get their supplies, or try and get their supplies, from the central plant just like anyone else.

Anyone ordering a whole lot of film or tape or cameras and not seeming to do anything with it would be checked into pretty quickly.

No private sector means no black market.

Again, though, I&#39;m not saying that child porn would "disapear", I&#39;m simply saying that if the incentive to produce and distribute it is not there, levels would decrease significantly. That&#39;s in direct opposition to a libertarian society in which levels would increase.


No, it&#39;s people that are the problem, and people that always will the problem. Why can&#39;t you see that?

Because that&#39;s a useless contention.

OK, people are the problem ...now what?


No &#39;system&#39; will ever work because it has stupid people fucking it up, capitalism included.

If no system will "ever work" then there&#39;s no point to anything and you might as well kill yourself now. It also means that there&#39;s no harm in pushing communism because if nothing will work, it doesn&#39;t matter which nothing we choose.

And if nothing&#39;s going to work, why not shoot for the best?

[Publius]

More like fight for Germany and the Aryan race.

Hitler didn&#39;t sieze power by personal force of arms, he did it by managing to convince a whole mess of people that he could solve the many problems in their lives.

The wehrmacht wasn&#39;t frightened, it was convinced.

Alright, so people are gullible.

I&#39;ll just goad them with my superior linguistic skills.

&#39;Assist in my nascent enervation of modern communist society&#33; Better your relative propinquity to greater wealth&#33; Move from the nadir to the utter zenith of human wealth&#33;"

Eh?


Except it wasn&#39;t free nor prosperous, that&#39;s the point.

As I already said, when people are genuinely desperate they can be easily manipuated.

People can be easily manipulated all the time. They&#39;re stupid.



"have more"? "Have more" than what?

Again, in communism they already have everything.

Playing fast and loose with physics again I see&#33;

Marx was also a bad physicist I assume? Everyone will have everything? That&#39;s a lot of everythings.

Obviously there will be some things that some people don&#39;t have that they will want and know how to get.




That&#39;s not what I said at all.

Of course people will still kill each other. No one&#39;s pretending that communism would be a paradise. What I am contending is that without the ability to offer material incentives, it will be much harder to convince others to fight for one. And that the more prosperous, free, and comfortable people are the less likely they are to risk their lives for a nebulous potentiary gain.

Without the ability to offer material incentives?

"As soon as we kill everyone in the next commune over, we&#39;ll take all their shit. Deal?"

I won&#39;t have the ability to dictate this?




:lol:

I didn&#39;t say that society needs to shift paradigms, I said that you do&#33;

You need to stop looking at a theoretical communist economy as if people still accumulated wealth. Otherwise you&#39;re not really analysing communism at all.

So basically, I need to play pretend and THEN it&#39;ll all make sense. Sort of how Christians say "Of course God doesn&#39;t make sense to YOU, you don&#39;t have faith&#33;".

Sign me up.


None, because it won&#39;t.

All that it will do is solve those social ills and problems caused by the present economic system; disparity, inequality, poverty, hunger, etc...

Those are capitalistic problems?

Disparity and inequality exist because people are disparate and unequal.

Poverty exists becauase not enough physical wealth exists and logistics make it impossible to spread.

Hunger exists because many parts of the world can&#39;t farm to support their populations.

I see no reason why &#39;Communism&#39; would fix any of these.


Pervasive doesn&#39;t mean meaningless.

Every human society has had language, but that doesn&#39;t mean that language isn&#39;t important.

Likewise, classes have been around as long as advanced agricultural societies, but that in no way diminishes their social significance.

I think you missed my point.


Warlords, chaos, general unrest. What&#39;s your point?

I&#39;m sure that not even you are daft enough to claim that either of those countries were remotely communist or attempts at communism.

Abolishing government is not an option in such societies because they have not advanced the social technolological infustructure to support a stateless, classless society.

But of course it&#39;s your goal to turn these places into communes.

When? WHen they become these sorts of societies you&#39;re looking for?


Not exclusively. There simply aren&#39;t enough of them in key positions nor enough of them period.

They can&#39;t rely that they&#39;ll be pedophile running an ISP or a pedophile with a film store. Instead they "vote with their dollars" and buy the things they need, an option which they will not have under communism.

IT will just be given to them.



They&#39;d probably do that anyway, and you&#39;re right communism wouldn&#39;t fix that problem.

But that&#39;s irrelevent.

The point of this thread is to expose how a libertarian society would see an increase in the production and distribution of child pornography.

How to solve child abuse generally is another discussion.

I don&#39;t believe you have any proof that your ideas would reduce the problem as whole.




Of course, but the point is that it&#39;s the buying and selling that often causes it to happen.

OR it happening causes the buying and selling.

Correlation and causation are easy to mistake.


Well someone hosts them, and they do it for money.

Servers, networks, newsgroup carriers, p2p cores, they allow the free flow of child pornography because it helps their profit margins.

They can feign ignorance, but most of them know it goes on. They may be personally disgusted by it, they may try not to think about it, but they know. They don&#39;t do anything, however, because disgusted as they may be, they are more afraid of losing money than they are of moral judgment, more afraid even than of the police.

More afraid than of the police?

This is absurd; pedaphiles are such an insignificant part of the whole economy that this observation is a joke.

HOw many ISPs make much money off of it?

How much money would it take for to you risk jail?

And many p2p cores are open source. How are you going to fix the problem on open source networks? On a freenet?


No it doesn&#39;t, but the market does.

The destruction of the market, therefore, would allow the collective disgust of society to have far more power.

A market is represenation of society; perverted society, perverted market.



Rather easily. It&#39;s actually quite simple now. The point is it&#39;s all tied up in legal nonesense and bourgeois legalism today so we can&#39;t actually do anything about it.

LIke put them in jail? A practice you don&#39;t support...



I, for instance, could tell you right off the bad 2 or 3 newsgroups that carry child porn in the open ...but "nothing can be done".

Sure it can. Report them.



Why? Because the newsgroup companies don&#39;t want to lose revenue, the ISP&#39;s don&#39;t want to lose customers, and the pedos aren&#39;t talking.

Which newsgroup companies?



In a communist society, the ISP would not be concerned about it&#39;s "market share" and so would have no compunction in identifying pedophiles. No video store would be willing to have "under the counter" specials. No "back alley" shops would even exist so the pedos would have to get their supplies, or try and get their supplies, from the central plant just like anyone else.

Anyone ordering a whole lot of film or tape or cameras and not seeming to do anything with it would be checked into pretty quickly.

So much for freedom.

Your society sounds more shitty by the day.

If a modern country started investigations on people buying film, what would you say?




No private sector means no black market.

LIke in the Soviet Union, right?



Again, though, I&#39;m not saying that child porn would "disapear", I&#39;m simply saying that if the incentive to produce and distribute it is not there, levels would decrease significantly. That&#39;s in direct opposition to a libertarian society in which levels would increase.

THe incentive is sexual.




If no system will "ever work" then there&#39;s no point to anything and you might as well kill yourself now. It also means that there&#39;s no harm in pushing communism because if nothing will work, it doesn&#39;t matter which nothing we choose.

And if nothing&#39;s going to work, why not shoot for the best?

Because &#39;shooting for the best&#39; is the worst thing you can do:

Attempts to create heaven on earth invariably create hell - Karl Popper

THe modern form of society is, I believe, the best for human society.

[LSD]

Publius, I think you&#39;ve drifted from the topic at hand. I understand that you dislike communism and wish to point this out, but this thread is about libertarianism.

Please try and stick to that subject.

With that said, I&#39;ll try and adress your somewhat scattered thoughts as best I can;


Alright, so people are gullible.

When they&#39;re desperate, scared, uneducated, and powerless? Yes. As a "rule"? No.


People can be easily manipulated all the time. They&#39;re stupid.

:rolleyes:

Hmmm, you&#39;re not exactly the "glass is half full" type are you?


Obviously there will be some things that some people don&#39;t have that they will want and know how to get.

Such as?


Without the ability to offer material incentives?

"As soon as we kill everyone in the next commune over, we&#39;ll take all their shit. Deal?"

I won&#39;t have the ability to dictate this?

You can "dictate" it, but no one will listen. They&#39;re all too busy enjoying their comfortable, free, fulfilling lives to care about your vague promises of "taking things".


So basically, I need to play pretend and THEN it&#39;ll all make sense.

Not pretend, just understand.

I&#39;m not asking you to change your "worldview" just recognize that treating a noncapital economy like a capital one is pointless.


Disparity and inequality exist because people are disparate and unequal.

Was that even an attempt at an argument?

They exist because they exist? :lol:

People are unequal and disparate because capitalism makes it so. Inequality is a fundamental part of a functioning capitalist economy and so in capitalist econmies we have inequality and disparity. It&#39;s as simple as that.

They are in no way "natural" or "nescessary".


Poverty exists becauase not enough physical wealth exists and logistics make it impossible to spread.

Utter bullshit.

There is more than enough "physical wealth" for everyone to live comfortably. "Logistics" only make it tough because, again, capitalism would not sustain it. There is no capitalist bennefit in spreading wealth therefore it&#39;s not "logistically" feasable, but, again, it&#39;s no deeper than the economic system.


Hunger exists because many parts of the world can&#39;t farm to support their populations.

And why is that?

There&#39;s enough food in the world, but people are still starving; in some countries there&#39;s enough food for mass exports, but people are still starving?

Why? Because it pays more to sell it than to give it.

Yup, that&#39;s rght. Again, it&#39;s all about capitalism.


IT will just be given to them.

