It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Objective law: Anarcho-Capitalism vs. Minarchism

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

So, I've actually been reading Rothbard's book For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. I really wish I could have discovered this amazing book years ago, Rothbard's arguments for liberty are amazing, and I think I've finally found my political niche: anarcho-capitalism.

It's funny, because I think I've been arguing for something akin to anarcho-capitalism for years without actually realizing it.




posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

The problem is how does one transition to a libertarian system without:

1) Its enemy's ripping it apart

2) Its own people ripping it apart.

If next week the US/UK/Japan dropped all market regulation and allowed a free for all then things will go down hill fast.........very fast. that 1% who already have a advantage will gobble up even more wealth.

And remember the 1% are outnumbered 100 to 1 . Once a certain point of poverty and social immobility are hit socialist revolution normally strike as the poor masses turn.


For a libertarian system to work the only viable way is to rub the financial slate "clean". forgive all debts but wipe all fiat currency's and start anew, dissolving all big banks and corporations ect which in itself would require a decade or so of tyranny and socialism to enforce such a clean slate.


Rand may very well have been right in that large government is bad ect But to take a cold hearted selfish approach as her would be fatal.


edit on 1-6-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

The biggest weakness I see with anarchy is that it will only be as moral/ethical as the people.

Right now, we have a very unethical/immoral populace.




^^^ What she said.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko


A lot of the whining about "the rich" comes from the place of envy. He or she has more than I do and shouldn't, it's not fair



Its more like He or she has more than I do because they broke laws, received corporate welfare and evaded taxes and got away with and its not fair.

Personally I have no issue with Brain surgeon earning millions or entrepreneurs like Elon Musk earning billions. I dont really care even how they spend it.

My issue is seeing the russian oligarchs and Saudi Princes driving round London in there Lambos when not only was there wealth gained from pretty #ty actions but its still being used to prop up the likes of Putin and ME despots.

or

The bankers who caused the crash of 2008 paying themselves massive bonuses from the tax money I had to give them.


edit on 1-6-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: JeanPaul

On the simplest level, I grew the tomato plant. It would not exist without my labor and efforts. I "stole" it from nobody and no state came along and required me to grow it.

Similarly, my neighbor took the time and effort to raise his hen.

There is a wonderful children's story that illustrates this. It's called The Little Red Hen. The hen finds some wheat one day while she is out foraging, and instead of eating it up right away, she has an idea. She decides she will plant the wheat, grow more and harvest it and use it to bake a large loaf of bread to feed both she and her chicks. At every stage in the process at which she and her chicks work, she invites the other animals on the farm to help them at their labor. The others refuse always having something more important to do.

And in the end, when the bread is freshly baked and ready, she asks one more time who will help them eat, and there is no shortage of volunteers from all around the farm. This time, she refuses them and keeps the bread all to herself and the chicks who have helped her.

Did she "steal" the bread from the other animals? According to you she did even though she asked them to help her at every step and none would. Presumably if they had, she would have shared her bread with them.

I rewrote this story using your modern socialist beliefs. In the rewritten version, the animals appeal to the farmer that it's not fair that she "stole" the bread from them, so the farmer takes the bread from her and divides it up. Because she and her chicks did all the work, they still get the biggest share, but all the animals who did nothing also get a smaller equal share because it wouldn't fair for them to get nothing. So, no one is happy. The hen is upset because when she divides the loaf out to her family there isn't enough for them who worked so hard for it, and the animals still hate the hen because they only see she has more than they do.

So the next time the hen sees some wheat on the side of the road ... she simply eats it.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

How do you know I'm talking about the super rich?

A lot of the laws aimed at "the rich" fall hardest on the middle and upper middle class. Are you claiming we only reach the middle class by lying, cheating and stealing?


edit on 1-6-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: ketsuko

There is always the argument of what our government was "supposed" to be.

While I agree with you, there are many issues with the minarchist perspective.

One issue is the forgetfulness of future generations. When a generation of people have come not to fear government because they've never dealt with government tyranny--they slowly begin to turn more and more to government to solve private issues.

Another issue is democracy itself. Majority-rule is a horrible tool to use for government if your goal is individual liberty. Majority-rule turns us into an "us vs. them" mentality and sets the stage for the tyranny of the majority.

For our government to work, we have to have "our people" in office--and we have no guarantee that "our people" will be in office.

Even if we whittled our government down to what it was when it first came to be--I think we would be right back where we started in 100 years or so.


Even if you completely dissolve government. Or replace it with a skeleton government tied to a constitution you still have one issue.

With armed population you still have majority rule.

If the Majority want change then they can take it by force.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: crazyewok

How do you know I'm talking about the super rich?

