This Time, With Feeling

[PokeJustice]

A PDF containing a long list of essays and alleged degrees from the person's own website is hardly credible proof.

Get over it. If you disagree with his quote, give good reason as to why and what you think is true in lieu of his conjecture.

Governments aren't breeding political classes. At least in most developed countries. What government are you talking about?

I'm not. I was illustrating that logic you accused me of using (I never made the argument you accused me of) was not circular.

I can't find anything on this "Supplemental Terrorist Relief Act", maybe you should link to a (reliable, as in government) source.

You're joking, right?

Arguing that governments do not waste money is absolutely absurd and I for the life of me do not know how the issue is disputable. That's like debating the existence of gravity. Jesus Christ. I picked the STRA. I could've picked any legislation ever by any democracy's legislative body in the history of the government and the world and demonstrated how money was wasted thereby. I do not intend to waste my time.

I've pretty much been dismantling every single proposal you've made in a painstakingly long process. How about you just put everything on the table at once so that we can go through everything at once.

Have you? It's pretty damned easy to say that, isn't it? But you come off sounding like an arrogant prick, so it's generally regarded as a bad idea.

What do you want on the table, specifically? I mean, of the available issues regarding government, or lack thereof. Because I'd be more than happy to throw down the gauntlet; I'm liking this debate, which is funny, seeing that, according to you, I'm losing so desperately.

My question is, how do you propose an anarchist society would deal with public services, such as police and roads, without government? After all, there would be no tax money from the citizens to pay for these services. And how would peace be kept without a police force ran by the government to protect its people?

Holy crap, kid, you missed the boat. Are those public services, or are they just services, ones that can be provided by an entity in the private sector? Roads can be, and are, built by private companies, who stay in the black with tolls collected. As for police services, who's to say that they can't be offered by freely competitive firms?

 

[GetOutOfBox]

I too see some reason to the idea that human beings can coexist peacefully, with a bit of thought and responsibility as part of their mental makeup.

The History of War

We have never shown any sign of coexisting peacefully under a single banner, right from the beginning until now we've been having wars regularly, with no sign of stopping.

 

[PokeJustice]

Do you think that the conflicts between nation-states we refer to as wars will resemble what we could expect to see in an anarchic society? Without a government to lead a people into war in the first place, I mean.

I guarantee you that in the rare event that a war should break out (remember: in a war, if the belligerents are private companies, these companies could be expected to lose money during every second they have to devote all their resources and manpower toward fighting amongst themselves; unlike the current, nation-state driven conflicts, war is not a racket, but instead is incredibly costly) we should not recognize it as such.

 

[BigLutz]

Do you think that the conflicts between nation-states we refer to as wars will resemble what we could expect to see in an anarchic society? Without a government to lead a people into war in the first place, I mean.

I guarantee you that in the rare event that a war should break out (remember: in a war, if the belligerents are private companies, these companies could be expected to lose money during every second they have to devote all their resources and manpower toward fighting amongst themselves; unlike the current, nation-state driven conflicts, war is not a racket, but instead is incredibly costly) we should not recognize it as such.

You are making the very costly mistake of substituting a larger threat, for numerous smaller threats. Much like the UN did to make sure another Nazi Germany did not rise again.

Sure we would not see a massive scale war, but in it's place you would have near constant gang and religious warfare going on as we see in numerous lawless areas all around the world.

Now you also make the argument that these private companies would lose money fighting a war, you forget that many wars in the past were not fought against tyrants and dictators as they are now. But resources: Gold, Silver, Precious Metals, Oil. All of these are limited resources that would prove to be very profitable with who ever controls them. Companies are not going to look at the cost that one war will bring them, they are going to look at the profit that controlling these finite resources will bring them.

 

[PokeJustice]

In any situation where two or more human beings must coexist, there will arise a system of rules and consequences governing their interaction. With each additional person in this group, the system will be proportionally larger and more comprehensive in order to provide for each's interests, and there needs to be an interconnected system of cooperative agents to manage all cooperative endeavors. Whether you want to call it "government" or not, it will exist.

But what you describe does not sound like government.

It does not sound like the State.

It does not sound like central planning, or centralized authority.