Not if they&#39;re using it to make child porn it won&#39;t.


More afraid than of the police?

Yeah, since they know their chances of being caught are slim and their chances of being convicted on anything even slimmer.


How much money would it take for to you risk jail?

I don&#39;t know. How much does the mob pay again? And how many members do they have?

Obviously people risk jail for cash&#33;


A market is represenation of society; perverted society, perverted market.

It&#39;s more complex than that and you know it.

The market will meet any demand, a free society would not. That means that while a small segment of the population will always be "perverted" (personally, I would use stronger language), without capital as an agent of motivation, that population will remain far more marginalized.

It will still have to be dealt with of course. Again, I am not saying that communism will stop all problems, far from it.

But it will eliminate a good deal of the means currently used by pedophiles to spread product and more importantly will not lead to the massive increase in production/distribution that libertarianism would.


Sure it can. Report them.

To whom?

You don&#39;t think that if I know it, the police know it? It&#39;s not like I&#39;m doing this full-time, they are.

This isn&#39;t about the police, it&#39;s about the private sectotor. It&#39;s the the companies don&#39;t do anything to stop it. Again, they don&#39;t want business going across the street.

They cloak themselves in talk of "free speech" and "disinvolvement", but in the end it&#39;s just dollars.

The market makes it desirable for them to allow child porn to go on under their nose. Don&#39;t tell me that&#39;s not part of the problem.


Which newsgroup companies?


News providers.

You know, usenet, NNTP, port 119, alt.whatever ...ring a bell?

The nature of usenet is such that to get the articles posted, your news server has to host those articles on their server.

That means that companies like giganews and easynews and the rest have to use their servers to host all the data that you can access, usually with something like 40 days worth of retention. That&#39;s hundreds of terabytes of data.

And among those hundreds of terabytes, neatly organized, named, and catalogued, are files with fully descriptive, informative names indicating that they contain hard and soft core child pornography.


LIke in the Soviet Union, right?

Hardly.

The Soviet Union had a thriving private sector, it was a big fan of private property too.

Please don&#39;t tell me you&#39;re taking the "USSR was communist" line... :o


THe incentive is sexual.

sigh...

Again, for the pedophile, yes; for everyone else in the chain, it&#39;s about money.


THe modern form of society is, I believe, the best for human society.

In other words, this is as good as it gets? I think Cicero said something rather similar.

Guess what? Things got better.

[robob8706]

Private companies don&#39;t kill people. PEOPLE kill people.

Guns don&#39;t kill people. Death kills people...


Nike does not exploit workers, so that is a pointless argument.

Nike doesn&#39;t exploit workers just as much as the war in Iraq is for Mid East democracy.


Naive capitalist, do you not understand that people don&#39;t like the feeling of buying from a murderer, and will instead choose to buy from people who are not murders (even at the slightly higher cost)?

Oh that must be why Americans buy coke and nike. Cause coke would never do anything like assassinating union leaders in their latin american factories. Heh, an American company placing Profit over Human life, that&#39;s absurd.


Private police PROTECTING the PEOPLE, not the STATE&#33;

Private Police are a great idea. The Gestapo, o man....GENIUS&#33; Getting rid of all those jews so that people can flourish in an untainted society. I say people meaning, white aryans, cause anything else is a threat. So much of a threat, i mean look at Rodney King, trying to attack those well to do police officers. Tsk, Tsk, silly black man.

[Freedom Works]

Guns don&#39;t kill people. Death kills people...
Sounds like someone doesn&#39;t want personal responspility.


Nike doesn&#39;t exploit workers just as much as the war in Iraq is for Mid East democracy.
Prove Nike exploits workers.


Oh that must be why Americans buy coke and nike.
No, it&#39;s because these companies are kept large through "government". In the free market, they would be much much smaller.


Private Police are a great idea.
Yes, because they are actually responsible for their actions, instead of the communist police that have immunity today.

[LSD]

<_<

Freedom Works, you&#39;re evading again.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291953834 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=41559&view=findpost&p=1291953834)

[viva le revolution]

Libertarian free-market theory although in words sounds high and lofty, in practice it is virtually impossible to uphold without it eventually degenerating into plain faced imperialism. The libertarian free-market theory espouses virtually no government interference and expounds the thoery that those who get to the top do so through their own personal prowess of business and market dynamics.
Although not an expert on the subject, allow me to try to refute the libertarian capitalist theory.
Let me split my refutation into parts for the sake of simplicity and clarity.

Throughout the 1800&#39;s and upto the present day, two countries have championed the cause of the free-market and libertarian philosophy, at least in theory, if not in practice. When these ideas were most powerful in their &#39;pure&#39; form, India was still ruled by the Mughal dynasty and the British East India trading company was allowed to conduct business in India. This i will call the &#39;Indian experiment&#39;

[B]The Indian Experiment:

The British East India trading company was separate from the British government, operating as a purely corporate entity and run by British businessmen solely on their own initiative. After presenting the Mughal emperor, Jehangir with a gift of a painting, the bgritish company was allowed to conduct business there. This was an entirely separate entity from the british government and strictly adhering to the liberatarian philosophy of government non-interference.
At that time the native indian textile industry was already advanced by standards of those days and allowed no inroads for British made textile goods, which were comparatively inexpensive but of lower quality. This remained the situation until the company began exporting textile resources such as cotton and jute to britain, these were exported on a large scale but still british industry was not able to make any progress in Indian markets. On the contrary, higher quality finished textile goods were making their wat into Britain. According to rational market theory, the high volume of indian imported goods should have brought their prices down and eliminated the British competition through sheer economies of scale. However, the weak british textile industry was saved by government intervention that slapped high tariffs on finished Indian textile products but not on imported indian raw materials. Thus came the finishing blow, the British east india company began importing dragoon guards into india and began expropriation of property and labour by force. The land taken over devoted to cultivating raw materials to export to England and the finished English goods back into India.
Thanks to this strategy the British textile industry was saved and the indian textile industry collapsed. This brings into sharp relief the inherent contradictions of the free-market analysis, whose very neck was saved thanks to government intervention, adding to that the newly aquired indian market, whose industry was crippled by force.
Similar comparisons of the validity of libertarian capitalism can be found in British foriegn policy at that time, China which was long importing opium from british india stopped doing so. As a result the main market for indian-grown british opium was lost. According to simple market analysis, the company that loses it&#39;s market should collapse. The british government however, again responded and declared war on China. Following China&#39;s defeat it was forced to import huge amounts of opium grown in India, the war however largely used indian soldiers employed by the British east india company. Again here too, the inherent contradiction of government non-interference was shown since it was largely the war that saved the opium market in China. Thus the industry survived.
The British East india company continued to exist in India thanks to earlier events that i have mentioned. However the conditions of labour got so inhuman when there were no limits to profit, that Indian soldiers in the employ of the company revolted. The British call this the Great Mutiny of 1857. Since the company existed as a separate entity from the governbment it should follow that the british presence should have been eliminated, However the British government again intervened and sent troops, this time to quell the rebellion. The british government then took direct control of india through which the remenants of the company elite then took official government positions. The british presence was thus continued in India.



[B]The United States experiment:


During the 1800&#39;s the united states of america also professed the free-market principle and still does to this day. However allow me to cite a few contradictions in the principle of governmental non-interference that took place in the U.S. During the 1800&#39;s the U.S steel industry was tsruggling to survive and growth was very small. It was continuosly hounded by the threat of cheaper imported alternatives. At that time Britain waqs importing cheap ore from India and producing steel relatively cheaply thanks to near inexhaustable indian ore and and extremely cheap indian labour in mines across the subcontinent. The british began exporting steel to the america&#39;s to capture new markets. According to the free-market principle, the cheaper alternative should capture the market and drive out the competition. However the american steel industry was saved when high tariffs were imposed on imported british steel, which was cheaper and of relatively higher quality. This allowed the U.S steel industry to survive and grow without threat from foreign competitors. Thus we see that government intervention was required for the survival of the American steel industry.
This was not the exception however, The American government through the Monroe Doctrine proclaimed the whole of the latin american continent to be a special &#39;sphere of influence&#39; i.e it had sole economic and military influence over the nations and peoples of latin america and the unofficial power to determine what course it should take. This was enforced time and again through coups and economic isolationism of whole countries. For eg, Chile, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Brazil, Peru etc. where left-leaning governemnts were toppled by force or illegal economic pressure to accept american corporationism and surrender national resources. Any attempts at a command economy were crushed. Thus, it is shown that markets are not captured by market dynamism or any qualifications of the corporation but solely due to military, or the threat of military action. This example is only restricted to latin america but is played out all over the globe.
Let me give you an exampleof how beneficial free-market theory is by citing two parallel examples but which took different paths, Cuba and Haiti. Both are islands of comparable size and resources and both, priort to U.S interference had Sugar as the main commodity. Cuba took to a command economy and survives despite an embargo and isolation for the greater part of forty years, while Haiti opened up it&#39;s markets to american influence. The result, Haitian land was exorbitantly used for sugar cultivation by ameriacan companies, to such a large scale that the fertlity of the land was also diminished thanks to generous use of pesticides and fertilizers to enhance prductivity to unreal levels, and depriving land that could be used for food cultivation. Now, cuba is a largely self-sufficient economy, with an average age of 77, while Haiti is on the verge of collapse with 60% of the population unhealthy.
Apart from this, the economy of the U.S is lauded as a success of free-market Capitalism, resting mainly on the high-tech sector. However it&#39;s success can be largely attributed to frequent government subsidies and governemnt-funded research. For example, the laser was researched by the military under the tax-payers&#39; dollar. Now, manufacturing corporations make full use of it in largely every sphere of manufacture. Similarily, the personal computer was researched by the military in conjunction with the space program. In those days they took the form of super-computers, ten-fifteen foot high cabinets.all under again, the tax payers&#39; dollar, then was repackaged by microsoft, dell, apple, etc. now computers play an indespensable role in the high tech industry and are used in virtually every field. This again conflicts with the free-market principle of government non-interference, since it was the government that laid the foundations for the american high tech industry, on which the entire American economy rests&#33;
Another example of the U.S governments&#39; compliance with industrialists takes form in frequent tax-cuts, that relieves the capitalist from economic pressure and frees even more capital for growth and investment.
These are examples of the refutation of free-market principles in the two countries that most vociferously advocate the free-market. These very same countries, shown through these examples, engaged in and their economies still survive thanks to economic protectionism and not free-market principle, in fact the very opposite.


