Nothing Will Change Until People Refuse To Accept A Government Predicated On Violence/Coercion

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Lol. Yes, that's pretty much what I was trying to say.

While I have a bias in favor of free markets, I'm not sure that markets always serve everyone's needs in a positive way. I believe that there is more to a nation than it's market-places. i believe that there is (or should be) more to national identity than simply where your taxes get spent. I think that the people of modern nations are more concerned with their national identities than their leaders are.

There is no such thing as a permenant free-market, with or without government involvement. Eventually monopolies are formed and they dictate the terms of doing business. At least with government involvement called regulation, the formation of private monopolies are delayed substantially.

We see private prisons, private schools, private water supply and maintaince, private telephones and internet, private central banking(root of all evil), private transportation, private pension plans, private insurance, private everything.

THAT IS CAPITALISM.

Conversely communism is when the means of production is public.

Socialism is a hybrid system! And please disregard the soviet union tomfoolery. Very few people got fooled with the union of soviet "socialists" repubiic. It was 100% communist!

A government runs "the state", which I prefer to call nation. And the citizens are sovereign only if they do not allign themselves with foreign entities.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I would argue that communism is when the means of production is controlled through a violent monopoly.

Who exactly is "the public" under a communist system and how does it differ from allowing individual citizens to own their own businesses?

Isn't an individual business owner a member of the public?

If an individual business owner sucks at running his business under a capitalist system, what happens to his money and his business?

If a violent monopoly of State authoritarians runs a crumby business, what happens to their money and the business?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Austrian economics is quite clear.

Aaaaaand I can see it's going to be one of those posts. Austrian economics is idiotic. This is why even Austria does not utilize Austrian economics.

The introduction of coercion or violence into economic systems always leads to worse economic outcomes for everyone.

Good thing the role of government in this respect is to reduce the violence and coercion in the economic system. They didn't call 'e, "Robber Barons" because they were nice guys, after all.

For example, social security is predicated on the use of coercion. It is now bankrupt and a complete ponzi scheme that can only be sustained by the next generation's income. In the State's effort to help poor people, it has made everyone poorer.

One, you have no idea how social security works. It's a trust fund.
two, you're a liar - no one is being made poorer by this system. NO ONE. Overall prosperity has actually INCREASED thanks to Social Security.

The war on drugs is predicated on coercion. The US now has more prisoners per capita than the Soviet Union did at the height of the gulag labor camp system. The war on drugs has deprived America of millions of man hours of productive labor that could have been used to produce goods and services that benefit humanity.

Well, at least that much is true.

Because everything the State does is predicated on coercion, we can say with total confidence that nothing the State does brings humanity more benefit than if people had been left alone to their own devices.

Left to their own devices, people form the state. You do understand that "the state" is not an alien entity from Jupiter that creeps in and takes over against the will of the people living under it, aren't you? Or am I asking for too much from a guy who thinks Austrian economics is tenable and ethical?

Everyone wants security, roads, schools, medical care, housing, food, clothing, electronics, etc.. etc.. etc.. so we know that people will naturally work to produce those things without any coercion at all! For example, the State does not need to take over the restaurant industry in order for us to have restaurants. So if the State is not necessary to have a range of restaurants that everyone can afford, then why is it necessary for the State to take over schooling? Further, even if you believe poor people would not be able to afford an education without the State (which is patently ridiculous, as history has shown us), why not just redistribute money? Why should the State completely take over the curriculum and the management of schools?

Please demonstrate how that notion is "patently ridiculous," mnmeth. Just because you make up a lie does not mean it magically becomes true.

It takes organization to do all these things you speak of. And all a government is is a long-term organization. There is no escaping this. History actually does prove this - even the Anarchist communities had practical "leaders,"

This same argument can be made for every aspect of our society. The State is not necessary to have law. The State is not necessary to have peace. The State is not necessary to have schools. The State is not necessary to have medical care. The State is VIOLENCE. The State is COERCION. The State always causes more economic harm than it does good. The State will always be controlled by those with the most money. The State will always be used by the money powers to grant bailouts, government contracts, regulations that destroy competition, and every other manner of crony capitalism.

And the state will always exist because an intelligent social primate such as ourselves always create one when presented with vacuum. Even in the wild hinterlands of Tasmania, people who had been separated from every other human beings for sixty thousand years divides tribal systems of rulership.

The only way to have a prosperous and productive society is to create a society that is fundamentally predicated on the rule of law. - If it is wrong for you to steal, it is wrong for the State to steal.

And how, pray tell, does law actually get enforced without centralized organization and standing offices? Lynch mob?

Economist Robert Murphy explains how a voluntarily funded government would work:

Can you give me one where an alchemist explains how to turn straw into gold next?

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Arguing with an anarchist is like talking to the wall.

Hint: You "win" the argument but lose your time!

reply to post by mnemeth1

The State doesn't know how to stay out of our own business! haha. Go try to sell some hot dogs on a street corner and see how long it takes the State to shut you down and rob you blind.

Without law ,it will take even less time for some gang to rob you blind and maybe kill you.
Without state society will break into small tribes until one will start to grow and take other over tribes and all the mess of last 4000 years will be repeated again. Only with better technology and nukes.
So i would rather have the state and taxes. State have to be more balanced as far as representation of interests of different social groups is concerned. But it can be fixed without breaking the malfunctioning system and building a chaotic nightmare.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

I would argue that communism is when the means of production is controlled through a violent monopoly.

Who exactly is "the public" under a communist system and how does it differ from allowing individual citizens to own their own businesses?

Then you have no idea what communism is, only what happened in Russia etc., that were not communist.

Isn't an individual business owner a member of the public?

No, not in this context. Public ownership is not the same as private ownership, and is not the same as government ownership.

Public ownership in socialism is actually worker ownership, as in the workers actually own the place they work at. When someone owns a business, but is not a contributing worker, then that is private ownership. Like a 'public company' is really a private company if the shares are not owned by the workers.

If an individual business owner sucks at running his business under a capitalist system, what happens to his money and his business?

If a violent monopoly of State authoritarians runs a crumby business, what happens to their money and the business?

Why is that the only two choices in your world? Private, or state, ownership?

What about if the business was owned by all the workers who run it? As in a cooperative/collective, as in socialism?

Better than state owned? Yes? No? Doesn't that solve the problems of state violence?

Privately owned, what solves the violence of protecting private property? What stops the state forming naturally when private owners want to protect their capital? Will you use violence to stop hordes of pissed off workers taking over your property, or will you hire a third hand to do that? Either way you will have to use violence either yourself, or through a state system.

It's the hierarchical system of private ownership of the means of production that has caused the inequality in wealth, that causes social unrest, that is kept in order by the state system.

Whatever way you want to look at it the root problem is private ownership, and it's exploitation of labour. Make the means of production available to all and the problem of wealth inequality would mostly disappear and along with it most crime and violence.