| |
  
|
||||||||||
Anarchy and the power vacuum myth
Submitted by limelemon on Fri, 11/13/2009 - 20:32
Stefan Molyneux explains how a free society prevents the rise of a new tyranny. » |
|
|||||||||
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
>Perhaps some Crazy
>Perhaps some Crazy Billionaire wants to spend $billion creating his own Army.
Banks would have clauses allowing them to size assets used for arms purchases, since no one wants that(and any bank exec could get the $10m reward...)
The arms manufacturers would have publicly disclose sales to Crazy Billionaire and no one would want to do any business with him.<
If banks would have some clauses allowing them to size assets - Crazy Billionaire would not keep his assets in those banks... Crazy Billionaire is not synonymous with Stupid Billionaire...
Who would create those clauses and who would enforce them... common interests of people? Isn't common interest killing individual freedoms? What if Banks would decide to size your account because you bought a gun...Bank could argue that "nobody" want them as it can lead to Columbine type tragedy...
Why arms manufacturers would have to publicly disclose anything... public disclosures would be mandatory??? Mandated by who??? Enforced by who???
Maybe I will be banned from DP for what I will say but this video and reasoning is the most stupid thing I ever listen, watch and read on DP.
Anarchy with a " bank clauses" and arms manufacturers "publicly dissclosuring" their sales... what a joke!
This is why the Anarcho-Capitalist need to be cast out of
the Mises Institute.
How did they take over "Mises"
They can't "sell" their message without the Mises label.
This videos is proof of their disconnect.
People will not disclose "arms" purchases or sales -- Just as no one publishes who buys porn.
"customers" of arms want secrecyl.
Militarism would never have arised in a Free-Society based on Consumer-Sovereignty -- after a transition from Consumer-Minarchism.
We must transition from where we are -- This is RP's view and Mises view.
If we went from Corporatism to Anarcho-Capitalism it would result in "Gangsterism" without a "force-agent" to protect us from angry recently dethroned Banksters / Corporatists who ONLY know how to generate revenue from THEFT and USE OF FORCE.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Hey Octo, do you feel that a
Hey Octo, do you feel that a minarchist transition is necessary until an overwhelming majority voluntarily becomes libertarian in thinking and action, until they for all intents and purposes "vote" the transitionary government away?
Ventura 2012
Bmore: Consumer-Minarchist Transition (yes - 100%)
Corporatism to Anarchism (of anykind) without a transition would lead to Chaos -- in terms of "arms"
Anarchism also, recognizes and pays ZERO Gov't debt.
The Anarcho-Capitalist do not want a transition -- they just want a jump.
We must (for good or bad) pay off our foreign debt -- otherwise we will build annymosity.
A-Cap has no organized "Army" because there are no "force-agents" to guarantee their pay -- Their argument is that "Protection Corproations" would buy up the weapons and use them to protect shiping and transport.
The problem is "who sells them the corporatist arms" -- If we go from where we are today to Anarchism tomorrow who "distributes" Gov't assets? They suggest an auction -- so other gov'ts, former bankers, gangsters, and billionaire corporatists will be the only ones who can afford them. After the sale in an A-Cap society there are no "force-govts" nor "force-courts" -- so, who will enforce "use-of-force" over the new arms owners? No one!
The Consumer-Minarchism I advocate goes as following:
In Corporatism we are 7% -12% Free (approximately). We currently pay out 88%-93% of our income in Direct and Indirect Taxation (Fiat Inflation - Dollar Devaluation - etc)
1) Move to 50% Freedom (Begin to implement Gov't Removal Ron Paul recommends) -- Tax Reduction of 30-40%
2) Move to 80% Freedom (keep courts around long enough to settle all property disputes) -- must have very short windows; some-type of "open-source and public fairness rubric" would need to be created.