The USSR Experiment

The USSR during the cold war through socialism and collectivization registered the fastest growth of any country economically. It came to rival the United states and some even predicted that the cold war would end with the USSR and the socialist bloc victorious. The fall of the Soviet Union, was attributed to the failure of socialism and the triumph of free-market and free-enterprise. In comes Mikhail Gorbachev, with the much touted policy of Glastnost and prestroika, with the intention of opening up the soviet economy to investment and neglecting economic protectionism. The result was a catastrophic collapse of the Soviet economy and the Soviet Union. A collapse so sudden that it shocked world commentators and the nations profoundly. This resulted with widespread disillusionment and the crumbling of the socialist bloc collectively. This is enough to show that Marx spoke true when he said that the economy can only be developed forward, ie. from capitalist to socialist, but backwards will lead to catastrophe. This was manifestly shown in the collapse of the Soviet Union, which attempted to regress from a socialist to a capitalist one. If anything, it strengthens the weight of Marxism and displays the results of free-market capitalism. Now Russia is a gangster-led kleptocracy with oil barons at the helm.



The Chinese Experiment


The proponents of free-market capitalism would show that capitalism leads to stunning growth and a command economy is bound to fail. This however is refuted by the example of China. The economies of the U.S and the western hemisphere have largely stagnated, where the economy is largely in private hands. However in China, where only 10% of the countries&#39; industry and agricultural infrastructure is in private hands, the system followed is a command economy. A centrally-planned economy following the pattern of five-year plans. With the government directing all aspects of the chinese economy. At this moment China is registering the fastest rate of growth of any economy is history. It&#39;s rapidly growing power is now threatening the vanguards of capitalism and has already overtaken most of the capitalist economies by far. This very fact should refute the free-market theory which states that growth is not possible under government hands. It can conclusively be shown that a command economy is far nmore efficient than a private, free-market one.


All historical facts aside, even the theorists of free-market libertarian capitalism warned against the cruelty of greed and the emergence of greedy industrialists. Most notably among these was Adam Smith and Madison, the founding fathers of the free-market philosophy. However even in this warning the shortcomings of the free-market philosophy are evident, They oppose monopolies but advocate government non-interference, they put no limits on the accumulation of capital, but oppose the emergence of a capitalist ruling class. They assume the progress of capitalism will trickle down to the copnsumer, but it is only enhancing suppression and proletarianization, a recent example is the privatization under progress of the NHS is Britain. They advocate a philosophy that is proven unworkable in history, and is full of inherent contradictions.


That was my attempt to refute the theory of libertarian capitalism. i know it is long but please bear with me and give your views/criticisms.
Thanks.

[Freedom Works]

Unscrupulous companies make money all the time, just look at WorldCom.
And unscrupulous companies DIE all the time too. Unscrupulous Statist agencies have a habit not to die though, just look at the CIA.


I guess the "market" didn&#39;t "accout" for that one, eh?
HELLO?&#33; Bad companies go out of business ALL THE TIME&#33;


Are you conceding the point, then?
No, I am saying they did it because there was Statist involvement.


You admit that people will purchase from corporations that murder?
That&#39;s like asking me to admit Socialism isn&#39;t Statism - it&#39;s not true.
They may, but only ones whose &#39;value&#39; of the feeling was less than the value of having the product, which becomes less and less of an issue in prosperous free societies.


Now, if you&#39;re done with semantic bullshit, can we move on?
Not until you concede that Statism is diametrically opposed to Capitalism.


Perhaps by offering some evidence?
Every known animal hoards, or at least will not offer up valuable property for the sake of the alleged &#39;public good&#39;.


That means that if they have the choice between a 2000 dollar computer made by a company they know nothing about and a 1000 dollar computer made by a company that they suspect of having possible killed people they never knew, never met, and never saw ...they&#39;ll pick the latter.
Not necessarily, you are judging this without any principles whatsoever.


If they don&#39;t have the money for the former, they simply don&#39;t have the money.
Yes, because it&#39;s the CAPITALIST societies that are poor, not the STATIST ones&#33; History has PROVEN the bigger the “government”, the better off society is&#33; Wait, NO&#33;
Progress CANNOT be organized&#33;


Although it cloaks itself in the language of chocie, it is ultimately based in coercion.
No, it is based upon the individual protecting their property, or contracting that protection out.
Anyway, that sounds like a great definition of democracy&#33; Yay for social democracy&#33;
Not.


Because a significant proportion of the population will always be in debt and because a significatn proportion will always be strapped for cash, you can pretty much assure that people will have to take the better deal even if they wish they didn&#39;t.
Proof?


They may not like Microsoft, but they&#39;ll still buy from her.
That&#39;s because Microsoft&#39;s products are SIMPLE to use.


um... didn&#39;t you just make my case for me?
Actually you made it for me, because you said the populous would not agree with it, and doing things the populous agrees with makes money.


Likewise in a libertarian world they will "accept" corporate killing for the same reason: they feel powerless to stop it.
How you can believe people will give money to a company that kills people left and right, is absolutely crazy. The State can get away with it, because it does not need your consent.


Sure they can "vote with their dollars" but they can "vote" for the state too, you know ...with votes.
Yes, because when you vote with your dollar you are oppressing people who didn&#39;t vote what you did. Wait, no.


It doesn&#39;t matter. Every government kills, every police force abuses its position. It&#39;s not about who has the job, it&#39;s the nature of the job that is oppressive.
Yes, the Statist Police feel you are their subordinate, their peon to steal money from. Companies instead have Private Police, which protect and defend the individual, opposed to the State, which Statist Police protect and defend.


The same is true for corporate power.
Corporate power is entirely dependent upon voluntary trade, State power is not.


There aren&#39;t "nice" companies and "bad" companies. All corporations are psychopaths, it&#39;s the fidutiary obligation to their stockholders to be antisocial. Anything else is fiscal negligence.
On the large scale, does being antisocial increase wealth?


That means that in your dreamworld every company would be killing. It, after all, increases profits when you kill those trying to lower profits.
Answer the above question.


Other companies would, of course, defend themselves, as would individuals with the means to do so (read: the rich). That means gangland warfare and virtual civil war with one corporation fighting the other fighting the other.
You cannot honestly believe there would be literal fighting, when is that more profitable than trade (and I mean REAL instances)?


Once you demolish the state monopoly on force, you disperse that force into the population.
Idiocy&#33; You believe that the State is a natural extension of force in society, but this is simply incorrect. Individuals all have the right to use force to protect themselves and their justly acquired property. The State&#39;s force is illegitimate - because they are initiating the force.


But unless you eliminate social hierarchy at the same time, you create power inblances that can only result in violence.
Prove social hierarchy exists, and do it without using the LTV. Can&#39;t? That&#39;s because value is in the eye of the beholder.


And what is the "feeling" of buying from a murderer? Seriously tell me. You, after all, have almost certainly done so.
Guilt. It&#39;s the same feeling that Libertarians get when the vote Republican. It&#39;s a slimy, horrible feeling.


So have I, of course. So have most of us. Drink companies, oil companies, clothing companies. Private corporations are killing across the third world today. They generally are unable to do so in the first world because they are unable to exert sufficient control over the state.
Have you ever thought that maybe it was because the Statist Police are inefficient bureaucrats, and cannot provide adequate protection?

I am not conceding that most companies kill however or even that if they were larger they would.


...and did you just call me a capitalist? :huh:
No, I called you a naive capitalist. I was using capitalist to describe what we are currently talking about.


Sure. Slip a few quid to the various news directors to keep it under their hats. Easy as pie.
And it&#39;s easy as pie to shape someone&#39;s greed right?
Nope.


Firstly, why would his profit margin slip?
Because he was doing something that his customers (which voluntarily trade with him) do not agree with the particular practice. It&#39;s called ostracism.


Even if people found out what he did, it really woudn&#39;t be that uncommon.
Fundamental difference of opinion. I believe people are getting MORE suspicious, not LESS&#33; Ever heard of Consumer Reports?


More importantly, even if they were angered, again, most of them couldn&#39;t afford to switch products.
Yes, it is mighty hard for them to switch when they have over 70% of their living stolen, either directly or indirectly, through the State. When that money is in their own hands, they can best decide what their best interest is.


In the case of Microsoft, of course, they hardly even have the option&#33;
Whoosh, you didn&#39;t make the claim that they are a monopoly&#33;
&#39;You can choose A, and you aren&#39;t responsible for your decision&#39; and &#39;You can choose anything you want, but you are responsible for your decision&#39; are so vastly different it is hard to compare.