It does not sound coercive, and that is what I am ashamed that I have missed thus far in this debate: my central thesis, that is, that society should be without coercion.



What you speak of is voluntary affiliation with individuals who think they can benefit from you and you from them. What you speak of, barring any coordination or economic plainning beyond spontaneous order, is anarchy, and yours is the most cogent post offered by anyone on either side, one of which, is, admittedly, just me.



You speak of human beings desiring central governance, but, more than that, human beings, individuals, have hopes, and dreams, and if they can better pursue them without a government then government is indefensible.

BigLutz:

Each company controlling resources in particular areas will contract PMCs of their own, leading to a universal peace-by-deterrence effect. We cannot imagine that a company should cease its profitable enterprises so as to war with other PMCs; this is economically foolhardy. Every conceivable scenario in which you picture these small wars taking place involves a series of poor financial decisions being made by the group who should start the squabble in question, and you see that, ultimately, it is not coercion, but a regard for one's own interests that should keep war from occuring.

 

[BigLutz]

BigLutz:

Each company controlling resources in particular areas will contract PMCs of their own, leading to a universal peace-by-deterrence effect. We cannot imagine that a company should cease its profitable enterprises so as to war with other PMCs; this is economically foolhardy. Every conceivable scenario in which you picture these small wars taking place involves a series of poor financial decisions being made by the group who should start the squabble in question, and you see that, ultimately, it is not coercion, but a regard for one's own interests that should keep war from occuring.

And yet you tend to forget not only normal human greed, but also the fluctuations in any market in which precious resources can go up or down. If a accident were to happen at a refinery, or a hurricane were to do enough damage to oil platforms, or even a terror attack on a oil pipeline, were to jack the cost of oil up. These companies could decide that they would do a better job controlling it. Furthermore if a new vain of precious metals were happen to be discovered, you would have what amounted to a armed gold rush happening where each company fights for a controlling share.

And then of course you have normal human greed, where one or two companies get too powerful, and decide it's time for hostile takeover of smaller companies. Yet instead of having stocks bought, you are having wars, where the territory of smaller companies are being invaded by the larger ones.

 

[Profesco]

The History of War

We have never shown any sign of coexisting peacefully under a single banner, right from the beginning until now we've been having wars regularly, with no sign of stopping.

Oh, dang! We've fought wars? Well buckle my swash, I hadn't thought of that. Guess we are just a ragtag bunch of mongrel hordes, then.

Haha, no, I'm teasing. Of course we've fought wars, and of course we've seen conflict. Conflict is a part of any competitive coexistence. Humans do also have the technical know-how to turn simple territorial/resource competition into vastly disproportionate destruction, but that does not negate the much greater potential we have to solve one another's problems and to coexist in relative peace. If we were nothing but selfish, society would collapse before it could get off the ground. The fact that our species not only exists but continues to proliferate today is proof of our ability to form cohesive communities.

But what you describe does not sound like government.

It does not sound like the State.

It does not sound like central planning, or centralized authority.

It does not sound coercive, and that is what I am ashamed that I have missed thus far in this debate: my central thesis, that is, that society should be without coercion.

I'll grant you it does not sound like ideal government, or perhaps even the highly complex and saturated governments we've ended up with, but what I describe is still, at its base, the idea of government.

And I do rather think it could be described along the lines of central planning. A million persons - let alone 7 billion - could not organize and accomplish mutually beneficial endeavors with anything resembling efficiency, if the authority or planning schemes were left to each individual's selfish wants or available resources. Part of that problem would be trying to communicate and coordinate those million desires and ideas into one plan of action. It is simply a problem of logistics. The best, if not only, way to manage an endeavor on that scale would be some kind of central authority or planning unit.

What you speak of is voluntary affiliation with individuals who think they can benefit from you and you from them. What you speak of, barring any coordination or economic plainning beyond spontaneous order, is anarchy, and yours is the most cogent post offered by anyone on either side, one of which, is, admittedly, just me.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here, so I don't know how relevant this is, but I find myself wondering: why bar coordination or economic planning beyond spontaneous order? It seems to me like both of those things are very, very necessary functions in a community as numerous as ours.

You speak of human beings desiring central governance, but, more than that, human beings, individuals, have hopes, and dreams, and if they can better pursue them without a government then government is indefensible.

