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

Austrian economics is quite clear. The introduction of coercion or violence into economic systems always leads to worse economic outcomes for everyone.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

ITS not the U.S pronlem to go around the world doing what ever they want.. cause they plain dont know how to stay outta other peoples business

reply to post by shadowcorp


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.

I'm not trying to debate you, this is an honest question.

When you have some individuals who resort to violence themselves, or only respect coercion, how else can the state do anything.

Example:

People and corporations don't do voluntary compliance if it's not in their immediate self-interest to do so. Take rGBH in milk. In the US, there is no federal testing or even consequence if dairy producers lie about using it on their dairy cows. And so over a third of them LIE about it in their packaging. And the government lets them, because Big Dairy doesn't want the hormone to ever be studied or regulated.

A better example.

Some people (thieves) break in and steal your snap. They just don't care that their wicked act harms you and even society at large. There is no known way to keep them out of your garage at night, except the threat of force, from you or some credible threat from law enforcement. Where there is no threat, the crime rate soars. The breaking and entering crime rate in some Amish communities is 16 TIMES the national average. The thieves are "English" (non-Amish), who know that Amish are pacifists and don't own cell phones.

My point is this:

Without coercion, any group endeavor by primates is victimized until it collapses.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Without coercion, any group endeavor by primates is victimized until it collapses.

Coercion by the State is the victimization of society that always results in collapse.

Thus, it is oxymoronic to say we need coercion to prevent society from collapsing from coercion. Robert Murphy addresses your concerns in his lecture, which you obviously did not bother to watch.

We are witnessing the collapse of modern society from State sanctioned looting as we speak.

As the Roman Empire fell from State coercion, from the debasement of the money supply by the State, so too will our society fall. The US will cease to exist as we know it within the next ten years.

We as a species have a long way to go before we even consider anarcho-capitalism. Hierarchy and tribalisms is still prevalent in us all. It will be interesting to see where human evoultion takes us, collectivism or individualism.

Originally posted by Mcupobob
We as a species have a long way to go before we even consider anarcho-capitalism. Hierarchy and tribalisms is still prevalent in us all. It will be interesting to see where human evoultion takes us, collectivism or individualism.

The market will force us to consider anarcho-capitalism very soon.

So it doesn't matter if we are ready for it or not, we will be faced with the complete collapse of the State over the next few years. This is why it is paramount that people understand anarcho-capitalism now, so that communities can begin to implement it when the State collapses.

reply to post by mnemeth1


But you support the private ownership of the means of production, which is as much a form of violence than government/state itself. In fact capitalism is a state system. A state system being any system that allows one class of people to rule over another. You will never get rid of the state while keeping capitalism, as it creates its own state system by its very nature of creating inequality in wealth and power.

So lets say we get rid of government and state but keep capitalism, some questions...

What is going to keep capitalists from being violent, I mean we can't stop them now invading foreign nations?

What happens when workers are treated violently in the workplace, like they used to be before labour laws etc., gained from workers organization?

Who is going to protect your capital from hordes of pissed off workers?

Are workers allowed to organize under anarcho-capitalism, or will worker organization be demonized as it is now?

Who will make the decisions in the workplace?

Anarchism is stateless socialism, Mikhail Bakunin

The only way Anarchism could work is using a socialist economy. That is what Anarchism has always been about, as it is the only fair way. The means of production have to be available for all, in order to break down the hierarchy of capitalism. True free markets where we all can participate.

Capitalism does not means markets and socialism no markets, they both are market systems, one puts the control of that market in fewer and fewer hands, the other opens it up for all of us to benefit.

reply to post by ANOK


If the State is "society" - then why is it more legitimate for "society" to seize control of productive resources by force, than to allow people to compete for ownership of resources through the market?

Consider that if a business owner sucks at running his business, the market will "fire" him by driving him into bankruptcy.

It is through the mechanism of bankruptcy and profits that only the best most capable people are able to retain control over large amounts of resources.