Something like the judge won&#39;t accept a bribe because he needs a reputation for honesty to keep clients ..and that may be true but how much do you think such a judge would make a year?
You don&#39;t think EVERYONE would think that and thus Gates would have to go absolutely positively out of his was to prove he was innocent?
Opposed to collectivist systems, where all he has to do is pay off the judge, what are they going to do, APPEAL?


I never denied that.
You deny that, quote: "capitalism is not solely based upon &#39;getting the best deal&#39; it is in respect to monetary profits, but mental profits can only be judged by the individual."


Clearly you completely misunderstand the nature of pedophilia.
Clearly you misunderstand the nature of sexual repression: it can lead to perverse activities such as child porn.


Legalizing prostitution isn&#39;t going to change what they are or what they want.
Unless sexual repression is what caused it in the first place.


So a six year old should be able to "consent" to sexual intercourse with a 30 year old?
You use absurd emotional issues to try and denounce contract rights.


Legalizing child prostition ...wow, well at least we know where you stand. :angry:
You think laws stop things from happening? Well, maybe in the totalitarian state you want.


I think that it would be a dangerous and costly business to go into.
Just as it is now.


The pedophiles would doubtlessly defend themselves, and there&#39;s no money to be made in it (who would pay?).
Mental profits are to be made.


But don&#39;t you see the bigger point here? You are talking, openly, about large-scale vigilante justice as an institution. You are proposing it as a viable solution.
No I am not; I am proposing that when property rights are properly enforced, crime is less. Anyway, vigilante justice against pedophiles over the interweb is becoming more and more common.


You simply can&#39;t liberate one without liberating them all.
Yes in fact you can, because pedophiles are unanimously hated, the same cannot be said of gays or blacks or whomever.


Depends on the jury, I suppose.
Only if they did not know what jury nullification is, otherwise they would NEVER convict a man of killing a child rapist.


And on the subject of juries, how do they have any authority anyways? Let&#39;s say on of these "market" courts finds you guilty, then what?
What happens when you make a contract and don&#39;t follow it?


Do they have a private police force that arrests you, binds you, and puts you in a private prison? Well, who pays for all of that? Who keeps the prison running and staffed?
"But without the "government" making shoes, who would put the laces in them? Who would put the soles on? Who keeps the situation orderly?"


As ludicrous as it sounds, how do assure that particularly wealthy "inmate" (or his associates) doesn&#39;t just buy the prison outright?
Popular demand.


It&#39;s a crazy scenario, but it&#39;s what could happen.
Yes, and Communism is a crazy scenario, but it&#39;s what could happen.


I never claimed that you supported child porn, I said that your economic plan would facilititate it.
Do you read what you type??

Legalizing child prostition ...wow, well at least we know where you stand. :angry:


Murder isn&#39;t against the law?
Against Natural Law, yes, against man&#39;s &#39;law&#39;, sometimes.


In other words, the "individual prohibition" is functionaly useless as a deterrent. The criminal knows that they oppose them ...and doesn&#39;t care.
You miss the whole point. The reason why laws against violation of rights work is because the individual does not want the action occurring, i.e., theft or murder. The reason why man made laws do not work is because the individual does not prohibit the action, i.e., speeding, or drugs.


So long as they find someone weak and helpless (like, say, a child), they have nothing to worry about.
Is a child that has been trained with a gun a helpless child?


Again, either it&#39;s one or the other. Either "human nature" dictates that people will act selfishly or it dicates that they will act communally.
You&#39;re either with us or against us&#33;
Not. Acting selfishly leads to acting communally in most situations. Most people don&#39;t compete, they cooperate. This is why people don&#39;t go around killing people - they act selfishly by acting communally&#33;


If it&#39;s the former, then capitalism may be nescessary but child porn will be made and made a lot. If it&#39;s the latter than your entire economic ideology is flawed.
...or YOUR entire economic "theory" is flawed because you refuse to understand simple concepts.


If I were you I&#39;d just concede that point and admit that unbriddled market capitalism means that demand for product will always be met even if that demand is for something that you or me consider to be morally reprehensible.
I agree that it will be met, but I believe that what you and I consider to be absolutely morally reprehensible (murder, rape) will go down.


Isn&#39;t that, after all, the point? That if someone wants something they can voluntarily trade for it, no matter what someone else thinks about it?
Yes. It doesn&#39;t apply to child porn very well though, because child porn (and rape in general) is based upon the use of force.


Isn&#39;t that the "freedom" that "works"?
That peaceful exchange makes everyone better off? Yes.


Significantly more than it is today.
Do you not look at the facts, or do you just refuse to believe them?


The porn pruducers, you see, are on the same level with the vigilantes, perhaps even a stronger one.
Prove it.


Unlike with the government, they are not outmatched in terms of size and power and so have a much better chance in a fair fight.
You are CRAZY. Are seriously telling me that more than half of the population SUPPORTS child porn?


How will they even manage to identify let alone "kill" the people making the porn?
How many ISP&#39;s do you think would like to have their company on the front page with &#39;ISP IS HIDING CHILD PORN PRODUCERS&#39;?


What if the "child porn people" did not fear going to jail for killing them back?
That has no relevance what-so-ever.


Your "people won&#39;t buy from murderers" line doesn&#39;t really works when we&#39;re talking about pedophiles and kiddy-rapists does it?
Yes it does, actually.


What, that the presence of murder laws prevents murder?
What happened when the bourgeoisie left NOLA? Did murder and violent crime spike, or are you in a different reality than me?


You honestly don&#39;t think that people are afraid of the police? Of going to jail? Of being killed?
Yes, they are. But the solution is not MORE communist police. It&#39;s actual protection for the masses by the means of individual contracts.


What happened to people acting in their best interests?
Nothing.


Not in terms of the market, no.
Cop out.


Again, don&#39;t evade the issue.
I&#39;m not; you simply refuse to admit that child porn is protected, maybe not intentionally, but protected none the less, by the State.


The market dicates that realistic deman will be met. There is a very real demand for child pornography and it is relatively inexpensive to make. So according to your own economic ideology, child porn must be sold.
Yes, but it will be a far, far less amount.


Yes they do, but private "vigilantes" suck more.
Prove it. BTW, Private Protection and vigilantes are different concepts.


The think about "horrible Statist Police" is that they&#39;re equally "horrible".
Prove it.


Private protection might indeed be better, but only for those who can afford it.
Yes, but in a free society trade is a win-win game, thus prosperity will be much higher.


Who&#39;s going to pay for a private security force to protect a homeless girl? Who&#39;s going to pay for a rescue team if she&#39;s abducted and raped?
What a second, you believe Statist Police do these things today? Who would pay? Voluntary individuals.


Your market is predicated on inequality. If everyone had the same amount of money, then, yeah, this might all be able to work.
Why does that make a difference?&#33; Things are traded BECAUSE of subjective inequality.


But if everyone had the same amount of money, it wouldn&#39;t be capitalism, would it?
Not necessarily. It wouldn&#39;t necessarily be any stand of collectivism though.
I believe that in a free society people WOULD be a lot more equal. Without the State keeping various people rich, and various people poor, everyone is better off.


It&#39;s rape whether the child realizes it or not.
That&#39;s an extremely weak argument.


1st off, emotional issues REQUIRE logical analysis.


The fact that an 11 year old says she "wants" to be analy penetrated by her 30 year old father is enough for you to accept it as legitmate?
The fact that an 18 year old says she "wants" to be anally penetrated by her 23 year old boyfriend is enough for you to accept it as legitimate?


Children, prepupescent young children cannot consent to sex. If you aren&#39;t understanding that, we have a problem.
What if they legitimately want to have sex, are of sound mind and very mature? They can&#39;t then, because you know what&#39;s right for everyone don&#39;t you?

[KC]

Prove social hierarchy exists, and do it without using the LTV. Can&#39;t? That&#39;s because value is in the eye of the beholder.

What divides the classes? Means of production. What is means of production? The tools and raw materials used to create something. Is reason the means of production? No&#33; Why not? Because it is idealist bullshit&#33; Reason is about as close to being the means of production as saying that the creation of earth is the means of production. "Try making something without the creation of the earth&#33; You can&#39;t&#33; Therefore the creation of the earth is the means of production&#33;" What a bunch of idealist bullshit. Every normal economist would reject this idea.

Even if you had all the reason in the world, and you don&#39;t create something, then reason isn&#39;t the means of production. Hence, the idea of reason as the means of production fails miserably.

Why are tools and raw materials the means of production? Because, combined with labour, they make a product (is this LTV? NO&#33;). Tools and raw materials are owned by someone. Labour is owned by the worker, and sold to create products. Therefore, labour can&#39;t be the means of production because everyone can sell their labour; labour is a commodity. It is realized as a commodity in the exchange process, when it is given a value (when the worker works for a wage). So why are tools and raw materials the means of production? Because, for one thing, they are all that&#39;s left in the production process to be considered, and, once we consider them, we realize that these are the means of production. Why? Because they aren&#39;t commodities, and they are used to create products. They are all that is left in the production process.

To prove that social hierarchy exists, we just have to divide the whole of the human race into people who own the means of production (bourgeoisie) and those who don&#39;t (proletariat). After that it is plain common sense (although most of this a complete idiot could have understood; the majority of people anywhere would disagree with you on your wacky idea of the means of production).

[LSD]

And unscrupulous companies DIE all the time too.

And new unscrupulous companies take their place. Learning from past mistakes, they discover new and better ways of being unscrupulous and deceiful.

When you socialize people to accumulate wealth, they will do whatever it takes to accumulate wealth. Especially if they are operating within a corporate environment in which their very livelyhood depends on increasing corporate profits.

