But what about the roads? Common argument against Libertarian/Anarchy Debunked.

londonfog said:
Deprave I forced myself to read your post you recommended ( it hurts..now I have to puff one )...I think you have not thought your ideas fully .
Click to expand...
First off, these aren't my ideas, nor do I completely agree with them.

My points that I mentioned earlier still stands. If we lived in a world that did not feed with greed then maybe you would have an idea that would be worth the thought..We don't.
Click to expand...
Why do we need a centralized power to protect us from this and secondly why would they act in our interest? Why would they not be suspectible to this same kind of greed? And why would giving them or anyone a monopoly be a good thing? Most importantly why would they do a better job vs a firm that had to compete and provide a good service?

The bottom line is you pay gov or you pay others. I would rather pay taxes for a road then have it placed on the free market at whatever cost that free market demands ( staying with the example of the OP) ..and believe the demand to drive would be great do to way of life.
Click to expand...
Why do you still think taxes pay for roads? or only that a government can provide roads? and why do you believe they do it cheaper? These things are all not true.

Why do you hate Government so much...you do realize even Ron Paul was part of government damn near all his life ( I'm including military ). Bottom line somethings I appreciated my government for. Have you ever traveled outside the United States ???
Click to expand...

Not to entertain these personal insults but yes I have traveled outside the US extensively. What does that have to do with this? and what would Ron Paul have to do with any of this?
 
My main points here being.

1) We don't need a big government or taxes to have roads, we don't even need any government at all actually in order to have roads.

2) Libertarians are not anarchist, some of them aren't even close.

3) Anarchy is not Anarchy as defined by the Media.

4) All anarchist are not communist hippies (that was extra for when inevitable rush limbaugh talking points joined the conversation)
 
deprave said:
Why do we need a centralized power to protect us from this and secondly why would they act in our interest? Why would they not be [susceptible] to this same kind of greed? And why would giving them or anyone a monopoly be a good thing? Most importantly why would they do a better job vs a firm that had to compete and provide a good service?
Click to expand...

The paradox, the gremlin in the woodpile, is that without a stable central authority, we are laid bare to the depredations of an arriviste ruler or junta. "Better the devil we know than the one we don't" is a platitude, but it does seem to hold a lot of truth about human psychology, individually and in group.

As for using the market as the leveler ... the issue i see there is that competing corporate entities are not in a stable situation. The analogy is someone balancing a tall pole vertically. Without constant tiny corrections, the pole will tilt, then accelerate toward a stable position, with a probable loud noise and curse from the balancer.
Leaving the analogy, multiple interests competing equally are unstable by nature and tend to coalesce as a strong one emerges and gobbles up the competitors. My casual study of history supports this. One needs some superposed authority that can tell the wannabe dominator: Stop. Thus the ancient longing for a philosopher king: unassailable yet incorrupt authority.
Since "anarchy" parses etymologically as "no rule", I consider it utopian. cn
 
cannabineer said:
The paradox, the gremlin in the woodpile, is that without a stable central authority, we are laid bare to the depredations of an arriviste ruler or junta. "Better the devil we know than the one we don't" is a platitude, but it does seem to hold a lot of truth about human psychology, individually and in group.

As for using the market as the leveler ... the issue i see there is that competing corporate entities are not in a stable situation. The analogy is someone balancing a tall pole vertically. Without constant tiny corrections, the pole will tilt, then accelerate toward a stable position, with a probable loud noise and curse from the balancer.
Click to expand...

Good post I like it. Yes that is the main argument.


Since "anarchy" parses etymologically as "no rule", I consider it utopian. cn
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
Sorry Deprave but we have to stash this one in the bad idea pile ..along with cocaine factories, lsd hotels, crack houses, and meth labs all being legal in the USA. All bad ideas



edit: I forgot about heroin huts...bad idea
 
Stabilizes the situation? The emergence of a top dog.
<long historical musing elided for not having a point>
Historically, top dogs have been monarchs and sometimes oligarchs. But since the job is too big for one person, power needed to be delegated to semiautonomous state organs: cabinet, priesthood, leaders of commerce et al.
What I find interesting is that outright tyranny (most recently typified by totalitarian states like those of Stalin and S. Hussein, and currently by the Kim dynasty in the PRK) seems unstable as well ... the longest-lasting states co-opt an aristocrat class into running the state out of a combination of enlightened self-interest and investment in the social order.

The nearest thing I have seen to market anarchy in practice was Russia right after the collapse of the Soviet state ... and who jumped into the vacuum? The purest entrepreneurs of them all, gang lords. I find that an ugly nonsolution.

But i have no recommendation for a system that works. it hurts my heart to see a Constitutional republic lose focus and turn into what may or may not be a cryptarchy of the American aristocrat class: people and families at the top of the elected and monied pyramid. I don't like that either, because they are not invested in our welfare. But how to break the grip ... and not go from pan to fire like the former Soviets ... or the Germans during the Weimar interlude?? I do not know. cn
 
cannabineer said:
You are right. I slightly flubbed the etymology. In practice, however, the two become the same imo. cn
Click to expand...

Perhaps, it's yet to be seen in any real implementation, usually only with a backdrop of war, which tends to muck things up pretty well. I believe "no ruler" only implies we should rule ourselves, not that we should have no rules at all. But maybe not.
 
billybob420 said:
Perhaps, it's yet to be seen in any real implementation, usually only with a backdrop of war, which tends to muck things up pretty well. I believe "no ruler" only implies we should rule ourselves, not that we should have no rules at all. But maybe not.
Click to expand...

