ANARCHO CAPITALISM - debate it here!

[FirstAscent]

Yes. It requires more then philosophical prognostications about human behavior to effectively predict its outcome.

How is it, you can use a word like "prognostications", correctly spelled and placed in the sentence, and yet use "then" instead of "than"?

And what, exactly, would you suggest we use to predict the outcome?

The thesaurus is getting a workout.

How so? Do you really think I consulted a thesaurus before I made that statement? Seriously?

[FirstAscent]

And just so you know, myrkul, I did it again in my reply to you. I used the word to instead of too. And it occurred exactly due to the reason I gave.

[myrkul]

And just so you know, myrkul, I did it again in my reply to you. I used the word to instead of too. And it occurred exactly due to the reason I gave.

Clicking "post" before proof-reading your posts?

[cbeast]

Yes. It requires more then philosophical prognostications about human behavior to effectively predict its outcome.

How is it, you can use a word like "prognostications", correctly spelled and placed in the sentence, and yet use "then" instead of "than"?

And what, exactly, would you suggest we use to predict the outcome?

The thesaurus is getting a workout.

How so? Do you really think I consulted a thesaurus before I made that statement? Seriously?

It's not an accusation indictment.

[FirstAscent]

And just so you know, myrkul, I did it again in my reply to you. I used the word to instead of too. And it occurred exactly due to the reason I gave.

Clicking "post" before proof-reading your posts?

Often. Now, regarding your pontifications and prognostications on politics, we all find them a bit peremptory, and thus we feel compelled to respond in a perfunctory manner, which may come off as pugnacious to you.

[myrkul]

And just so you know, myrkul, I did it again in my reply to you. I used the word to instead of too. And it occurred exactly due to the reason I gave.

Clicking "post" before proof-reading your posts?

Often. Now, regarding your pontifications and prognostications on politics, we all find them a bit peremptory, and thus we feel compelled to respond in a perfunctory manner, which may come off as pugnacious to you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyxgPocbM8Y

[FirstAscent]

And just so you know, myrkul, I did it again in my reply to you. I used the word to instead of too. And it occurred exactly due to the reason I gave.

Clicking "post" before proof-reading your posts?

Often. Now, regarding your pontifications and prognostications on politics, we all find them a bit peremptory, and thus we feel compelled to respond in a perfunctory manner, which may come off as pugnacious to you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyxgPocbM8Y

Or you could read Jack Vance, where even the lowly peasants speak that way. Fun stuff.

[cbeast]

And just so you know, myrkul, I did it again in my reply to you. I used the word to instead of too. And it occurred exactly due to the reason I gave.

Clicking "post" before proof-reading your posts?

Often. Now, regarding your pontifications and prognostications on politics, we all find them a bit peremptory, and thus we feel compelled to respond in a perfunctory manner, which may come off as pugnacious to you.

Usually something like this gets a hit on google and verifies copypasta. Well played, Sir.

[cryptoanarchist]

The quickest way to change society is by changing the currency. The currency is the lifeblood of moral human interaction. The fiat monetary system is an hierarchical, pyramid system so it makes sense that that is the type of political system we have as well.

A decentralized monetary system will result in a decentralized political/legal system.

[Slushpuppy]

I gotta say, when I went to sleep there was one snarky reply to this post. There is a lot of words now, but still no convincing arguments. I think the greatest weakness to ancap is pollution, but then again governments are by far the greatest polluters.

 I honed my philosophy from http://reddit.com/r/anarcho_capitalism, lots of deep thinkers in there, and lots of opposing views too. Just yesterday I learned the richest robber barons of the gilded age got there on their own, without government subsidy. For example Vanderbilt got the price of shipping a barrel of flour down to 14 cents, from THREE dollars! If you want to see the full video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-LJ3wZjD4I




Its about 36 minutes long but every minute is interesting, paints a completely different picture of the gilded age and "The WILD west" which turns out was not so wild...


But anyway, capitalism is not keeping everybody down, it is the only thing pulling us out of shit. Let capitalism run free, and we will be in space much sooner

[myrkul]

I gotta say, when I went to sleep there was one snarky reply to this post. There is a lot of words now, but still no convincing arguments. I think the greatest weakness to ancap is pollution, but then again governments are by far the greatest polluters.

The environmental effects are being discussed here... If FirstAscent ever gets around to making a point. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=92952.0

[FirstAscent]

I gotta say, when I went to sleep there was one snarky reply to this post. There is a lot of words now, but still no convincing arguments. I think the greatest weakness to ancap is pollution, but then again governments are by far the greatest polluters.