3) Move to Consumer-Minarchism 88% Free (RP's) or 93% Free (Octo's)
----To manage Navy, Army, Ariforce Arsenal, and pay off foreign debt
----ZERO Tax Authority
----ZERO Regulatory Authority
----ZERO Currency Authority
----ZERO Court Authority
----ZERO Rights for Owners or Workers (nor protection)
----This would be a State (Army - Air Guard) and National (Navy) Gov't
93% Consumer-Anarchy or Consumer-Minarchism
----Meaning we are paying a 7% Direct Tax on all Sales (consumer transactions)
Eventually, we would move into a full-on Consumer-Individualist society; but we'd need to wait until the rest of the world paid off all its debts and was a 93% Consumer-Anarchy (Minarchist) as we are.
The latter "trust" would probably take 100 years; 50 at the very least.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Ah, I see. You are more
Ah, I see. You are more focused on the necessary restructuring of resource ownership rather than the necessary restructuring of public opinion(although you touch on both as being necessary).
Ventura 2012
Bmore: Public "opinion" is important -- just a waste of time
Eliminate all rights to Owners and Workers and you will have a Free-Society based on Consumer-Sovereignty.
The Consumer during Minarchism is the ONLY one taxed.
Never tax the Worker or the Owner (in their respective roles) -- Tax them when they consume as individuals; that's how you get Individualism.
Once we are no longer in need of Minarchism -- you simply stop taxing the "obvious and direct consumer tax."
Society becomes corrupt from three things: Secretive (non-obvious) Taxes, Voting, and Lobbying.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Janusz: Well said -- Hear Hear
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Public disclosures in a private world
You're right about one thing; in a world of truly private property there would be nothing to compel anyone or any business to do anything except one; customer demand.
If companies didn't provide what the consumers wanted, they'd be out of business pretty fast. Unlike now where if you run your business into the ground, all you need to do is go ask mommy government to go steal even more money from 'the people' so that you can continue doing things that the market obviously doesn't want or is unwilling to support.
That is true. Of course,
That is true. Of course, demand is measured in dollars and not individuals, so it doesn't necessarily follow that all firms must cater to any sort of widespread popular opinion. I think that anarcho-capitalists have dealt with this issue adequately, so its not something I get hung up on as a minarchist, but it is something to think about. It is sort of how Misesians believe that it is theoretically possible to have a resource monopoly emerge which would present problems for an efficient market, but it has never really happened so its not a huge worry.
Ventura 2012
Yes -- simply stated
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
ironic
that this world was birthed in anarchy. the allegorical adam and eve of the world were born into anarchy.
now look at the world.
see?
told you.
Yup. The vast majority of
Yup. The vast majority of empirical evidence is on our side.
Ventura 2012
that's not to say that we shouldn't strive for it
indeed, it is a lofty goal. but we shouldn't demand anarchy in of itself.
rather the goal should be enlightenment.
in a truly enlightened society, anarchy is the natural byproduct, anyway.
so we can't get to anarchy by advocating anarchy. if we are to get there, it must absolutely come through awareness, enlightenment, and spreading truth about life.
in a truly free society, everybody would not be interested in forcing our will onto others.
I really have to ask
I first want to tell you I understand what you're trying to say. BUT...
How exactly do you think people will become 'enlightened' when you coninue to advocate for evil to be done upon them via government? Furthermore, I think your last statement is incorrect. Even in a truly free and enlightened society, there would always be those who would use force against others as a means of taking what they wanted and imposing their will. It is precisely because of this fact that there are those people who are and would continue to be sociopathic that governmnt should not be allowed to exist. Why give legitimacy to their chosen tool?
We won't get to liberty for all by continuing to compromise on liberty for all.
I beleive that such
I beleive that such enlightenment is perhaps a biological/sociological impossibility, and certainly a historical rarity, therefore I do not endorse anarchism because it is so far beyond possibility. However, I still agree 100% with your post, especially with this line:
"so we can't get to anarchy by advocating anarchy. "
Whenever someone disagrees with this, I have to doubt their sincerity and certainly question their lack of self-control.
