|
Garrett Burgwardt
|
 |
March 29, 2011, 08:34:15 PM |
|
Has there ever been an anarcho-capitalist society? What happened to it?
Medieval Iceland was a good functioning example. The American Old West was another good example, due to how far removed from the central government they were. And Somalia is currently effectively an anarcho-capitalist society. I'm writing a big paper on this, so stay tuned, I'll be posting it here soon. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
em3rgentOrdr
|
|
March 30, 2011, 08:14:41 AM |
|
I seriously begin to doubt the concept of anarchy means anything anyway. To me, anarchy is to politics what nihilism is to philosophy. It's a paradoxical, contradictory concept.
I've reached the point where I try to reject political concepts. All I can do as a human is to act. Therefore, acting is what is important. And how do I act? By promoting bitcoin, when possible... Does this make me an "anarchist". I guess so... |
"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.
Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."
|
|
|
|
eMansipater
|
|
March 30, 2011, 08:15:41 AM |
|
...And how do I act? By promoting bitcoin, when possible... Does this make me an "anarchist". I guess so...
lol, hardly. |
If you found my post helpful, feel free to send a small tip to 1QGukeKbBQbXHtV6LgkQa977LJ3YHXXW8B Visit the BitCoin Q&A Site to ask questions or share knowledge. 0.009 BTC too confusing? Use mBTC instead! Details at www.em-bit.org or visit the project thread to help make Bitcoin prices more human-friendly. |
|
|
|
The Script
|
|
March 30, 2011, 07:51:51 PM |
|
I seriously begin to doubt the concept of anarchy means anything anyway. To me, anarchy is to politics what nihilism is to philosophy. It's a paradoxical, contradictory concept.
I've reached the point where I try to reject political concepts. All I can do as a human is to act. Therefore, acting is what is important. And how do I act? By promoting bitcoin, when possible... Does this make me an "anarchist". I guess so... Ah, Human Action. That self-evident axiom upon which a whole theory of economic thought is based. But I agree with you that rejecting politics is about the only option at this point. Reminds me of an article I read by Frank Chodorov: http://mises.org/daily/5027/On-Doing-Something-About-It |
|
|
|
|
rebuilder
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1615
Merit: 1000
|
|
March 30, 2011, 09:23:32 PM |
|
Has there ever been an anarcho-capitalist society? What happened to it?
Medieval Iceland was a good functioning example. The American Old West was another good example, due to how far removed from the central government they were. And Somalia is currently effectively an anarcho-capitalist society. I'm writing a big paper on this, so stay tuned, I'll be posting it here soon. Perhaps your paper will deal with this, but didn't both Iceland and the Old West fail to protect themselves against centralization of power? |
Selling out to advertisers shows you respect neither yourself nor the rest of us.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Too many low-quality posts? Mods not keeping things clean enough? Self-moderated threads let you keep signature spammers and trolls out!
|
|
|
|
em3rgentOrdr
|
|
March 31, 2011, 06:07:53 AM |
|
Has there ever been an anarcho-capitalist society? What happened to it?
Medieval Iceland was a good functioning example. The American Old West was another good example, due to how far removed from the central government they were. And Somalia is currently effectively an anarcho-capitalist society. I'm writing a big paper on this, so stay tuned, I'll be posting it here soon. Perhaps your paper will deal with this, but didn't both Iceland and the Old West fail to protect themselves against centralization of power? Unfortunately. However, two examples don't make a universal rule. Additionally, those societies were not anarcho-capitalist societes, but rather Murrary Rothbard provided them as examples of historical societies that had some * elements* of anarcho-capitalism. It does good to study these historical examples so we can learn from them to know better why they failed. Primarily what was lacking was a commonly understood and accepted philosophical opposition to the initiation of violence and failure to build enough decentralized voluntarily-funded defense agencies strong enough to, collaboratively, resist statist aggression. Oh yeah, and they didn't have bitcoin back then to protect individuals against (most) taxes  . So while I do not necessarily agree with the maxim "might makes right", I do acknowledge that it is important to defend what you believe is important. |
"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.
Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."
|
|
|
rebuilder
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1615
Merit: 1000
|
|
March 31, 2011, 08:43:04 AM |
|
Unfortunately. However, two examples don't make a universal rule. Additionally, those societies were not anarcho-capitalist societes, but rather Murrary Rothbard provided them as examples of historical societies that had some * elements* of anarcho-capitalism. It does good to study these historical examples so we can learn from them to know better why they failed. Primarily what was lacking was a commonly understood and accepted philosophical opposition to the initiation of violence and failure to build enough decentralized voluntarily-funded defense agencies strong enough to, collaboratively, resist statist aggression. Oh yeah, and they didn't have bitcoin back then to protect individuals against (most) taxes . So while I do not necessarily agree with the maxim "might makes right", I do acknowledge that it is important to defend what you believe is important. The biggest problem I have here is I can't see how you'd transition to a voluntarist system and keep coercion out of it for any significant amount of time. People have different resources at their disposal. Some individuals have vast resources, to the point that it would be difficult for any group of individuals I can see agreeing with each other to defend themselves against them. So what I think would happen if you removed the current coercive state apparatus is that another would simply spring up in its place, in the form of private armies or something analogous. Voluntarism is fine if everyone has more or less equal capabilities, but even if the playing field was even to begin with, wealth would eventually accumulate in the hands of a minority, giving them the opportunity to use coercive force against others once they had enough resources. |
Selling out to advertisers shows you respect neither yourself nor the rest of us.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Too many low-quality posts? Mods not keeping things clean enough? Self-moderated threads let you keep signature spammers and trolls out!
|
|
|
|
左
|
|
March 31, 2011, 09:04:21 AM
Last edit: April 19, 2011, 07:37:06 AM by 左 |
|
edit.
|
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
March 31, 2011, 04:06:12 PM |
|
Oh, for Pete's sake!
