Is It Possible For The State To Exist, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times


reply posted on 20-11-2010 @ 12:17 PM by Maslo
reply to post by RavagedSky



Um. No. Obviously you're not even basically familiar with anarcho-capitalism if you don't understand that one of the basic tenets of it is that voting, or majority rule, is immoral and is not a valid way to solve social problems. Anarcho-Capitalists completely oppose it.


Voting should have been in quotation marks.

Anarcho-capitalism is in essence a "state" where the "voting" power or ability to influence decisions depends on wealth only. Someone who has 10x the wealth of others has 10x more voting power in shareholder corporations since he is able to invest or corrupt 10x more, 10x more voting power through free market "voting" of products, 10 more power to ensure fulfilling of his decisions through paying 10x more private armies etc. You are right, its not majority rule, its wealthy rule, something even worse.


Without a government, corporations would be at the mercy of the consumer and the competition of the economy.


Or they would form a mono/oligopoly and rule us all, destroying eventual competition through private armies, if that competition even arise, you cannot compete for example in basic resources sector if someone controls all there is on earth.


Your company will not survive if you attempt to rip off your consumer, sell a bad product, maintain dishonest policies, or any other sort of unethical activity.


If it is able to destroy competition (by hiring more private armies, not just by winning in free market) and acquire monolopy in basic sectors, it can rip off whoever it wants.
If it becomes so wealthy that it can buy more armies and resources than the rest combined, is can do whatever it wants and if effect hold absolute power.

Anarcho-capitalism lacks something that prevents a corporation or individual from acquiring more power than the rest of the power spectrum combined. System with government makes it harder through redistribution of wealth, and if government becomes such powerful, everyone still has equal say in it, so its better than if corporation would become that, where the rich have far higher influence than the rest.


reply posted on 20-11-2010 @ 01:10 PM by RavagedSky
reply to post by Maslo


How, exactly, would this company -- which is only sustained by the profits it makes from voluntary consumers -- then successfully turn into a Fascistic/monopoly/private army and then successfully brutalize the customers that supply its income? Would that make any sense at all? Would anyone still support this company in any conceivable way?

You don't just raise a fleet of black helicopters and hundreds of thousands of highly-trained soldiers overnight.

The ONLY way that wars can be waged, or have ever been waged, is through taxation. What exactly is this theoretical Nazi-walmart going to do? Remember, this is a stateless society. There's no Treasury to take over -- so they can't take over the money supply because there is no central money supply. There's no central government. There is nothing for them to seize. Where will they go? What possible profit is there to be made?

So tell me: What will they do? Wade slowly through the countryside and scavenge toasters and hairdryers from houses that have long since been abandoned by their owners the moment that news of an invasion came through?

Remember, in a stateless society, you also don't know who has a weapon and who doesn't. Which means any citizen can and likely will be armed. This sort of uncertainty is an absolute nightmare for any mobilized army.

Also, what would these armed citizens -- which greatly outnumber this army -- be doing in the mean time? Playing Xbox and waiting for a new fascist state to be erected? No. They would ban together with every other company and completely eradicate this rogue private army which would have long-since gone bankrupt before it even got to the battlefield.

You cannot take over a stateless society. It would be the most difficult, frustrating, inefficient campaign in history. When there is no state, there is no central power structure to take over.


reply posted on 20-11-2010 @ 03:44 PM by Maslo
reply to post by RavagedSky



How, exactly, would this company -- which is only sustained by the profits it makes from voluntary consumers -- then successfully turn into a Fascistic/monopoly/private army and then successfully brutalize the customers that supply its income?


If the owner(s) want it and the available wealth coporation can invest into military is higher than what the victims can, what exactly will stop it?


Would that make any sense at all? Would anyone still support this company in any conceivable way?


For the same reason ordinary people support local warlords in Somalia, Taliban in Afghanistan or dictators. From fear. And if the corporation has a local monopoly on important supplies (forced or not), they have no choice.


You don't just raise a fleet of black helicopters and hundreds of thousands of highly-trained soldiers overnight.


Why not, if you have enough money, anything is possible. And why exactly would you need to do it overnight?