If you offer people the choice of assisting in a stock scam or being thrown out on the street, they&#39;ll choose the stock scam every day.


Unscrupulous Statist agencies have a habit not to die though, just look at the CIA.

What&#39;s your point? That the government is "bad"?

Well, of course it is&#33;

I never once denied that. The point, however, is that in a capitalist environment it is a nescessary "bad" in order to keep society ordered and functional.

Without the presence of a state all social factors would be in the hands of the "market" leading to a power inbalance like nothing we&#39;ve seen since feudal Europe. The market is, fundamentally, asocial. It is the accumulation of the selfish desires of its participants, and despite your propaganda, that does not lead to collective good.

As long as the participants in the market are not equal, and in capitalism they cannot be, the selfish desires of those with more will take precedence over those of those with less.

Accordingly, without a state to mediate, there will be no check on their power.


HELLO?&#33; Bad companies go out of business ALL THE TIME&#33;

Some do, some don&#39;t.

Worldcom was doing just fine until it was investigated.

Undoubtably many functioning companies right now are "bad" but adept at hiding it.

You can&#39;t blame the "statists" for this one. Companies decieve and defraud because they want to make money, the cornerstone of your economic plan.

State, no state, it wouldn&#39;t make a difference. It doesn&#39;t matter what the government is, it matters what the economy is, and if the economy is capitalist people will lie to make money.


No, I am saying they did it because there was Statist involvement.

What?

People buy Coke because the ...government told them to?

Silly me, I thought they did it because they wanted to, you know, voluntary trade?


They may, but only ones whose &#39;value&#39; of the feeling was less than the value of having the product, which becomes less and less of an issue in prosperous free societies.

Assertion.

The first world today is the most prosperous society in the history of the world and yet people within it purchase products made by murderous corporations all the time.

There is absolutely no indication that they are retiscent to do so because their "prospterity" increased.

All evidence would suggest that most of the population is satisfied to let "out of sight" remain "out of mind", and keep such "unpleasantness" out of their purchasing decisions.

Otherwise, of course, Coke wouldn&#39;t be the number one soft drink, would it?


Every known animal hoards, or at least will not offer up valuable property for the sake of the alleged &#39;public good&#39;.

Most known animals also kill, rape, and are incapable of rational thought.

Who gives a damn?


Not necessarily, you are judging this without any principles whatsoever.

Untrue, I&#39;m judging with capitalist principles&#33;


Yes, because it&#39;s the CAPITALIST societies that are poor, not the STATIST ones&#33; History has PROVEN the bigger the “government”, the better off society is&#33; Wait, NO&#33;
Progress CANNOT be organized&#33;

Firstly, just to dispell this myth, those countries which are the richest and most powerful today are those which historically utilized strict protectionism and "market hampering".

Laisez-faire capitalism has been an unmitigated failure, which is why we haven&#39;t seen it seriously attempted in 75 years.

Not that that&#39;s relevent to this discussion, mind you.

You are attempting to change the topic and discuss prosperity and economic indicators. Sorry, no game.

It doesn&#39;t matter if your economic plan would increase prosperity (not that I for a second believe that it would), what matters is that any capitalist society nescessitates "losers".

Capitalism is predicated on the unequal division of wealth. More so, it is dependent on the concept of individual utility meaning that either due to bad luck, stupidity, incompetence, or crime, some people will find themselves destitute.

Since you have no state to compensate them, they are left in the hands of private charities which would be overrun without state support or assistance.

At the same time, you&#39;d have a class of people which were not so desperate as to be living on the street, but not so wealthy as to have a legitimate choice in products. These people, living "day to day" as it were, are forced to make the cheaper purchase whenever possible even if that means buying from "disreputable" corporations.


That&#39;s because Microsoft&#39;s products are SIMPLE to use.


Your point being?

It doesn&#39;t matter why people like Microsoft, the fact is they do, and that will not change even if Bill Gates were accused of murder.

Not that that accusation is likely to be believed anyways. Celebrities are always "targets" and without state police there&#39;s no one who can be believed to carry out an impartial investigation.

There probably wouldn&#39;t even be an investigation. Gates can certainly afford to hide/destroy any bodies and he can easily afford to pay off the "private police" of the victim (they are private afterall), assuming even that the victim was rich enough to have any.

So, again, how will people know?


How you can believe people will give money to a company that kills people left and right, is absolutely crazy.

Except, again, people do it today&#33;

This isn&#39;t "theory" here, buddy, it&#39;s fact. People buy products from companies that kill people every single day. That includes, by the way, people who know that they kill people.

Look on this very board. There is a thread about Coke in which members of this forum, aware that Coke has killed and continues to kill hundreds if not thousands of people, state that they will continue to buy Coke because they like it.

...and that&#39;s on a "collectivist" site&#33; What do you think the responses woul be like on a libertarian one?

Again, if you socialize people to believe that their personal interests are all that matters, they will take you at your word.


Yes, because when you vote with your dollar you are oppressing people who didn&#39;t vote what you did.

Obviously ...if you have more votes than they do.

If everything&#39;s on the market than everything&#39;s on the market, meaning that you can "vote" for just about anything, whether me, with my fewer "votes" likes it or not.


On the large scale, does being antisocial increase wealth?

Absolutely, without a doubt.

It&#39;s one of the few true economic "facts".


Individuals all have the right to use force to protect themselves and their justly acquired property.

Oh good, vigilante justice and "private police", again.

I think there&#39;s a more precise word for that: chaos.

"individuals ... [protecting] their property" is nothing more than baseball bat justice. Someone touches your stuff, you put a baseball bat to their head.

It might be emotionaly satisfying, but it&#39;s no way to run a society.


Prove social hierarchy exists

:lol:

You&#39;re joking right?

I have more money than a homeless person; I have more "votes" in the market; I have greater social power.
Bill gates has more money than me; he has more "votes" in the market; he has greater social power.

There are, therefore, at least three disctinct levels of social power.

Stratified power levels equals social hierarchy.

QED.


Have you ever thought that maybe it was because the Statist Police are inefficient bureaucrats, and cannot provide adequate protection?

Perhas, but If we eliminate the state then they will provide no protection and corpotations will be able to do in the first world what they&#39;be been doing in the third for centuries.

Companies simple have more money than the rest of us. In your terms, the "private police" that they can afford are much better and stronger than the "private police" that we can.

...which means they win.


I am not conceding that most companies kill however or even that if they were larger they would.

You&#39;re not really denying it either ...at least not well.

Companies are killing as we speak, there&#39;s no denying that, and above you attributed this fact, at least in part, to "inefficient [state] bureaucrats".

By your own logic, then, it stands to reason that with no "[state] bureaucrats", efficient or otherwise, corporate violence would increase.


And it&#39;s easy as pie to shape someone&#39;s greed right?

um... isn&#39;t that the basic theory of capitalism?

What is a voluntary transaction if not "shaping someone&#39;s greed"? Infinite demand negotiated to a specific trade.

How is paying a news director to be silent any different than paying a doctor for a prostate exam? The price that either service is worth is dictated by the market, and the "greed" of the servicer must be tempered by what the said market allows.


You don&#39;t think EVERYONE would think that and thus Gates would have to go absolutely positively out of his was to prove he was innocent?

No.

As you admit yourself, this is a public relations show. It&#39;s about keeping business, not "justice". All that Gates has to do is satisfy the public enough so that they&#39;re willing to continue to purchase his product. That&#39;s a whole lot easier than convincing them of his innocence.

The consumer, after all, want him to be innocent. They want to keep buying his product without feeling the "guilt" you claim they would feel buying from a murderer.

And while I still don&#39;t accept that people would take Gates&#39; potential criminlity into account when purchasing from his corporation, even in your hypothetical model, they are motivated to believe in his innocence.

Accordingly, a "respected" "private judge" finding him not guilty would almost certainly be enough to assuage any lingering worries and allow them to go on consuming, now able to offer the moral defense of "well, he was found not guilty&#33;"


Clearly you misunderstand the nature of sexual repression: it can lead to perverse activities such as child porn.

"Sexual repression"?

That&#39;s a very complex term and a very layered concept, but suffice it to say that you&#39;ve missed the point entirely.

The prohibition on prostition is not "sexual repression", it&#39;s "market hampering".


Unless sexual repression is what caused it in the first place.

Again, sexual repression is a psychological experience, not a legal one. It does not occur when one is unable to exchange sex for money, it occurs when one is unable to express one&#39;s own sexuality.

Prostitition is irrelevent to this discussion.


You use absurd emotional issues to try and denounce contract rights.

And you&#39;re avoiding the question.

No emotionalism, no "denouncing". I asked a very simple question with regards to your interpretation of children&#39;s right and the nature of consent.

I would appreciate an answer.

Again, "So a six year old should be able to "consent" to sexual intercourse with a 30 year old?"


You think laws stop things from happening?

Of course I do.

That isn&#39;t a "moral" question, it&#39;s a stastical one, and statistically, making things illegal does tend to decrease their occurance.

Whether that&#39;s a "good thing" or not is a seperate discussion. But there is no doubt that laws against child pornography have caused it to decrease.


Yes in fact you can, because pedophiles are unanimously hated, the same cannot be said of gays or blacks or whomever.


It doesn&#39;t matter if the hate is "universal", it just matters that it&#39;s active.

Pedophiles may be disliked by nearly everyone, but not everyone is willing to go out and do something about them. Most people will not risk their lives, money, or property to capture people that they don&#39;t know and never met.

The amount of people willing to form active vigilante pedophiles hunting groups is about the same as the number willing to hunt other disliked minorities, like "gays or blacks or whomever".