A lot of the laws aimed at "the rich" fall hardest on the middle and upper middle class. Are you claiming we only reach the middle class by lying, cheating and stealing?



Of course not.

I have already stated there are many honest people with money who I have zero problem with. Hell I am even in the upper middle class myself, no lying cheating and stealing involved.

What im saying is most of the whining I hear on ATS and elsewhere is not directed at the upper middle class or honest rich but at the banking/Criminal/Political classes.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Why is that an issue?

It's what the 2ng Amendment is there to guarantee. It is supposed to be one more check in the balance. If the populace can rise up and overthrow the government, then the idea is that the government is supposed to maintain the consent of the governed, meaning it ought to not go too far beyond the pale.

For the most part, people prefer stability to the outright chaos of naked revolution. You can see it at work right now. Things are not good over here. People are not happy. The government has historically low approval in more or less all branches. But, you do not have armed revolt yet.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: crazyewok

Why is that an issue?

It's what the 2ng Amendment is there to guarantee. It is supposed to be one more check in the balance. If the populace can rise up and overthrow the government, then the idea is that the government is supposed to maintain the consent of the governed, meaning it ought to not go too far beyond the pale.

For the most part, people prefer stability to the outright chaos of naked revolution. You can see it at work right now. Things are not good over here. People are not happy. The government has historically low approval in more or less all branches. But, you do not have armed revolt yet.



Maybe issue is a wrong word.

Factor should I say.

What I am saying is it can certainly be a check but if things got bad due to some event in a libertarian system and there was no democratic out let......well it could be very well be turned on the Libertarian system if the majority were unhappy.

More simply guns can be used as a voice for the majority as much as votes. Great if the majority of thinking is inline with yours.


This aint a anti 2nd rant. Or anti guns bla bla bla just a statement of fact and one people just need to be mindful of.

In true free state one can not restrict weapons but you do have to live with the consequences good and bad.
edit on 1-6-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: greencmp

So, I've actually been reading Rothbard's book For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. I really wish I could have discovered this amazing book years ago, Rothbard's arguments for liberty are amazing, and I think I've finally found my political niche: anarcho-capitalism.

It's funny, because I think I've been arguing for something akin to anarcho-capitalism for years without actually realizing it.


Great! "For a New Liberty" is certainly the widely accepted libertarian "manifesto" as he calls it.



I am a huge fan of Ludwig von Mises as well as Hayek, Bastiat, etc.

Many high profile "libertarian" think tanks like Cato and Heritage have more or less disavowed Rothbard, a true shame.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: greencmp

The problem is how does one transition to a libertarian system without:

1) Its enemy's ripping it apart

2) Its own people ripping it apart.

If next week the US/UK/Japan dropped all market regulation and allowed a free for all then things will go down hill fast.........very fast. that 1% who already have a advantage will gobble up even more wealth.

And remember the 1% are outnumbered 100 to 1 . Once a certain point of poverty and social immobility are hit socialist revolution normally strike as the poor masses turn.


For a libertarian system to work the only viable way is to rub the financial slate "clean". forgive all debts but wipe all fiat currency's and start anew, dissolving all big banks and corporations ect which in itself would require a decade or so of tyranny and socialism to enforce such a clean slate.


Rand may very well have been right in that large government is bad ect But to take a cold hearted selfish approach as her would be fatal.



If you want to talk about practical applicability, returning $5,000 to $20,000 to people each year would be the greatest single benefit any program could ever do. Commodity prices would go down if less taxed and regulated, not up.

All in all, for the average person, it would be an immediate, undeniable and significant boost to their well being.
edit on 1-6-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Well, to me a libertarian system simply means decentralized control at the top with more power placed in local hands at the state and municipality level. Let people decide the more day to day issues that so often get decided in Washington as smaller communities rather than as a one size fits all bureaucratic notion from "on high."

There would still be some things that Washington would have to have the power to do: raise armies for the nation, play referee between the states, represent the states to the rest of the world. And for those kinds of things, we would still need a federal government, but most of what it now does, it should be irrelevant.

You sound more like you're worried about a completely anarchistic system at which point a heavily armed populace would be an issue.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   
originally our representative government was set up to protect the commoners from the wealthy, and the powerful religious orders at the time of the constitution. basically so commoners could "partake" in the freedoms that the wealthy and powerful have always had. pre-colonial Europe was controlled by royal families, the nobles, and the clergy, and they had freedoms that were not available to the commoner. our government WAS NOT set up to help the wealthy and/or powerful, they didn't need it back then, as well as in today's modern era.

case in point, I find it odd that data collection is frowned upon when done by our government, but, NOT equally frowned upon by corporations collecting and keeping it. frankly corporate data collecting can be just as insidious or more so, due to the fact that corporations have a lot more protections from the public seeing what it has, than a government agency....and you do not see this even mentioned in any media
edit on 1-6-2015 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: crazyewok

Well, to me a libertarian system simply means decentralized control at the top with more power placed in local hands at the state and municipality level. Let people decide the more day to day issues that so often get decided in Washington as smaller communities rather than as a one size fits all bureaucratic notion from "on high."

