Libertarianism VS Statism

[Osomir]

That's just the thing though, given the economic and institutional realities of the world, Anarcho-capitalism isn't very logical or humane, nor does it maximize liberty as advocates of it dream that it will. It's a flawed concept in general. It has nothing to do with fear, it has to do with economic experience. I've seen anarchy; it's horrible.

 

[National Socialist]

Why isn't it logical or humane...give some reason it won't work...anything the government can do private groups can do.

 

[Osomir]

Why isn't it logical or humane...give some reason it won't work...anything the government can do private groups can do.

Tragedies of the commons, underproduction of public goods and free rider issues, private markets not operating at socially optimal levels through ignoring externalities, Information asymmetry, moral hazards, lack of perfect consumer and producer information, etc.

The private market experiences plenty of failing points that economically (in terms of economic efficiency) and morally justify government intervention into the marketplace.

 

[Avatar4321]

We would have a horrible economy under an anarchy system. How on earth would any people be able reliably enter into contracts if there is no way to enforce the contracts?

 

[bripat9643]

That's just the thing though, given the economic and institutional realities of the world, Anarcho-capitalism isn't very logical or humane, nor does it maximize liberty as advocates of it dream that it will. It's a flawed concept in general. It has nothing to do with fear, it has to do with economic experience. I've seen anarchy; it's horrible.

That's just your less than credible opinion. One thing we know is that the phrase "limited government" is an oxymoron. Government can never be limited any more than cancer can be limited.

 

[bripat9643]

Why isn't it logical or humane...give some reason it won't work...anything the government can do private groups can do.

Tragedies of the commons, underproduction of public goods and free rider issues, private markets not operating at socially optimal levels through ignoring externalities, Information asymmetry, moral hazards, lack of perfect consumer and producer information, etc.

How can you have "tragedy of the commons" when there is no commons? There's no such thing as under production of public goods. The less there are of "public goods," the better. Public goods are in reality public bads. The rest of the things in your list are bogey men invented by propagandists for government intervention in the economy.

The private market experiences plenty of failing points that economically (in terms of economic efficiency) and morally justify government intervention into the marketplace.

No it doesn't.

 

[bucs90]

Kind of surprised no one has decided to take this thread on...got one idiot who thinks he knows what's wrong with the argument but his taken off and another one that just wants to insult everyone.

Ok. I'm gonna bite.

So, you said the difference is that Libertarians want "small government", but you are an "Anarcho Capitalist", and that you want NO government. Thats exactly what you typed.

So, explain to me, with NO government, what is the answer to the following questions:

1- Who will fight our wars if, and when, another nations invades for our vast natural resources?
2- Who will track down and bring to justice people who rape 15 year old girls or murder people at work to take their property? Mass vigilantees?
3- Who will TAKE POWER in the void of a government? Oh yes. In case you haven't read....well, ANY history books........SOME group of people WILL take power and authority over a population. It could be a church or religious group (See: Taliban, other historical religious rulers). It could be a drug cartel, such as the ones in Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, which are often more powerful and better armed than the police, and thus, basically run those places.
4- With no government, you'll basically have "survival of the fittest". So, what do we do with our poor, our disabled? Just let 'em die off? Let them be raped, shot for fun by psychos?



You are one of the most ignorant people on this board, and I do not associate your or your views with either political party, or any legitimate political view expressed on this forum. You are that far gone.

 

[Osomir]

How can you have "tragedy of the commons" when there is no commons?

We face such problems all of the time, it affects many shared resources.

There's no such thing as under production of public goods. The less there are of "public goods," the better. Public goods are in reality public bads.

The economic definition of a public good is anything that is non-rival and non-excludable. A public good has nothing to do with the government, it has to do with the qualities of a good. I think you misunderstood the economic definition of said good.

The rest of the things in your list are bogey men invented by propagandists for government intervention in the economy.

Not by a long shot, and that is one of the problem with anarcho-capitalism, you guys ignore this stuff.

The private market experiences plenty of failing points that economically (in terms of economic efficiency) and morally justify government intervention into the marketplace.

No it doesn't.[/QUOTE]

 

[bucs90]

I am an Anarcho Capitalist. I know the difference between that and libertarianism...I want no government libertarians want tiny government.