Well, that does make some sense, though I would caution that it's overly simplistic. But what about those instances when individuals can indeed pursue their hopes and their dreams better with the aid or structure of a government in place? Since such occasions do exist, government is not indefensible.

 

[PokeJustice]

And yet you tend to forget not only normal human greed, but also the fluctuations in any market in which precious resources can go up or down. If a accident were to happen at a refinery, or a hurricane were to do enough damage to oil platforms, or even a terror attack on a oil pipeline, were to jack the cost of oil up. These companies could decide that they would do a better job controlling it. Furthermore if a new vein of precious metals were happen to be discovered, you would have what amounted to a armed gold rush happening where each company fights for a controlling share.

And then of course you have normal human greed, where one or two companies get too powerful, and decide it's time for hostile takeover of smaller companies. Yet instead of having stocks bought, you are having wars, where the territory of smaller companies are being invaded by the larger ones.

What about a lack of government makes you assume that such things that would normally be dealt with on peaceful terms, such as integration in business, mergers/buyouts, and spikes in the prices of certain commodities would result in almost certain melee and brouhaha?

If a vein of precious metals or ores were found, of course you would see several companies in the field chomping at the bit to lay hold on some of the resources. That is to be expected, but there is no reason to assume that armed conflict between companies will result from every single bit of turbulence undergone by the market.

And, Profesco, you are correct that government may, in the realm of a few, expedite the chances of surviving economically in a world that can seem cruel by contriving its own system of rules... but, what one may ask, is, is this a worthy exchange for less liberty on the whole? I maintain that it is not.

 

[GetOutOfBox]

Get over it. If you disagree with his quote, give good reason as to why and what you think is true in lieu of his conjecture.

I did. Your response was "Get over it." Not very effective obviously.

I'm not. I was illustrating that logic you accused me of using (I never made the argument you accused me of) was not circular.

You proposed that evidence of governments corruption was "look at all the corruption". That's called circular logic.

You're joking, right?

Nope.

Arguing that governments do not waste money is absolutely absurd and I for the life of me do not know how the issue is disputable. That's like debating the existence of gravity.

No government is 100% efficient, just as no person, no machine is 100% efficient. You can not expect a government to always make the best choice regarding money, but if there wasn't a central government, there wouldn't be a central cache of money, and if there wasn't a central cache of money, there wouldn't be social plans, national road maintenance, etc. And the commonly used concept of gravity it debatable FYI, General Relativity proposes the effect we call gravity is actually the result of Space-Time curvature.

Have you? It's pretty damned easy to say that, isn't it? But you come off sounding like an arrogant prick, so it's generally regarded as a bad idea.

It's a debate. People are going to disagree with you. Sometimes your proposal will be proved wrong. If you can't deal with it, stick to the Pokemon Anime Discussion forums.

What do you want on the table, specifically? I mean, of the available issues regarding government, or lack thereof. Because I'd be more than happy to throw down the gauntlet; I'm liking this debate, which is funny, seeing that, according to you, I'm losing so desperately.

I just want to clarify, this isn't some kind of duel, there's nothing personal, it's the debate forums, and debates can get heated. Outside of them there's no need to be angry at each other.

I just would rather not spend days constantly firing evidence back and forth at each other, so if you can just tell us all of your proposals at once so we can debate everything at once rather than bit by bit for the next week, that would be great.

Holy crap, kid, you missed the boat. Are those public services, or are they just services, ones that can be provided by an entity in the private sector? Roads can be, and are, built by private companies, who stay in the black with tolls collected. As for police services, who's to say that they can't be offered by freely competitive firms?

Without a government to regulate the private sector, it would most likely collapse, as government protects smaller business from big monopolizing companies, and protects the companies from each other, maintains rules of acceptable trade, etc.

There's also the fear of a possible private sector takeover in the absence of a government, with companies being in charge of a country. That would most definitely not be good, due to most companies being perfectly happy to screw customers out of their money.

 

[GhostAnime]

Compared to Profesco, I have a more pessimistic view of human nature. There is NO way you would run any fair society without government. Sure, they're capable of being rational... in an already rational society.