There would still be some things that Washington would have to have the power to do: raise armies for the nation, play referee between the states, represent the states to the rest of the world. And for those kinds of things, we would still need a federal government, but most of what it now does, it should be irrelevant.

You sound more like you're worried about a completely anarchistic system at which point a heavily armed populace would be an issue.



Well thats pretty much what I want. Hence why I want the UK out the EU and more decentralization. Id rather spending be decided locally rather than by bureaucrats in a capital city bubble. But certain provision like armed forces ect should be kept under government control.

But yes im addressing more the completely anarchistic view some have here on ATS.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
originally our representative government was set up to protect the commoners from the wealthy, and the powerful religious orders at the time of the constitution. basically so commoners could "partake" in the freedoms that the wealthy and powerful have always had. pre-colonial Europe was controlled by royal families, the nobles, and the clergy, and they had freedoms that were not available to the commoner. our government WAS NOT set up to help the wealthy and/or powerful, they didn't need it back then, as well as in today's modern era.


That's the idea, and also why we're talking about deconstructing the system it's morphed into.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: jimmyx
originally our representative government was set up to protect the commoners from the wealthy, and the powerful religious orders at the time of the constitution. basically so commoners could "partake" in the freedoms that the wealthy and powerful have always had. pre-colonial Europe was controlled by royal families, the nobles, and the clergy, and they had freedoms that were not available to the commoner. our government WAS NOT set up to help the wealthy and/or powerful, they didn't need it back then, as well as in today's modern era.


That's the idea, and also why we're talking about deconstructing the system it's morphed into.


ok...but with government, we have legal ways of checking and controlling their power over us, far less with corporations, who because of the "monied" power they hold over our government, they were for instance, able to force the taxpayer to pony up 700 billion dollars back in 2008, and if the government didn't, they publically said it would collapse the financial system of this country.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

Deconstruct the government and you deconstruct many of the loopholes and nice little protections the big corporations have built into the system for themselves.

Just for example: Why do they get of playing taxes? It isn't because the tax rates aren't there. It's because they have so many little exceptions written into the code that they can game into zeroing out those rates. Deconstruct the system, and they can't dodge the rate anymore.

Just for example: Why are there do few competitive options? It's because they insert themselves into the big regulatory pieces of legislation. Sure they don't necessarily like paying the cost of regulation, but they balance it out. If the cost of regulation can leverage out competition in their market then they get a lock in that market. Between not having the competition in the market increasing their share and the lack of competition leaving buyers fewer options to choose from allowing them to increase price ... oh, well, they can shoulder some increased regulatory costs. So they sign on and support the bills.

I have a husband who works for a big corp. We see some of how the game gets played. He even does some consulting work for a lobbying group in his industry.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

we need to encourage and support the politicians that want to get money out of politics....our government can still be turned around to function as a democratic republic, but corporations are fascist by design, and I do not want to live in a world run exclusively by them, as it seems to be slowly happening.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

We were never designed to be a democratic republic. We are a constitutional republic.

Understand that too much direct democracy is part of the problem. I know it's hard to understand. It took me a long time to understand myself. But the best way to get a handle on it is to reduce the idea of democracy down to a small group of say nine (think about our current Supreme Court).

Such a group is essentially a direct democracy. Nine people voting. Of those nine, we more of less tend to think we know where eight of those votes will go, into two voting blocks of four votes each, with one man - Justice Kennedy - serving as the all-important tie breaker. That basically boils the highest court in the land more or less down to the decision of one man, not nine Justices. Who cares what Kagan thinks or Scalia? We know how they'll vote on pretty much every decision, but Justice Kennedy is man of the hour because he could go either way.

Is that the way it was supposed to be? No. But that is what direct democracy of the court makes it. Instead of nine important votes, you have one.

Now, work your way up to the popular vote in elections. Your one vote does not matter. Not at all. You only matter inasmuch as you can be part of this or that voting block. Are you black? Are you labor? Are you LBGT? Are you a soccer mom? Are you the elusive independent? If you aren't, then no one cares about you.

The more direct (and larger) your democracy gets, the less important your single vote is.

Smaller, local direct elections minimize that effect.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join