When "society" owns the means of production through the use of coercive violence, we can be assured that the WORST people will be put in charge of those resources, rather than those who are best able to manage them.

All private business MUST produce goods and services that benefit humanity. All private businesses MUST produce goods and services that other people are willing to voluntarily pay for. If they don't, they will go out of business and those property owners will be forced to sell their property due to bankruptcy.

The State PREVENTS bankruptcy - as we can see by the bailouts, government contracts, and crony capitalism The State PREVENTS the market from punishing those who mismanage resources.

Mises clearly shows us why socialism is impossible as a macro economic system because without private ownership and markets, there can be no price system. And without prices, there can be no way to know what should be produced and in what quantity.

Socialism has been proven to be a failure a million times over.

See "The Economic Calculation Problem" :
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by ANOK

 

If the State is "society"

I never said that.

The state is a system that allows one class of people to rule over another. Capitalism creates a class system of haves and have nots, the haves rule over the have nots.

I agree we need to get rid of the class system, and government, but to do that we also have to get rid of capitalism, as capitalism is the root of those systems, and the reason we have them.

You would be much more informed if you went beyond 'market anarchism', and familiarize yourself with some anarchist history.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by ANOK

 

If the State is "society"

I never said that.

The state is a system that allows one class of people to rule over another. Capitalism creates a class system of haves and have nots, the haves rule over the have nots.

I agree we need to get rid of the class system, and government, but to do that we also have to get rid of capitalism, as capitalism is the root of those systems, and the reason we have them.

You would be much more informed if you went beyond 'market anarchism', and familiarize yourself with some anarchist history.

edit on 10/17/2011 by ANOK because: typo

Under capitalism, only those who fail to produce goods and services that benefit humanity will have nothing.

Under socialism, those who are the least capable of managing resources will retain control of those resources until society collapses into ruin. See Soviet Union.

Go ask a business owner who sucks at running a business if capitalism is a great thing. He will be facing bankruptcy and he will be deprived of all his money. Capitalism rewards those who produce and punishes those who do not.

reply to post by dr_strangecraft


"Without coercion, any group endeavor by primates is victimized until it collapses. "

In the current configuration of society.. sad but true. Large cities are cesspools of humanity that breed flies..

IMO more distance between us would help a lot.. give everyone something like 40 acres & a mule. Before I moved to a secluded cabin in the red woods, I lived in a craptastic overpopulated gangster swamp in Los Angeles where we were piled on top of each other like caged animals. Traffic was atrocious, LAPD like an occupation farce.

The current space I have all to myself now.. close to 20 people lived, screaming kids, whores & freaks. Familiarity breeds contempt.

The drama these people manufactured was epic stupid, they stole stuff, called cops tri weekly, and bickered like derps. I experience none of that now, nosy neighbors have been replaced with pesky semi tame Raccoons, a few a hole deer, and a grip of cats..

It's a lot more mellow & peaceful having your own private space.. every drive is eye pleasing scenic, local Sheriffs dont "papers please" trip.. makes a huge quality of life difference imo.

Oooh wait.. thats like communist or something.. whatever, human beings are supposed to live on this planet.. if there is a healthier way than city swamps.. it should be explored (but wont). Caged rats are easier to control & manipulate.

I do agree that the GOP & DNC have not given anyone a valid reason why they should share ultimate power.. and since Vietnam, have amassed a body count on par with a 1930s political party in Germany. Anyone who supports them has a blood stained conscious.. while sanctioning the export of death & misery.

Aggressive war foreign policy is being dictated to the people.. regardless of dear leaders tilt... since Roman times, thats just the way it is.

While the Law of Entropy is in regards to heat system and is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, it is observably so that the principle behind the Law of Entropy extend way beyond heat systems. All closed systems tend towards entropy. It is self evident that the U.S. economy is entropic. Entropy is useless energy. Another word for entropy might be chaos. Occupy Wall Street makes obvious the chaos that has resulted from the closed system the U.S. inexplicably calls a "free market".