The environmental effects are being discussed here... If FirstAscent ever gets around to making a point. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=92952.0

Points are way overrated, as opposed to knowledge and understanding. My intent in that thread is to deliver the latter in greater proportion to the former. Political theories are worthless without a fundamental foundation to build upon. Everyone should focus on building a case derived from knowledge, rather than defending mantras and ideologies.

[myrkul]

Points are way overrated, as opposed to knowledge and understanding. My intent in that thread is to deliver the latter in greater proportion to the former.

Either way, you have to type to present them. Feel free to start doing that whenever you like.

[MoneyIsDebt]

I'm just one guy. The rest of the world will always have more gunpower than me. So how is anarchy going to secure the property rights needed for capitalism?

[myrkul]

I'm just one guy. The rest of the world will always have more gunpower than me. So how is anarchy going to secure the property rights needed for capitalism?

As I said earlier, much the same way living in a nation-state does today, with the added benefit that the guards of those property rights don't themselves violate those rights.

[myrkul]

I'm just one guy. The rest of the world will always have more gunpower than me. So how is anarchy going to secure the property rights needed for capitalism?

As I said earlier, much the same way living in a nation-state does today, with the added benefit that the guards of those property rights don't themselves violate those rights.

Those guards will eventually.

My problem with anarcho capitalism is that it is a utopian ideal. My problem with anarcho capitalism is the anarchy. I would go into why I think anarchy is an ideal and could never be a reality but you probably have heard most of it already.

On the contrary, AnCap is not utopia. It has never been presented as one. We merely argue that it is preferable to government. The real utopian idealism is thinking that because some guy can convince 50% +1 of the population that he's the right man for the job, that he will suddenly become a saint. That doesn't select for good people, it selects for convincing liars.

[myrkul]

Anarchy is utopian, as in perfect world ideal, where everything must work perfectly to... well work.

Uh.... no.

AnCap, especially, recognizes that there will always be people who do not wish to play nice. However, unlike governmental systems, rather than giving some of these people the power to do as they wish in return for keeping the rest of them away, we simply give the job of keeping them away to people who do want to play nice, and recognize that all such people who do not want to play nice belong to the same class of people: criminals.

[myrkul]

I'm just one guy. The rest of the world will always have more gunpower than me. So how is anarchy going to secure the property rights needed for capitalism?

As I said earlier, much the same way living in a nation-state does today, with the added benefit that the guards of those property rights don't themselves violate those rights.

What is stopping those guards from violating those right?

Who watches the watcher, eh? Valid question, and one you should ask of any political arrangement. There's a short answer, which is glib, snappy, and oversimplified, and a long answer, which is detailed, involved, and much, much more than I feel like typing right now. So, you get the short answer, and a summary of the long one.

Short answer: The other guards.

Long answer (summary): The guards operate in a free-market competition for more customers. A company that started violating rights would start losing customers, not to mention employees. Customers would flock to the other companies, because they do not violate their rights, and employees would be lost in two ways: combat losses due to attempting to violate the rights of people who were prepared to defend themselves, and defections because those employees either don't want to violate the customer's rights, or don't like being shot at.

[myrkul]

If guards was a business, don't business's tend to get bigger and bigger. What if over time there becomes a monopoly, or even a duopoly. Then we are basically back to government.

Except not.

Here's a quote from Wikipedia's page on Monopolies:

Monopolies can be established by a government, form naturally, or form by mergers. A monopoly is said to be coercive when the monopoly actively prohibits competitors by using practices (such as underselling) that derive from its market or political influence.

The links are maintained from the original text, I suggest you read all three articles, but I'll summarize here:

A monopoly like that which you describe is a natural monopoly, one that, due to economies of scale, becomes the sole provider in a market. It is prevented from the sorts of abuses typically attributed to governments and other coercive monopolies by the fact that it is in a rather precarious position - it maintains it's spot at the top of the pile by having the best services available for the best prices profitable.

A coercive monopoly, such as government or any of the various other monopolies that it allows or establishes, on the other hand, is the sole provider in a market due to force. Any coercive monopoly would be rightly viewed as illegitimate, and absent laws preventing competition, would quickly fail, or start playing nice.

It should also be pointed out that the answer for a feared concentration of power is not a concentration of power.

[FlipPro]

And just so you know, myrkul, I did it again in my reply to you. I used the word to instead of too. And it occurred exactly due to the reason I gave.

Clicking "post" before proof-reading your posts?

Often. Now, regarding your pontifications and prognostications on politics, we all find them a bit peremptory, and thus we feel compelled to respond in a perfunctory manner, which may come off as pugnacious to you.

Hero member folks.

Question are you working on any BTC related projects at the moment?