Capitalism isn't a political ideology! It's an economic model! Capitalism is indifferent to the ideologies!
|
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
wb3
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
^Check Out^ Isle 3
|
|
March 31, 2011, 04:15:13 PM |
|
Oh, for Pete's sake!
Capitalism isn't a political ideology! It's an economic model! Capitalism is indifferent to the ideologies!
Ditto, What ^-He-^ says. Capitalism is a foundation for all economic models irrespective of political models. Any model that does not incorporate a supply/demand as its foundation, fails and falls. Liberalism, Socialists, etc... only exist on the backs of Capitalists no matter what country one comes from. Name any country, I can show Capitalism at work. |
Net Worth = 0.10 Hah, "Net" worth |
|
|
Atlas_
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
March 31, 2011, 04:16:56 PM |
|
Oh, for Pete's sake!
Capitalism isn't a political ideology! It's an economic model! Capitalism is indifferent to the ideologies!
Ditto, What ^-He-^ says. Capitalism is a foundation for all economic models irrespective of political models. Any model that does not incorporate a supply/demand as its foundation, fails and falls. Liberalism, Socialists, etc... only exist on the backs of Capitalists no matter what country one comes from. Name any country, I can show Capitalism at work. I couldn't of said it any better. |
|
|
|
|
grondilu (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1076
|
|
March 31, 2011, 04:38:01 PM |
|
Power is not something that is decided on philosophical considerations. It is not a social contract. It is an empiric reality.
|
|
|
|
Atlas_
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
March 31, 2011, 04:41:03 PM |
|
Power is not something that is decided on philosophical considerations. It is not a social contract. It is an empiric reality.
It's nowhere close to a reality. It's a subjective anomaly. Anything affecting another sentient organism could be considered an act of power. Its true meaning is subjectively defined. |
|
|
|
|
kiba
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1014
|
|
March 31, 2011, 04:44:22 PM |
|
Hating capitalism is like hating profit and loss, wages, opportunity costs and the law of economic.
|
|
|
|
wb3
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
^Check Out^ Isle 3
|
|
March 31, 2011, 04:52:43 PM |
|
Power is not something that is decided on philosophical considerations. It is not a social contract. It is an empiric reality.
Power is elusive and complex based on many factors, Government Model (democracy, dictatorship, blood line, etc...) but all model boil down to public acceptance. One might have power one day, and be an outcast the next. (i.e. Egypt, Libya, Yemen, etc...) The one who controls "the Mob" has power. But it never lasts because "the Mob" changes quicker than those with Power. Cardinal Richelieu probably had the best model for retention of Power. (most don't even know who he was). But even he, in the end, succumb to the change of Power. |
Net Worth = 0.10 Hah, "Net" worth |
|
|
|
FatherMcGruder
|
|
March 31, 2011, 06:56:20 PM |
|
Capitalism as an economic model cannot function without a government of some kind.
|
Use my Trade Hill referral code: TH-R11519 Check out bitcoinity.org and Ripple. Shameless display of my bitcoin address: 1Hio4bqPUZnhr2SWi4WgsnVU1ph3EkusvH |
|
|
grondilu (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1076
|
|
March 31, 2011, 07:01:57 PM |
|
Capitalism as an economic model cannot function without a government of some kind.
Yes it can. |
|
|
|
wb3
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
^Check Out^ Isle 3
|
|
March 31, 2011, 07:10:01 PM |
|
Capitalism as an economic model cannot function without a government of some kind.
Huh... It has. The neanderthal guy who made the stone wheel for 10 spears, wasn't aware of the "Capitalist Pig" government, but amazingly used a capitalist supply/demand to initiate a trade. Of course, if every individual never traded anything and was completely self sufficient, yea, your statement would be correct. But I am not holding my breath for that day. |
Net Worth = 0.10 Hah, "Net" worth |
|
|
|
FatherMcGruder
|
|
March 31, 2011, 08:41:14 PM |
|
A simple exchange between two parties of things of equal value isn't capitalism. Both parties gain as much as they lose and therefore do not experience profit.
However, if party B takes the product of A's labor without giving back something of equal value, we have capitalism in the exchange and a state in the reason behind B's privilege. Perhaps it's B's perceived strength or holiness. Perhaps B has the backing of a more powerful authority. Without such a reason, there is no state and A won't consent to such a deal.
|
Use my Trade Hill referral code: TH-R11519 Check out bitcoinity.org and Ripple. Shameless display of my bitcoin address: 1Hio4bqPUZnhr2SWi4WgsnVU1ph3EkusvH |
|
|
|
The Script
|
|
March 31, 2011, 09:15:54 PM |
|
A simple exchange between two parties of things of equal value isn't capitalism. Both parties gain as much as they lose and therefore do not experience profit.
However, if party B takes the product of A's labor without giving back something of equal value, we have capitalism in the exchange and a state in the reason behind B's privilege. Perhaps it's B's perceived strength or holiness. Perhaps B has the backing of a more powerful authority. Without such a reason, there is no state and A won't consent to such a deal.
The problem with your thinking is that things can have some sort of intrinsic "value". All value is imputed by individuals and changes not only from individual to individual, but also in time. Nothing has inherent value. If you disagree please explain how something has intrinsic value, and where that value comes from. So a voluntary exchange between two parties never involves things of equal value. If A didn't value what B has more than what he has to offer there would be no exchange (assuming no coercion). For a willing exchange between two parties both members have to value more what they are getting than what they are giving. With your example of B taking the product of A's labor there are only two cases. 1) A agrees to the trade with B 2) A does not agree and is coerced by B 1) is capitalism. 2) is theft. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
|
|