All closed systems tend towards entropy.

reply to post by mnemeth1


If the state collapse the people will just build another one. Hopefully when/if that collapse happens it will be one that get us closer to a individualist based society. However we could easily just fall into the seduction of collectivism.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by ANOK

 

If the State is "society"

I never said that.

The state is a system that allows one class of people to rule over another. Capitalism creates a class system of haves and have nots, the haves rule over the have nots.

I agree we need to get rid of the class system, and government, but to do that we also have to get rid of capitalism, as capitalism is the root of those systems, and the reason we have them.

You would be much more informed if you went beyond 'market anarchism', and familiarize yourself with some anarchist history.

edit on 10/17/2011 by ANOK because: typo

Capitalism is an economic system by which people sell goods or services for profit. That is capitalism. Nothing more, nothing less.

People create class systems. Progressives keep class systems alive and well by insuring that the less fortunate stay that way by creating programs and legislation that only benefits them. Welfare can only benefit the poor, so what impetus do the poor have to become anything else? When you are given what someone else must work hard for, there is no reason to pull oneself out of poverty. Humans tend to take the path of least resistance. What's less than zero?

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American
Capitalism is an economic system by which people sell goods or services for profit. That is capitalism. Nothing more, nothing less.

Nope, the base definition of capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production.

Look up any source you like, here's one...

capitalism

an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

dictionary.reference.com...

People create class systems. Progressives keep class systems alive and well by insuring that the less fortunate stay that by creating programs and legislation that only benefits them. Welfare can only benefit the poor, so what impetus do the poor have to become anything else? When you are given what someone else must work hard for, there is no reason to pull oneself out of poverty. Humans tend to take the path of least resistance. What's less than zero?

/TOA

Not sure of why you posted this but see my reply above...Socialism is not social programs.

The class system was/is created by the hierarchy of the capitalists system. Social programs came about due to the unfair distribution of resources, caused by private ownership of the means of production. If the means were socially owned people could produce what they need for themselves and wouldn't have to rely on the very people who took their autonomy away in the first place. Social programs are almost a way to appease the population, so they except working for someone else's benefit at a 'job' they wouldn't normally choose to do.

A socialist economy, and a truly libertarian political system (anarchism), would be a true free-market, with the means to produce for that market available to all, not just the lucky 'owners'.

reply to post by ANOK


What is social ownership?

Then tell me what stock shares represent.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Having said all I have, I am apposed to a state system, but even a state system is less tyrannical than a completely private one, because with a state system the people at least have some say, we have no say what happens within private institutions.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

All closed systems tend towards entropy.

I agree with your outlook of applying that to social relations.

I started a thread about western governments' stance of tolerating turbulent levels of immigration, as a means of keeping their economic systems open, despite their subjects' dislike of such immigration policies. European states practically import middle easterners, while the US actively welcomes immigrants from Latin America, despite the public's anger at those policies.

I believe the governments have to import humans to keep their economies "open-ended," and they do this regardless of the social consequences, because they need the economy to be fed workers who are hungry consumers.

My thread died after 2 posts. I think it was too complicated for the public to follow.

reply to post by dr_strangecraft

I believe the governments have to import humans to keep their economies "open-ended," and they do this regardless of the social consequences, because they need the economy to be fed workers who are hungry consumers.

Governments have no business intruding into economies. Indeed, government should stand as the stalwart defense of a free and unregulated market place, and that any regulations or attention on the market is in terms of ensuring the playing field is kept level so that all who chose to play can play.

You talk about the practice of governments importing aliens at the expense of an outraged citizenry, but the irony is that the outrage is over the fact that government is using aliens as fuel for an entropic closed system, instead of them. It's as if the natives are jealous that the foreigners are the ones who get to be sacrificed to the gods.