There are places, places even within the US, where it would not be unreasonable to say that homosexuals are "universally hated". What is to stop the same vigilance to be turned against gays there as you envisage being turned against pedophiles elsewhere?

Hell, what&#39;s to stop it anywhere for that matter? The "personal police" of the gay person in question? Not much of a match against a roving militia and it&#39;s "personal police".

Do the gays have to organize "self-defence" groups to keep themselves safe at night? How about blacks or Jews or Muslims?

Without a central authority, all the hatreds and all the animosities come out full center. There is only one thing that comes out of vigilante justice and that&#39;s blood.


Only if they did not know what jury nullification is, otherwise they would NEVER convict a man of killing a child rapist.

That&#39;s a pretty Caps-Locked "NEVER" for something which has historically happened relatively often.

Juries have convicted the murderers of "child rapists". Why they did so, if a "private" one would do so in some libertairn fantasy world, these are all debatable. But that juries would convict such a person? That&#39;s really not controversial.


What happens when you make a contract and don&#39;t follow it?

The statist police take you to statist court where a statist judge orders you to comply or the statist police will initiate force and take your property as compensation and/or put you in a statist prison.

The real question is how on earth do you enforce contract law without an arbitor with the authority and ability to project superior force?


"But without the "government" making shoes, who would put the laces in them? Who would put the soles on? Who keeps the situation orderly?"

<_< Don&#39;t evade. It&#39;s a valid question

Who would pay prisons? Who would pay the sizeable upkeep of staff and supplies? Seriously? Why would anyone freely give up their property to keep criminals alive and healthy?

Doesn&#39;t seem to be in their "interest" to me&#33;



I never claimed that you supported child porn, I said that your economic plan would facilititate it.

Do you read what you type??



Legalizing child prostition ...wow, well at least we know where you stand.

Well ...you did say that didn&#39;t you?

And, for the record, I, again, never accused you of supporting child porn. I accused you of supporting child prostitution.

And I did that because ...you did:

Originally posted by you
I suggest that arbitrary numbers based on the rotation around a star is illegitimate, in a free society, it would be much less rigid. Contracts are vaild regardless of how old you are.

Remember?


Is a child that has been trained with a gun a helpless child?

Depends on the nature of the training, and whether the attacker has been equally trained as well.

But, of course, that&#39;s completely irrelevent. Yeah, some kids aren&#39;t helpless. My point nonetheless stands, there will always be some people who are helpless and any half-competent criminal will be able to identify them.

And once they do so, the helpless victim has no recourse but to be victimized. If their sole method of prohibition is ...themselves, they&#39;re utterly screwed if they are unable to defend themselves.


I agree that it will be met, but I believe that what you and I consider to be absolutely morally reprehensible (murder, rape) will go down.

Why?

You and I may consider it reprehensible, but someone else doesn&#39;t. What right to we have to impose our morality on their individual right to voluntary exchange their property with others?

If they want to purchase child porn and someone wants to sell it, how can you or I interfere with their "market" right to engage in such a transaction?


Yes. It doesn&#39;t apply to child porn very well though, because child porn (and rape in general) is based upon the use of force.

Rape? Obviously.

Child porn? ...not nescessarily.

"Force" is a complex idea, but in the strictest sense, "force" is not needed. If a child is raised to believe that engaging in sex in front of the camera is normal, they will believe that ...no force needed.

Likewise if an older child is sufficiently socialized to believe same, they will likewise "consent" with no need for "force" to be exerted.

It is, by your definition, nothing more than a "voluntary trade" and so there is nothing that the market can do.


You are CRAZY. Are seriously telling me that more than half of the population SUPPORTS child porn?

No, I am telling you that "more than half of the population" is not willing to put their lives and property on the line to stop it.


How many ISP&#39;s do you think would like to have their company on the front page with &#39;ISP IS HIDING CHILD PORN PRODUCERS&#39;?

Not many. Good thing, then, that that never happens.

Call it synergy, call it lack of evidence, call it genuine lack of interest, but whatever the reason newpapers tend not to run stories like that.

Largely, I suppose, because it isn&#39;t a story. There is no "pedophile" ISP, they are all as guilty as each other. Not to mention that the newspaper doesn&#39;t want the hassle of a libel suit.

All ISPs feign ignorance in order to maximize their clients and for an outside agent to prove predophile usage without access to private records is virtually impossible. And since the ISPs will never give that up, especially once you eliminate the state and its ability to issue subpoenas, that as they say is that.

No investigation, no discovery, and no story.


That has no relevance what-so-ever.

Of course it does.

You are claiming that because there is no fear of jail-time, vigilantes would feel free to kill pedophiles and their facilitators. I am pointing out that by the same token, pedophiles, and any private troops they can afford, would be equally free to kill them back.

Again, we&#39;re talking about virtual civil war here.


Yes it does, actually.

Really? Pedophiles are that scrupulous are they? :lol:

Oh no, Bob, I can&#39;t buy "Kiddy Rape 7" from you, I here that you&#39;ve been killing people and that&#39;s WRONG&#33;

:rolleyes:

When people want a disreputable product they&#39;ll buy from disreputable people. Just look at how many people are willing to buy drugs from criminal gangs.


I&#39;m not; you simply refuse to admit that child porn is protected, maybe not intentionally, but protected none the less, by the State.

Because that&#39;s a ludicous statement with no bearing in fact.

Child porn rates have gone down dramatically since enforcement begain the 1970s/80s.

When it was all up to the "market", lolita magazines and "kiddy sheets" were being sold in the open en masse. How can you argue that state enforcement has not changed this?


Prove it.

"Statist police" are accountable to society in general, at least in theory. Their actions are restricted by the needs and wants of the entire community.

"Private" police, by contrast, are accountable to no one but their client. That means that they will have no compunction about causing great harm to the community and the members therein if it serves their "owner" and hence their pocketbooks.


BTW, Private Protection and vigilantes are different concepts.


True, vigilantes do it for fun, "private police" do it for money.

Zealots and mercinaries, neither is desirable.


What a second, you believe Statist Police do these things today?

Not particularly well, but yes.

The police tend to be rather incompetent generally, but they do, occasionaly, help even the poor.

You&#39;re right, they do, like the rest of capitalist society, defer to the interests of the rulling class, but at lest they sometimes enforce the law equally.

The problem with "private police" is that they don&#39;t care about the law, they don&#39;t care about equality, they just care about serving their client and making money.

So while the "Statist police" might save a homeless girl once in a blue moon, "private police" would do it never.


Who would pay? Voluntary individuals.

Which "voluntary individuals"?


Why does that make a difference?&#33;

Because, in a "market" economy, wealth disparity leads to power disparity. And if there is no social agent other than the "market", such power disparity becomes the dominant social relationship.


The fact that an 18 year old says she "wants" to be anally penetrated by her 23 year old boyfriend is enough for you to accept it as legitimate?

Yes. She has the ability to understand and consent to such activity, an 11 year old does not.

But you answered my question with a question, I&#39;m still waiting for your answer.


What if they legitimately want to have sex, are of sound mind and very mature? They can&#39;t then, because you know what&#39;s right for everyone don&#39;t you?

:(

That is probably the most disturbing comment I have ever read on this board, and that is saying a lot.

If you truly believe that prepuscent children can consent to sex with an adult then you are as dangerous as the pedohpiles you claim to hate.

[viva le revolution]

Comrades please offer your views/criticism on my post. Not surprisingly none of the capitalists have replied to my post.

[LSD]

...still waiting, freedom works... <_<

[Freedom Works]

The more you take from others the less there is to go around.


And new unscrupulous companies take their place.
Sure, if they are protected by the State. Otherwise, they must compete in the free market - and it is nearly always more profitable to invest in serving customers better, not rip people off.


The point, however, is that in a capitalist environment it is a nescessary "bad" in order to keep society ordered and functional.
Fundemental disagreement.


Without the presence of a state all social factors would be in the hands of the "market" leading to a power inbalance like nothing we&#39;ve seen since feudal Europe.
That&#39;s if you believe that in a free market &#39;business&#39; rules, instead of understanding the true power lies in the consumer.


The market is, fundamentally, asocial.
Completely untrue propaganda. The market is based upon cooperation and competition. It is better to cooperate with other people and not kill them, it is better to compete with them for the consumer&#39;s dollar. Sure, if they have the means they will asocially attempt to end their competitor, but the only way they can have the means is with the State&#33;


It is the accumulation of the selfish desires of its participants, and despite your propaganda, that does not lead to collective good.
You can say it all you want, but that does not make it true. You just wish that human nature could be changed. Human nature cannot, but human minds can. This is why collectivism can work, but only if the supermajority believe in it, and are willing to sacrifice the standard of living afforded by capitalism.
A word from Mises:
People do not cooperate under the division of labor because they love or should love one another. They cooperate because this best serves their own interests. Neither love nor charity nor any other sympathetic sentiments but rightly understood selfishness is what originally impelled man to adjust himself to the requirements of society, to respect the rights and freedoms of his fellow men and to substitute peaceful collaboration for enmity and conflict.


As long as the participants in the market are not equal, and in capitalism they cannot be, the selfish desires of those with more will take precedence over those of those with less.
You think the people with less should take precedence over the people with more?
I think that in a free society, people with less have less because they are not as willful; they don&#39;t care as much. They aren&#39;t willing to do the hard work necessary for them to have more. But really, should we take the wealth of the people with more for the people with less because the people with less have less? No.
And if you believe that it is not rightfully theirs in the first place, if you prove it is yours, I will agree that it is, and support you if they attempt to use force against you.