Getting rid of government won't get rid of corruption; you just replace the people in power. Instead of politicians, you have wealthy individuals. There would still be 'corruption'. The wealthy individual would do anything they want and the worst part is that since there is no governing body, what's stopping them from assassinating anybody in their way?

If anything, you give more room for corruption.

 

[PokeJustice]

I did. Your response was "Get over it." Not very effective obviously.

You didn't, but you're free to do so now, that is, assuming you even remember the quote in question and are not just being a contrarian.

You proposed that evidence of governments corruption was "look at all the corruption". That's called circular logic.

If some body or entity engages in corrupt behavior, it is corrupt.
Government engages in corrupt behavior.
Government is corrupt.

It's all right here.

It's a debate. People are going to disagree with you. Sometimes your proposal will be proved wrong. If you can't deal with it, stick to the Pokemon Anime Discussion forums.

Yep, and sometimes you end up debating a self-satisfied tool. What have I said that you have satisfactorily disproven, much less effectively discredited?

I just would rather not spend days constantly firing evidence back and forth at each other, so if you can just tell us all of your proposals at once so we can debate everything at once rather than bit by bit for the next week, that would be great.

What, you mean elaborate on the sort of anarchic system I support? That I can do, but laying out everything would be an arduous undertaking indeed.

Without a government to regulate the private sector, it would most likely collapse, as government protects smaller business from big monopolizing companies...

In the whole history of capitalism, no one has been able to establish a coercive monopoly by means of competition on a free market. There is only one way to forbid entry into a given field of production: by law. Every single coercive monopoly that exists or ever has existed—in the United States, in Europe or anywhere else in the world—was created and made possible only by an act of government: by special franchises, licenses, subsidies, by legislative actions which granted special privileges (not obtainable on a free market) to a man or a group of men, and forbade all others to enter that particular field.

Source

 

[BigLutz]

What about a lack of government makes you assume that such things that would normally be dealt with on peaceful terms, such as integration in business, mergers/buyouts, and spikes in the prices of certain commodities would result in almost certain melee and brouhaha?

Two things: First with out a proper supervising authority, humanity tends to de evolve into violent clashes against one another, especially when you are taking over something, or making something less more rare. Again I point back to any lawless area you can find, such as say South Los Angelas.

Second: Businesses already, especially large ones have no problems dealing with underhanded and dirty tactics to get their way, they tend to get caught many times, such as Enron. But they still do it, that is how you tend to survive in a cut throat market place and to keep your business' afloat and customers happy. Place them in a market place with no supervising authority, and well lets let the blood bath begin.

If a vein of precious metals or ores were found, of course you would see several companies in the field chomping at the bit to lay hold on some of the resources. That is to be expected, but there is no reason to assume that armed conflict between companies will result from every single bit of turbulence undergone by the market.

Of course there is, as you said yourself companies have a money interest involved. And as we have seen through out human history, armed conflict tends to follow a need for resources. If a company knows that there is a very lucrative vein of precious metals they can get to, and there are three others that could potentially win it from them. They will fight, very violently to get it. It means the survival and growth of the company, there is no reason NOT to believe they wouldn't kill for it.

 

[PokeJustice]

Getting rid of government won't get rid of corruption; you just replace the people in power. Instead of politicians, you have wealthy individuals. There would still be 'corruption'.

And what leverage would someone have because of wealth? What are you implying, that they would have the ability to exercise force upon whomever they pleased? How exactly would they go about that?

Corruption... hmm, you're referring to unfair or illegal behavior in the realm of economics, aren't you? What reason have you to think that it should exist in greater quantity in anarchic society?

I should think that the acquiring of wealth should be simpler, but the concentration of said wealth may be less obtuse than it presently is.

More money for all, not just for the wealthy--not that the wealthy getting wealthier is a bad thing; remember, a rising tide lifts all boats.

 

[Profesco]

And, Profesco, you are correct that government may, in the realm of a few, expedite the chances of surviving economically in a world that can seem cruel by contriving its own system of rules... but, what one may ask, is, is this a worthy exchange for less liberty on the whole? I maintain that it is not.

Well, I completely see where you're coming from, and it is a really good question, with reasonable points of view both for and against.