Heard it a while back why what's your point you think you are making here?

Such as? Come on don't leave us hanging.

If you actually got your Anarcho Capitalist non-government, someone would kill you within a week.

LOL...ok...Not like life is enjoyable anyways...so...whatever.I carry a large life insurance policy for good reason.

Without government regulations, that insurance company wouldnt have to pay out you idiot.

 

[Votto]

I want a government but I want the citizens to vote on how they live. I want to dictate how their children are educated. I want to tell them if their salaries are too big. I want to tell them what type of health care is good for them and what type of retirement is acceptable for them etc.

So what does that make me?

 

[Avatar4321]

Without government regulations, that insurance company wouldnt have to pay out you idiot.

He hasn't seemed to grasped that.

 

[bucs90]

Why isn't it logical or humane...give some reason it won't work...anything the government can do private groups can do.

How about post-Saddam Iraq? Or Afghanistan once the religious groups are back in power?

Without a government that is strong and stable, a society will be taken over by religious or criminal groups who will become the defacto government. Some cities in Mexico are literally run by drug cartels, with a symbolic "government" that has absolutely no influence or power.

The private sector cant fight wars or field a police force. They cant profit from war. And a military that is in peace time must train. But without war, that private military wouldn't profit. So....they'd only "train" when a war was declared. And a military that only gathers/trains when war is declared.......would be slaughtered in combat. Fail. And a private police force fails because of the problem of jurisdiction. Who gets protection? Only those who "hire" police? Do those police have any authority over citizens who dont hire them??? No. They wouldnt. Would they be obligated to protect a 14 year old girl being raped if her parents didnt buy into the police department? No. But what if they did anyway, that would be a bad business model....to serve customers who dont pay for the service. You'd go bankrupt.

So, the private business would only work if everyone paid in something, and a system was worked out where everyone chipped in on a private military/police to provide basic protection.

But how would we get everyone to do it? Oh...........I know. Call it a tax.

Fudging idiot.

 

[tooAlive]

Believe it or not, you'd actually have a lot less freedom in complete anarchy than you would under an average-sized government.

At least with a government you can go on vacation and not have to worry about finding your home has been taken over by an armed gang while you were out.

That's one of the reasons I don't support anarchy. Extremes, on either end of the spectrum, aren't good.

 

[bripat9643]

If you actually got your Anarcho Capitalist non-government, someone would kill you within a week.

LOL...ok...Not like life is enjoyable anyways...so...whatever.I carry a large life insurance policy for good reason.

Without government regulations, that insurance company wouldnt have to pay out you idiot.

Wrong. Contract law is what compels insurance companies to comply with their contracts. That and the fact that any insurance company that didn't pay the benefits it promise would quickly be bereft of any customers.

I realize the statist mentality can't conceive of anyone doing the right thing without some bureaucrat telling them what to do, but prior to 1932 it happened all the time. Believe it nor not, we actually had insurance companies for the SEC existed!

 

[bripat9643]

Believe it or not, you'd actually have a lot less freedom in complete anarchy than you would under an average-sized government.

At least with a government you can go on vacation and not have to worry about finding your home has been taken over by an armed gang while you were out.

That's one of the reasons I don't support anarchy. Extremes, on either end of the spectrum, aren't good.

That claim is based only on your complete ignorance of what anarchy means.

 

[bripat9643]

I want a government but I want the citizens to vote on how they live. I want to dictate how their children are educated. I want to tell them if their salaries are too big. I want to tell them what type of health care is good for them and what type of retirement is acceptable for them etc.

So what does that make me?

You're a boot-licking statist control freak.

 

[bripat9643]

How can you have "tragedy of the commons" when there is no commons?

We face such problems all of the time, it affects many shared resources.

You mean it affects government owned property. Under anarcho-capitalism there wouldn't be any government owned property. No more tragedy of the commons. Problem solved.

There's no such thing as under production of public goods. The less there are of "public goods," the better. Public goods are in reality public bads.

The economic definition of a public good is anything that is non-rival and non-excludable. A public good has nothing to do with the government, it has to do with the qualities of a good. I think you misunderstood the economic definition of said good.

There are no such goods.

The rest of the things in your list are bogey men invented by propagandists for government intervention in the economy.