Accordingly, without a state to mediate, there will be no check on their power.
There does not need to be a check on power, power is simply an individual&#39;s will to accomplish something. Having a check on that will simply stifle the progress of the human race.


Some do, some don&#39;t.
Most do.


Companies decieve and defraud because they want to make money, the cornerstone of your economic plan.
They decieve and defraud because of lack of competition not to. Besides, wealth creation and increasing one&#39;s wealth is not any cornerstone of Capitalism, it is the incentive of every rational human being.


State, no state, it wouldn&#39;t make a difference.
Actually it does. The State stifles competition(with these opinions backed by force incorrectly called &#39;laws&#39;). This is an undisputable fact. Said competition if unstifled would produce the necessary incentives for less corruption.


What?
People buy Coke because the ...government told them to?
Coke allegedly kills people because of lack of competition(and they can supposedly get away with it) - which IS caused by State interference.


The first world today is the most prosperous society in the history of the world and yet people within it purchase products made by murderous corporations all the time.
Did you ever think that that may have something to do with the companies not murdering in the first place?


When you socialize people to accumulate wealth, they will do whatever it takes to accumulate wealth.
You must be comparing some utopian fantasy to this reality, because people are not &#39;socialized&#39; to accumulate wealth - they do this naturally unless:
1. They decide not to.
2. A 3rd party does not let them - through force or indoctrination.
This is why large scale (the scale on which people that do not all accept) collectivism CANNOT WORK WITHOUT A TOTALITARIAN STATE.


If you offer people the choice of assisting in a stock scam or being thrown out on the street, they&#39;ll choose the stock scam every day.
So?
If you offered people the choice of a small crappy car to an efficient safe one, they will choose the efficient safe one every day. But that isn&#39;t the point, because you are leaving out the necessary part of capitalism: PRICES.


All evidence would suggest that most of the population is satisfied to let "out of sight" remain "out of mind", and keep such "unpleasantness" out of their purchasing decisions.
Sound&#39;s like indoctrination, what do you call those first 12 years of school? In the socialist schools? INDOCTRINATION.


Otherwise, of course, Coke wouldn&#39;t be the number one soft drink, would it?
Coke would be the number one soft drink for either/both of these 2 reasons:
1. State involvement
2. The masses like it better than any other soft drink

1 could be anything like indoctrination, protectionism etc., while 2 can only be because the masses like Coke. I suspect it is a mixture of both.


Most known animals also kill, rape, and are incapable of rational thought.
Which proves my point - it is in their nature to kill and rape, and it is in human nature to be greedy. This can obviosly change with a totalitarian State, or a specific human deciding not to be, but this does not change the fact that a human growing up free from opression WILL be greedy.


Who gives a damn?
Obviously not you.


Firstly, just to dispell this myth, those countries which are the richest and most powerful today are those which historically utilized strict protectionism and "market hampering".
You must really love that propaganda. Most historians are leftist, so I can see where you get this false idea.


Laisez-faire capitalism has been an unmitigated failure, which is why we haven&#39;t seen it seriously attempted in 75 years.
I blame the socialist schools.


You are attempting to change the topic and discuss prosperity and economic indicators.
I was not attempting anything.


...what matters is that any capitalist society nescessitates "losers".
First of, trade is a win-win game. This is an undeniable fact.
Secondly, part of responsibility is that the individual is responsible for their &#39;loses&#39; AND &#39;wins&#39;. Capitalism, unlike Collectivism, does not necessitate &#39;losers&#39;. Collectivism is a dog-eat-dog system, because the more you take the more the individuals hate you for it.


Capitalism is predicated on the unequal division of wealth.
The value of said wealth however, is completely in the eye of the beholder. If I love living without a house, am I truly poor?


More so, it is dependent on the concept of individual utility meaning that either due to bad luck, stupidity, incompetence, or crime, some people will find themselves destitute.
Some people will always find themselves destitute. Collectivism cannot do away with this, except to steal from the rich to give to the less-rich. Anarcho-capitalism however, can foster such destituteness into prosperity. Collectivism cannot claim this (except to try and deny that freedom and property rights leads to prosperity).


Since you have no state to compensate them, they are left in the hands of private charities which would be overrun without state support or assistance.
Yes, because it wasn&#39;t FEMA that was horrible and inefficient during the crisis of Katrina, it was businesses and private individuals that were struggling to meet the demands of the catastrophe. Oh wait, this is completely false. Private voluntary charity ALWAYS MUCH better than State welfare, as voluntary charities have the necessary incentives to be efficient.


Exerpt from Making Economic Sense (http://www.mises.org/econsense/ch39.asp): ...the private sector will always be more efficient than the governmental because income in the private sector is only a function of efficient service to the consumers. The more efficient that service, the higher the income and profits. In the government sector, in contrast, income is unrelated to effi ciency or service to the consumer. Income is extracted coercively from the taxpayers (or, by inflation, from the pockets of consumers). In the government sector, the consumer is not someone to be served and courted; he or she is an unwelcome "waster" of scarce resources owned or controlled by the bureaucracy.



At the same time, you&#39;d have a class of people which were not so desperate as to be living on the street, but not so wealthy as to have a legitimate choice in products.
This is not a class of people this is EVERYONE, because &#39;legitimate&#39; is completely subjective, and thus EVERYONE could say they don&#39;t have a &#39;legitimate&#39; choice.


These people, living "day to day" as it were, are forced to make the cheaper purchase whenever possible even if that means buying from "disreputable" corporations.
Do you think it&#39;s right to use force so as to not allow them to support such corporations?


Your point being?
The market is functions as it should: the consumer gets what they want.


without state police there&#39;s no one who can be believed to carry out an impartial investigation.
Ever heard of Consumer Reports?


So, again, how will people know?
You cannot stop the truth. In other words, the interweb.


What do you think the responses woul be like on a libertarian
one?
The vast majority of libertarians don&#39;t drink soft drinks - that&#39;s why they are libertarians. :P


Again, if you socialize people to believe that their personal interests are all that matters, they will take you at your word.
Too bad people can&#39;t be &#39;socialized&#39; or we could live in a Utopia&#33;


If everything&#39;s on the market than everything&#39;s on the market, meaning that you can "vote" for just about anything, whether me, with my fewer "votes" likes it or not.
Nope, because the market is not mutually exclusive: there is a niche for everything.


Absolutely, without a doubt.
It&#39;s one of the few true economic "facts".
Haha, why don&#39;t you go kill people then?
Being antisocial does not increase wealth.
Stupid broken window fallacy finds its way everywhere&#33;


Oh good, vigilante justice and "private police", again.
No, self-defense. Do you have something against good ol&#39; fashion self-defense?


I think there&#39;s a more precise word for that: chaos.
There&#39;s a more precise word for Communsim: oppression.


Someone touches your stuff, you put a baseball bat to their head.
Yep, but that is going to occur in any society that respects people&#39;s right to property. Besides, it quickly evolves into private arbitration.


It might be emotionaly satisfying, but it&#39;s no way to run a society.
Society is self-contained. It does not need any external force to &#39;run&#39; it.
Besides, society does not have a mind, people do.


I have more money than a homeless person; I have more "votes" in the market; I have greater social power.
Bill gates has more money than me; he has more "votes" in the market; he has greater social power.
You may have &#39;more&#39; or &#39;less&#39; money, but that does not prove social hierarchy exists. It does not even prove you have &#39;power&#39;.


Stratified power levels equals social hierarchy.
Unless the &#39;power&#39; is nonexistent.


Perhas, but If we eliminate the state then they will provide no protection and corpotations will be able to do in the first world what they&#39;be been doing in the third for centuries.
That&#39;s like saying if we got rid of regulation we would have less competition; it is simply untrue.


Companies simple have more money than the rest of us. In your terms, the "private police" that they can afford are much better and stronger than the "private police" that we can.
Companies have more money because they voluntarily trade their product or service with the consumer, who voluntarily gives up their wealth because they believe it to be worth more.
Anyway, police protection is likely to be bundled with your house, much like water and electricity is in gated neighborhoods.


Companies are killing as we speak, there&#39;s no denying that, and above you attributed this fact, at least in part, to "inefficient [state] bureaucrats".
By your own logic, then, it stands to reason that with no "[state] bureaucrats", efficient or otherwise, corporate violence would increase.
Not if the State is oppressing the business. Think of it like this:
There are sheep. There are dogs &#39;oppressing&#39; the sheep. The dogs also are violently keeping away a kind of bird, that cooperates and serves the sheep, opposed to oppressing it. Which would you prefer?


um... isn&#39;t that the basic theory of capitalism?
Nope, the basic theory of capitalism is that self-interest promotes the collective good.


How is paying a news director to be silent any different than paying a doctor for a prostate exam? The price that either service is worth is dictated by the market, and the "greed" of the servicer must be tempered by what the said market allows.
It doesn&#39;t matter, because paying a single news director is not going to stop others from investigating. Capitalism is decentralized, remember?


As you admit yourself, this is a public relations show.
And it&#39;s not now? The market is imperfect, this is known, but that doesn&#39;t stop it from being the best system known to man.


That&#39;s a very complex term and a very layered concept, but suffice it to say that you&#39;ve missed the point entirely.
Haha, the very opposite is true. ;)


The prohibition on prostition is not "sexual repression", it&#39;s "market hampering".
It can be both. But the bigger point is, anything the State disallowed sexually IS sexual repression, and can lead to all kinds of horrible sexual problems.