If we could rule ourselves, the need for layered police forces, from local to the FBI, would become unnecessary. It's a nice reverie, but there are just too many trolls and scavengers among us who'd tear off just as much as they could carry ... should they sense opportunity in weakness.

Marx' communism was predicated on nearly the same idea ... once their basic needs are met, humans would seek harmony and good and progress. Imo Marx completely dropped the ball on human nature, and my worry is that an anarchist or even minarchist setup has the same utopian disconnect built in.

So I am unwilling to accept a society that doesn't have its eyes wide open about both the beauty and ugliness in human nature. cn
 
cannabineer said:
If we could rule ourselves, the need for layered police forces, from local to the FBI, would become unnecessary. It's a nice reverie, but there are just too many trolls and scavengers among us who'd tear off just as much as they could carry ... should they sense opportunity in weakness.

Marx' communism was predicated on nearly the same idea ... once their basic needs are met, humans would seek harmony and good and progress. Imo Marx completely dropped the ball on human nature, and my worry is that an anarchist or even minarchist setup has the same utopian disconnect built in.

So I am unwilling to accept a society that doesn't have its eyes wide open about both the beauty and ugliness in human nature. cn
Click to expand...

I don't believe that anarchists ignore the ugliness in human nature. I also don't think they look at their solution as a utopian one, just, as many people except our current solution as, probably one of our best options. Which is essentially what we disagree on, what is the best options.

The notion that the "layered police force" keeps us safe is based on conjecture.
 
billybob420 said:
I don't believe that anarchists ignore the ugliness in human nature. I also don't think they look at their solution as a utopian one, just, as many people except our current solution as, probably one of our best options. Which is essentially what we disagree on, what is the best options.

The notion that the "layered police force" keeps us safe is based on conjecture.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that it's more than conjecture. Any police report will tell of some crimes foiled and many more investigated and even punished. Goodness knows that I, whose law-abiding coefficient is well above average, would be somewhat casual about traffic laws without the real and unpredictable probability of enforcement. cn
 
cannabineer said:
I would suggest that it's more than conjecture. Any police report will tell of some crimes foiled and many more investigated and even punished. Goodness knows that I, whose law-abiding coefficient is well above average, would be somewhat casual about traffic laws without the real and unpredictable probability of enforcement. cn
Click to expand...

I believe it's still conjecture as we're yet to see a voluntary anarchist society (voluntary as in not Somalia), the closest maybe would be Barcelona during the civil war and that wasn't exactly voluntary. Than again I suppose they're all involuntary cause no one thinks it's a good idea, lol, at least no one with enough guns.
 
Yikes. Ever live in a neighborhood run by a Homeowners' Association? Those greedy corrupt a holes could teach our politicians a thing or two about douchebaggery.
 
deprave said:
Please just go away if you are going to be in denial and not receptive or want to discuss this, you said the thread was closed on your second post now stfu and go to another thread.
Click to expand...

yah your right i did say that. sorry continue with the nonsense. i will leave. but you have yet to debunk jack shit.
 
billybob420 said:
I believe it's still conjecture as we're yet to see a voluntary anarchist society (voluntary as in not Somalia), the closest maybe would be Barcelona during the civil war and that wasn't exactly voluntary. Than again I suppose they're all involuntary cause no one thinks it's a good idea, lol, at least no one with enough guns.
Click to expand...

The largest successful anarchic social units of which i know are capped at the village size (appx. 200 members) ... communes, kibbutzim, Mennonite flocks and such. But they are disqualified imo by having selected members for cooperativity. I would be interested in how little rule is required to make a larger, more heterogeneous community work. The two poles I can name are Burning Man and boot camp. cn
 
bedspirit said:
Yikes. Ever live in a neighborhood run by a Homeowners' Association? Those greedy corrupt a holes could teach our politicians a thing or two about douchebaggery.
Click to expand...

That's not libertarian anarchism. It's a corporate government endorsed welfare system. Libertarian anarchism is not about forced coercion.

In the HOA system you better suck their dick and bend over with your pants down or you get a zero credit score. With bad credit your current mortgage interest rate can sky rocket so high, along with all your other loans and future ones, if you could ever get one. You'll be a dumpster diving homeless, all because you put a fan which is against HOA rules.

That's the fucking American dream!

That sort of shit doesn't happen in libertarianism. It's law is mind you own fucking business. Who does a fan in your window hurt? What HOA doesn't like is future tenants will see it and think people are so hard up, they can't afford AC. Maybe you 're Bucky and want to suffer for the planet. R22 will make it blow up! That's your business if you believe dumb ass stuff like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

hanimmal
Biden's Infrastructure Week
4 5 6
Replies
105
Views
4K
hanimmal
hanimmal
G
St. Catharines residents raising stink about cannabis production facilities
Replies
3
Views
567
The Hippy
The Hippy
Jefferson1977
Medical marijuana users worry Canada’s pot-impaired driving rules will run them off the road
Replies
8
Views
817
Jefferson1977
Jefferson1977
SCARHOLE
Racist dems history
2 3
Replies
58
Views
3K
UncleBuck
UncleBuck
Dr Kynes
Welcome to Democraocracy
Replies
2
Views
603
Dr Kynes
Dr Kynes
Back
Top