Not by a long shot, and that is one of the problem with anarcho-capitalism, you guys ignore this stuff.

Yes it does, by a very short shot. All of those arguments for government intervention were shot down long ago, like the bogeyman called "perfect competition." Perfect competition is actually non-competition. It means there is no differentiation between the products of various producers. Differentiating their products is one of the ways producers compete. So the doctrine of "perfect competition" says that any actual competition is a threat to competition. It's actually an idiotic idea, but every year millions of freshmen are taught this idiocy in college "economics" courses.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why is it libertarian/anarchists also tend to be anti semites?

 

[Osomir]

You mean it affects government owned property. Under anarcho-capitalism there wouldn't be any government owned property. No more tragedy of the commons. Problem solved.

No, I don't mean government owned property, I meant what I said: shared resources.

An example would be early Americans trapping beaver to near extinction, or the possibility of fishing fish populations to extinction without capture controls, or running a river dry from overuse, etc. Shared resources exist whether there is a government or not.

There are no such goods.

And this is one of the reasons why I bring up the problem of public good production when talking to anarcho-capitalists. 1.) it is a major problem with some private markets 2.) It lets me know if the person I'm talking to has a background in economics, or approaches anarcho-capitalism from a philosophical point of view. You are obviously the latter. Which is fine; but you have to understand as well that constructing an economic model without experience in economics tends to lead to poor results when you go from paper concepts to reality.

There absolutely are public goods; you're merely misunderstanding the concept. You are seeing the word "public" and jumping to some sort of definition of government or public property, and that doesn't have anything to do with the concept.

Once again a public good in economic terms is any good that is both non-rival (my consumption of the good doesn't significantly impact your ability to consume it) and non-excludable (it is difficult or impossible to prevent one from being able to consume said good).

Two small scale examples: fireworks and lighthouses. You set off a fireworks display I don't have to pay to watch it, I can see it for free from afar and there isn't much that you can do about it, and my enjoyment of them doesn't really prevent my neighbor from being able to enjoy them.

Now to more important public goods: National defense, and clean air.

Simply living in the US means that I enjoy the protection of the US military and the security it brings. It doesn't matter if I pay them or not, I benefit from it regardless and there really isn't any way that one can practically exclude me from enjoying that benefit. Nor does my consumption of that benefit diminish your ability to consume that benefit aka: a public good.

Same goes for air.

The problem of course comes in with something else that I mentioned that you claimed was "made up" the free rider problem. Since I don't have to pay for national defense then what's stopping me from simply not paying towards the common defense of my country if I were given a choice (IE not taxed for it)? since I wouldn't be paying for it the military would weaken and be underfunded and underproduced. We have seen this in some countries and the military's general solution is to pray on its own population in terms of pillaging, rape, and murder. Hardly something that is desirable.

The rest of the things in your list are bogey men invented by propagandists for government intervention in the economy.

Not by a long shot, and that is one of the problem with anarcho-capitalism, you guys ignore this stuff.

Yes it does, by a very short shot. All of those arguments for government intervention were shot down long ago, like the bogeyman called "perfect competition." Perfect competition is actually non-competition. It means there is no differentiation between the products of various producers. Differentiating their products is one of the ways producers compete. So the doctrine of "perfect competition" says that any actual competition is a threat to competition. It's actually an idiotic idea, but every year millions of freshmen are taught this idiocy in college "economics" courses.

Nice strawman, but perhaps since they are so easy to disprove we could talk about "make believe" negative externalities and how your perfectly free market would deal with them. IE mass pollution say of clean air or water systems that can't easily be traced back to a single source for courts to prosecute.

 

[tooAlive]

Believe it or not, you'd actually have a lot less freedom in complete anarchy than you would under an average-sized government.

At least with a government you can go on vacation and not have to worry about finding your home has been taken over by an armed gang while you were out.

That's one of the reasons I don't support anarchy. Extremes, on either end of the spectrum, aren't good.

That claim is based only on your complete ignorance of what anarchy means.

I was under the impression that complete anarchy was no government at all. Every man for himself.

If that's the case, who would defend you if an armed gang took over your home?

Would you call the police? Who does the police work for? What if the gang that took your house WAS the police?