It's easy to find some instances where governments seem to put up more limits and more hindrances than are optimal for citizens' success and happiness, and we do have some pretty comically inept/corrupt politicians to look at, so those instances could certainly seem more numerous and more dramatic than we'd like... so the complaint about government limiting liberty is an understandable one.

I guess I'd still say that trading in a little of the kind of totally unbound, free-market, selfish freedom of the individual for the benefits (and, naturally, limitations) of an enforced social contract is actually worth it, to me. Liberty is wonderful, but many people's liberties would, sadly, happen to infringe on the liberties of others. I know that I could not protect myself from all the clashing desires of the 7 billion other people on my planet, nor could I ever hope to afford protection on that scale. And I do very much want to use roads and schools and police services and all that, but it would be incredibly costly and debilitating to try and create all of those or pay for all of those by myself.

Yes, if I kept my tax dollars, I probably would not freely choose to spend them on paying for a war I don't support. And there are other, smaller things on that list. But what I experience as a detriment or nuisance on the part of government in my everyday life is a miniscule percentage of the benefits and order and stability and helpful services on the part of the government that I experience every day. Now, okay, maybe others don't experience the same ratio of bad:good that I do, but for me, it is a more than fair tradeoff.

 

[PokeJustice]

First, without a proper supervising authority, humanity tends to devolve into violent clashes against one another...

"Order is the natural and automatic upshot of freedom, individuals aligning their interest not because they are forced to, not even necessarily by purpose or design, but because, insofar as everyone observes the rights of everyone else, it is to their benefit to do so."

- David D'Amato

Businesses, especially large ones, have no problems dealing with underhanded and dirty tactics to get their way; they tend to get caught many times, such as Enron. But they still do it, that is how you tend to survive in a cutthroat marketplace and to keep your business afloat and customers happy. Place them in a marketplace with no supervising authority, and, well, let's let the bloodbath begin.

Successful corporations are said to be run by benevolent despots, the key word being "benevolent." In a society where coercion is scarcely met with ire and you can get away with pugnacious behavior under the watch of the State, what you're saying is often true; however, in a society without coercion, how can one imagine that corrupt companies will enjoy success with no allies in their market?

And as we have seen through out human history, armed conflict tends to follow a need for resources.

"The results suggest that the incidence of civil war is completely unrelated to the per capita availability of natural resources, defined as the stocks of both renewable resources—such as cropland, pasture, and forests—and nonrenewables (all known mineral deposits). "

- Indra de Soysa, "The Resource Curse"

If a company knows that there is a very lucrative vein of precious metals they can get to, and there are three others that could potentially win it from them, they will fight, very violently, to get it. It means the survival and growth of the company; there is no reason NOT to believe they would kill for it.

But starting a war is hardly something a company would do, for the company proper is surrounded by private militaries who would not hesitate to subdue an aggressor acting outside the inerest of their pocketbooks.

Profesco:

Firstly, individualism is not at all selfish. That is an unfortunate misconception.

Secondly, natural rights must end the second they infringe upon the natural rights of others.

Thirdly, I am afraid most are in your camp. Semi-contentment is the enemy of positive, radical change.

 

[Profesco]

Profesco:

Firstly, individualism is not at all selfish. That is an unfortunate misconception.

You're right, it's not. But taken to the extreme, individualism becomes non-concern for others, which is a definition of selfishness.

Secondly, natural rights must end the second they infringe upon the natural rights of others.

Well of course they should. But could an extreme individualist with no external governance or ties to order/structure be relied upon to observe those limitations fairly? You see, you can't have it both ways.

Thirdly, I am afraid most are in your camp. Semi-contentment is the enemy of positive, radical change.

It's also, by the same standard, the enemy of negative radical change. I suppose it's important to note here that those in my corner might happen to not think radical change of any sort is all that necessary anyway, so it's no big loss to us. =P

 

[BigLutz]

"Order is the natural and automatic upshot of freedom, individuals aligning their interest not because they are forced to, not even necessarily by purpose or design, but because, insofar as everyone observes the rights of everyone else, it is to their benefit to do so."

- David D'Amato

Except as I have said numerous times before and you have ignored, looking at societies in which there is no real authority figure, people do not observe the right of others. If they did then Iraq would never have devolved into the civil war it became, and South Los Angelas would never have a gang problem.