Again, sexual repression is a psychological experience, not a legal one. It does not occur when one is unable to exchange sex for money, it occurs when one is unable to express one&#39;s own sexuality.
Regardless, this was not was I was talking about.


So a six year old should be able to "consent" to sexual intercourse with a 30 year old?
To I agree with it? No, would I forcablly stop it? Probably, if the 6 year old was being raped and really did not consent. I don&#39;t support the State.


That isn&#39;t a "moral" question, it&#39;s a stastical one, and statistically, making things illegal does tend to decrease their occurance.
Or it makes it dangerous, as is the case with hard drugs and prostitution.


It doesn&#39;t matter if the hate is "universal", it just matters that it&#39;s active.
No, it matters that it is rational. Hating blacks, gays, illegals whomever, is irrational, which is why it dies where freedom reigns.


What is to stop the same vigilance to be turned against gays there as you envisage being turned against pedophiles elsewhere?
People won&#39;t be going to socialist schools to be educated stupid.


Do the gays have to organize "self-defence" groups to keep themselves safe at night? How about blacks or Jews or Muslims?
So you think that a totalitarian State is required so gays, Jews and Muslims don&#39;t have to organize &#39;self-defense&#39; groups?


Without a central authority, all the hatreds and all the animosities come out full center.
Fundemental disagreement.


That&#39;s a pretty Caps-Locked "NEVER" for something which has historically happened relatively often.
I don&#39;t caps-lock and anyway, not many people know about jury nullification. http://fija.org/


The real question is how on earth do you enforce contract law without an arbitor with the authority and ability to project superior force?
You agree to an enforcer in the contract.


Who would pay prisons?
The prisoners.

Who would pay the sizeable upkeep of staff and supplies?
The prisoners.

Why would anyone freely give up their property to keep criminals alive and healthy?
Because they want to make a profit.


Doesn&#39;t seem to be in their "interest" to me&#33;
That&#39;s because you reject capitalist theory in favor of ineptitude. <_<


And, for the record, I, again, never accused you of supporting child porn. I accused you of supporting child prostitution.
I support the destrection of the parasitic State, because they may result in child prostitution being legalized does not mean that I support child prostitution.


But, of course, that&#39;s completely irrelevent. Yeah, some kids aren&#39;t helpless. My point nonetheless stands, there will always be some people who are helpless and any half-competent criminal will be able to identify them.
Which is exactly why all weapons should be legal to own: it keeps the criminals away&#33;


And once they do so, the helpless victim has no recourse but to be victimized. If their sole method of prohibition is ...themselves, they&#39;re utterly screwed if they are unable to defend themselves.
Could you learn some anarcho-capitalist theory before you idiotically accuse it of things? You sound like a naive capitalist calling down communism because it didn&#39;t work in the Soviet Union.


Why?

"As an evolved creature, man has the imperative to compete with other creatures for survival. Existance is "good" because it is preferred over non-existence, otherwise the opposite would be true, in which case living creatures would not seek to overcome any threats to it. Existence, therefore, is "the good." Extinction is then "evil." (Any creature who disagrees with that can go blow his brains out anytime now.)

Since existence is preferred over non-existence ("existance" being the definition of "good"), then, by extension, that which is conducive to continued existence is also "good." Therefore, actions that threaten continued existence, are the opposite, or evil. Murder is then objectively evil, since it threatens not only the continued existence (survival) of the intended victim; it threatens the chances of survival of the perpetrator as well (all life are evil for the same reason). Stealing is evil; adultery is evil; fraud is evil; any initiation of force against another human being is evil." -There&#39;s No Government Like No Government


What right to we have to impose our morality on their individual right to voluntary exchange their property with others?
None.


If they want to purchase child porn and someone wants to sell it, how can you or I interfere with their "market" right to engage in such a transaction?
By not trading/conversing with them. This will eventually stop them from doing such an action. It&#39;s called ostracism.


"Force" is a complex idea, but in the strictest sense, "force" is not needed. If a child is raised to believe that engaging in sex in front of the camera is normal, they will believe that ...no force needed.
If that is the case, then were is the problem? It&#39;s sick and wrong and weird, but if the kid doesn&#39;t mind, how is that rape?


It is, by your definition, nothing more than a "voluntary trade" and so there is nothing that the market can do.[/qoute]
There are various ways of dealing with said &#39;force&#39;, and all are better than the State&#39;s force.


No, I am telling you that "more than half of the population" is not willing to put their lives and property on the line to stop it.
They don&#39;t need to, all they need is to not trade with the child porn people and it will be unprofitable and die.


Call it synergy, call it lack of evidence, call it genuine lack of interest, but whatever the reason newpapers tend not to run stories like that.
Or maybe it&#39;s because it doesn&#39;t happen?


Largely, I suppose, because it isn&#39;t a story. There is no "pedophile" ISP, they are all as guilty as each other. Not to mention that the newspaper doesn&#39;t want the hassle of a libel suit.
All ignorant hypothesis.


All ISPs feign ignorance in order to maximize their clients and for an outside agent to prove predophile usage without access to private records is virtually impossible. And since the ISPs will never give that up, especially once you eliminate the state and its ability to issue subpoenas, that as they say is that.
You are silly, privately shutting down child porn providers is nearly a sport.


You are claiming that because there is no fear of jail-time, vigilantes would feel free to kill pedophiles and their facilitators. I am pointing out that by the same token, pedophiles, and any private troops they can afford, would be equally free to kill them back.
It&#39;s not the same though, because people don&#39;t have a general liking for pedophiles.


Again, we&#39;re talking about virtual civil war here.
A &#39;civil war&#39; would have to be a war fighting for control over a State, because they are not fighting to control a particular State, it is not a civil war.


When people want a disreputable product they&#39;ll buy from disreputable people.
I believe there will be less disreputable people in a free society, where responsibiliy is eminent.


Just look at how many people are willing to buy drugs from criminal gangs.
Alas, there would not be gangs in a free society, because the drugs would not be criminalized, and thus they could not compete with legitimate business.


How can you argue that state enforcement has not changed this?
I am agruing that State does not allow the private sector to compete with it.


"Statist police" are accountable to society in general, at least in theory. Their actions are restricted by the needs and wants of the entire community.
If by &#39;community&#39;, you mean the omnipotent State, then yes. Otherwise, no.


"Private" police, by contrast, are accountable to no one but their client.
If by &#39;client&#39; you mean profit, then yes. Otherwise, not really.
Profit dictates self-interest, and all of self-interest dictates communal good.


Zealots and mercinaries, neither is desirable.
Maybe for someone who prefers authoritative bosses as their &#39;Public Servents&#39;.


The police tend to be rather incompetent generally, but they do, occasionaly, help even the poor.
They do more bad than good.


The problem with "private police" is that they don&#39;t care about the law, they don&#39;t care about equality, they just care about serving their client and making money.
Please, before you try to spit on anarcho-capitalist theory, LEARN IT.


So while the "Statist police" might save a homeless girl once in a blue moon, "private police" would do it never.
Unless they saw an opportunity to boost their public image&#33; Well, would you look&#39;e there, people acting in their self-interest benefiting socieity&#33; What a radical idea&#33;


Which "voluntary individuals"?
The one&#39;s which are now being coerced into paying.


Because, in a "market" economy, wealth disparity leads to power disparity. And if there is no social agent other than the "market", such power disparity becomes the dominant social relationship.
Wealth &#33;= Power
Force == Power
While wealth can lead to force, wealth is not necessarily power.

[quote]Yes. She has the ability to understand and consent to such activity, an 11 year old does not.
I had the ability to understand and consent to such an activity at that age. This is why Age Restrictions are stupid, they draw arbitrary lines.


If you truly believe that prepuscent children can consent to sex with an adult then you are as dangerous as the pedohpiles you claim to hate.
They have a right to liberty. They can do what they with with themselves, but anything they do they are responsible for. That is how TRUE freedom works.

[Guerrilla22]

This is why no one takes libertarians seriously. In some ways they are even worse than the republican party because they are for complete and unrestricted world wide commerce.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The following article describes what happens when you have a toothless government and rich people with no scruples...

"Rich killers" Stalk city of lost girls (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1075952,00.html)

[Tungsten]

Guerrilla22

This is why no one takes libertarians seriously. In some ways they are even worse than the republican party because they are for complete and unrestricted world wide commerce

I&#39;m not sure what this is supposed to prove. The presupposition that unrestricted commerce is a bad thing is an unanalyzed, unquestioned premise intended to promote dictatorship under the guise of freedom.

NoXion

The following article describes what happens when you have a toothless government and rich people with no scruples...

Mexico is libertarian? This was posted as a joke, I hope.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 05:56 PM
NoXion

The following article describes what happens when you have a toothless government and rich people with no scruples...

Mexico is libertarian? This was posted as a joke, I hope.
Nice strawman. I wasn&#39;t arguing that Mexico was libertarian. I was saying that if you have a powerless government and rich people without scruples (Of which there are many) the above is the result.
They have nothing to fear from the Mexican government as it stands, what the hell do you think will happen if the government is smaller (less powerful) or even non-existant? Complete chaos.

[Tungsten]

Noxion

Nice strawman. I wasn&#39;t arguing that Mexico was libertarian. I was saying that if you have a powerless government and rich people without scruples (Of which there are many) the above is the result.
They have nothing to fear from the Mexican government as it stands, what the hell do you think will happen if the government is smaller (less powerful) or even non-existant? Complete chaos.

While we&#39;re on the subject of straw men, I&#39;m a minarchist, not an anarcho capitalist. Restricing the government to the task of homeland defence and law enforcement does not make it "less powerful" in the way you are trying to imply.