Ventura 2012
Not very good.
We can test. The hypothesis. Free markets are natural and prevent warlords and tyrants from rising up.
My response is that they are neither natural and do not adequately prevent the rise of tyrants.
Some point in the evolution of man there had to be a market system that was free. We have tyrants today, so that market system was not adequate. Looking at the animal world, the rule of tyrants is the rule and not the exception. Man is an animal just rational.
Free Markets are something that requires energy and investment to maintain and protect. The miss use of government is much like the misuse of drugs. It does not make the thing evil it makes the one using it an evil way evil.
Government is a means not an end.
>The miss use of government
>The miss use of government is much like the misuse of drugs. It does not make the thing evil it makes the one using it an evil way evil.
Government is a means not an end.<
I agree!
The miss use of government is much like the misuse of gun. It does not make the gun evil it makes the one using it an evil way evil.
problem with your theory
A problem with your theory. The “proper use” of government can’t exist.
The state is that institution which initiates violence and threats of violence in order to (1) tax, and (2) enforce its monopoly on defense services (police and courts).
This violence (as well as all initiations of violence), should be illegal. But it will remain legal as long as people like you support it.
Non-aggression principle
"Proper use" of gun "can't
"Proper use" of gun "can't be possible". Gun is product that initiate violence... is used to rob you... to enslave you... to kill you...
Government is gun and the gun can be government.
By the way... what is your "theory" on proper use of gun? Is it possible to have gun and properly use it?
One thing I am sure... both having government and having a gun is dangerous thing if control fall in the wrong hands...
analogy
Comparing the government to a gun is a false analogy. While it is possible for a gun to not be used to initiate violence, it is impossible for any state to not initiate violence. The very existence of a state requires the initiation of violence.
To answer your question “is it possible to properly use a gun” – of course – in self defense.
the state
The tyrants of today exist because enough people support the idea of a state. It doesn’t matter if the state is limited or unlimited. In order for a state to exist, enough people need to support it and believe in its legitimacy.
Do you advocate for a state?
By state I mean an institution which acquires its income by the physical coercion known as taxation and which asserts a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area.
If you do, then you’re part of the problem.
Non aggression principle
Society Without A State
So TRUE
I am watching my chickens and believe me I may be the master but they have their PECKING ORDER. The biggest and more mature is called Clever and she is the BOSS she chases and is mean to the others. Next is Brave One who is next in line and then Sheep who has overtaken Meek. I feel bad for Meek. Meek will never be free. I used to have horses and it was the same thing. Water will find it's level so to when it comes to a power structure.
Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.
Amen. Prepare to be attacked
Amen. Prepare to be attacked with inane ethical arguments now that you have won the empirical battle.
Roman Empire = strong government, wealth, stability, trade.
Fall of the Roman Empire= weak governments, dark ages, roving war bands, barbarian hordes.
Rise of European nation-states = capitalism, industrialization, freedom, democratic principles
Ventura 2012
collapse of the state
The Roman Empire collapsed because of its unsound statist economic policies.
You just argued in favor of anarchy.
The incompetence of a
The incompetence of a degenerate government is not an argument for no government. It lasted for hundreds of years. No government is the feudalism that followed. Your standard of living had the potential to be much higher as a Roman slave over a "free" feudal serf hundreds of years later.
Ventura 2012
warlords
For those of you who falsely conclude that warlords will fill the supposed power vacuum, you need to watch this.
help me out here
I wasn't willing to continue watching the video after the first analogies seemed irrelevant to me...heroin, the Titanic, etc.
But I am curious about the basic argument.
Would you be willing to outline it briefly for me?
Also, I thought it was kind of funny that your username is limelemon...I just used "lemons" in some illustrations (irrelevant analogies?) in another thread where I argue in favor of a one world, scientific dictatorship.
Wouldn't it be weird if a libertarian could make a convincing argument in favor of tyranny? I tried!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/114166
I'd be curious to read a convincing argument in favor of anarchy.