Successful corporations are said to be run by benevolent despots, the key word being "benevolent." In a society where coercion is scarcely met with ire and you can get away with pugnacious behavior under the watch of the State, what you're saying is often true; however, in a society without coercion, how can one imagine that corrupt companies will enjoy success with no allies in their market?

Because you are taking a society and placing it in a Darwinian situation in which only the strongest survive with little to no recourse. It essentually becomes who ever is the sleeziest, most underhanded, and most bloody, will rise to the top of the heap and control the most resources. Again as you will find in many gang land territories. You do not see Gang members go out and say "Hey do you mind if I take over your territory and your resources, and if you do, lets do it in a civilized and proper way". No they shoot eachother.

"The results suggest that the incidence of civil war is completely unrelated to the per capita availability of natural resources, defined as the stocks of both renewable resources—such as cropland, pasture, and forests—and nonrenewables (all known mineral deposits). "

- Indra de Soysa, "The Resource Curse"

Difference between Civil War, and Invasion. Try again.

But starting a war is hardly something a company would do, for the company proper is surrounded by private militaries who would not hesitate to subdue an aggressor acting outside the inerest of their pocketbooks.

You are making the rather ignorant mistake that all the companies and private militaries are on equal terms. Furthermore you are making the mistake in believing that if one company starts, the others would team up against them. In a race for resources it would be a free for all, with 3, 4, 5 or who knows how many companies going at war with eachother, each one with different targets.

 

[GetOutOfBox]

You didn't, but you're free to do so now, that is, assuming you even remember the quote in question and are not just being a contrarian.

This is ridiculous. I clearly stated that a PDF file containing a list of essays and certification this guy allegedly has that was on HIS website is not proof of his reliability as a source.

If some body or entity engages in corrupt behavior, it is corrupt.
Government engages in corrupt behavior.
Government is corrupt.

It's all right here.

*Sigh* When you say "the government is corrupt" and someone asks for proof, responding with "because look at all the corruption in the government" is not proof. That's like me saying to someone "You stole my book." and they respond "No I didn't, do you have any proof?" and I say "Yes, because you stole it.". Proving a thesis with your thesis is not a logical or correct way to go about a debate. That's deductive reasoning.

Yep, and sometimes you end up debating a self-satisfied tool. What have I said that you have satisfactorily disproven, much less effectively discredited?

If you're going to post in the debate forum, you're going to have to toughen up a bit. Raging when someone disagree's with you or proves you wrong will get you no where and will only end up making you look like the tool.

As for what I've disproven, rather than waste my time recounting every single point you've made, how about you post what I have not disproven. No, don't post a new point, of all the points you've made, which ones have I not disproven. Don't bother posting a point that I have obviously already disputed successfuly, because I'll simply requote what I said in answer to it in my past posts.

What, you mean elaborate on the sort of anarchic system I support? That I can do, but laying out everything would be an arduous undertaking indeed.

Source

LOL. You do realize that article is describing the writers ideal economic policy for governments?! He clearly states at the conclusion of his essay that his ideal world would be one where the government is separated from the economic sector; that the private sector is made individual and under it's own control. He never states that he believes anarchism to be the solution.

Considering that you've now started posting sources that support my position on the matter, maybe it's time to bring this debate to a close? You have in effect, no remaining points. You've resorted to grasping at straws; picking apart the wording of my posts, denying that I or you posted something previously, despite the fact I can just go back and quote you/me.

 

[insanityhand]

I would like to throw in my view on this. First off, I've worked for politicians and I hate them. Even the small time ones have extremely large egos. However I believe that with out leader ship people will rally around some one any way and thus start a new government where anarchy had once ruled.

 

[GetOutOfBox]

I would like to throw in my view on this. First off, I've worked for politicians and I hate them. Even the small time ones have extremely large egos.

That's kind of generalizing the whole concept of being a politician, don't you think? You can't possibly have met enough politicians to come to the conclusion that all of them are evil, self-centered bastards.

There is such thing as a good politician, who entered the field of politics simply because he/she wanted to make a difference in the world and help people, believe it or not. Sarah Palin is an excellent example of this (just kidding ).