There's no Treasury to take over -- so they can't take over the money supply because there is no central money supply. There's no central government. There is nothing for them to seize. Where will they go? What possible profit is there to be made?


They can take over peoples gold and property and use them for work, in exchange for basic supplies and "protection". There are many ways how to exploit people if you have them under occupation and dont have to respect any conventions.


What will they do? Wade slowly through the countryside and scavenge toasters and hairdryers from houses that have long since been abandoned by their owners the moment that news of an invasion came through?


Not everyone is able to move and take his wealth with him, majority of people cant. How can factory owner move his wealth?


Remember, in a stateless society, you also don't know who has a weapon and who doesn't. Which means any citizen can and likely will be armed. This sort of uncertainty is an absolute nightmare for any mobilized army.


If the corporation has better equipped and bigger army than all citizens combined, attacking would be pointless, and guerilla tactics will not be effective after they seize peoples remaining weapons. There is no reason why they would not do it, it is not "democratizing" occupation like Afghanistan or Iraq.


Also, what would these armed citizens -- which greatly outnumber this army -- be doing in the mean time? Playing Xbox and waiting for a new fascist state to be erected? No.


Maybe they will, you know the unthinking majority. And does not matter if they are outnumbered, war is no longer about numbers, but money, equipment and technology. 100 soldiers with cutting edge equipment and many times more money and resources can beat 10 000 average wealthy citizens with rifles and 20th century military arms easily.


You cannot take over a stateless society. It would be the most difficult, frustrating, inefficient campaign in history. When there is no state, there is no central power structure to take over.


New central power structure can be set up pretty easily, why need to take over the old? If there is no central power structure to oppose the take over so it would be easier, IMHO.


reply posted on 20-11-2010 @ 08:03 PM by SassyCat
reply to post by mnemeth1

As Jean-Jacques Rousseau beautifully said it (thanks Misoir) existence of state is based on violence, lies, crime, corruption and evil and objective of every state is to become the Babylon - everyone knows that state with the highest tower is the greatest state. It is not so sad and even so bad that we live in this establishment of pure evil but it is very sad that most of us flat out deny it and live in some kind of hypnotised state of pre-programmed value system where ethics and moral philosophy is almost hard-coded in our brains.


reply posted on 21-11-2010 @ 12:34 AM by Exuberant1
reply to post by SaturnFX


People create things.

Government assumes control of those things - it does not create.

What creation it does is done through the use of funds expropriated by force and threats of force.

People create things.


reply posted on 21-11-2010 @ 10:21 AM by SaturnFX
Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by SaturnFX


People create things.

Government assumes control of those things - it does not create.

What creation it does is done through the use of funds expropriated by force and threats of force.

People create things.


ok, right...people create things, however, people work for other people and organizations, be it microsoft or the federal government.

I have no control personally what microsoft is creating..however, if I don't like what the government is creating, I can swap out managment during an election..because like it or not, I am part of that company

I would love to see the argument take place of a person working at a computer manufacturing place as he tries to take home 200 computers he just made, saying he made it, not a company, but a person...him.

The government is a entity..sort of like a person. a government is controlled (this one theoretically anyhow) by the people and if the government is doing something we generally dont like, we can alter that.
so in short...the government is actually a big popup person...a giant person and you are but a single cell within that person.

as a cell works for the body, a person works in some aspect for their government. You can object to that on principle and say its a form of communism thought (its not). the only difference between a communist government and a open democracy isn't the cell analygy, it is simply the direction the great government body moves.


reply posted on 21-11-2010 @ 08:15 PM by mnemeth1
reply to post by SaturnFX


So you believe that if the government didn't violently loot people, the internet wouldn't exist.

Looks like I have my work cut out for me here.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



A Dictator Is The Solution.
  Posted 1 days ago with 15 member flags
Why the need for Constant Growth?
  Posted 6 days ago with 7 member flags
Real Socialists. The Friends Of The Conservatives.
  Posted 15 days ago with 6 member flags
On What Date Did Human Freedom End?
  Posted 16 days ago with 5 member flags
So, is it really a female choice?
  Posted 1 days ago with 5 member flags
Imperialism
  Posted 19 days ago with 4 member flags