View Single Post
  #50  
Old 11-21-2010, 06:47 AM
zambizzi's Avatar
zambizzi zambizzi is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Big Bad Boise
Posts: 4,048
Default Re: A funny state of the economy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pollyanna View Post
...libertarians are 1) very passionate and 2) seek the same things as any of us want - freedom without anarchy .
Libertarians are anarchists. Political "libertarians", such as the partyarchs involved with the LP, are something else entirely. The of libertarian philosophy is the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), which when followed to its logical conclusion, consistently, cannot advocate statism in any form.

Anarchy and chaos aren't synonymous. Real, serious philosophical anarchists have always maintained that government is chaos and anarchy is order. In fact, the circle around the traditional "A" is an "O", as in "Anarchy is Order".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pollyanna View Post
We have a system that has delivered better outcomes in terms of stability and living standards than in any time in history.
Yes, it has. State-Capitalism is a superior form of human ownership when compared to Socialism, Mercantilism, Feudalism, etc. It's still a form of human ownership and like all states, they still fail, violently and miserably.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pollyanna View Post
The stateless society is an impossible dream (apart from the anarchy in Somalia). As I said, take away the state and someone else will fill the power void. That someone will be the most powerful amongst us - multinationals and organised crime rings. What we would end up with is a collection of feudal lords, at least some based overseas. As it is, they are already pulling the strings, with government acting as both a puppeteer and, thankfully, a filter.
This is an argument that many fall back on. "We must have a violent gang of criminals to protect us from...violent gangs of criminals." Organized crime has already taken over and the feudal lords are already in charge. You mention "multinationals" again. By this I assume you mean large, global corporations, correct? These top-heavy giants would never exist without the state (eliminating competition and subsidising), and could not possibly survive the ethics and rules inherent in the free market. I covered this a bit, already.

Americans might refer to the (not so) "wild west", Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and other regions/periods of non-authority, for more relevance. There are plenty of examples, besides Somalia:

http://royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/history.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pollyanna View Post
All I know is the Tea Party and its equivalents are going the wrong way but it's to be expected that when times are hard people pine for the glory days and will cling to any snake oil salesman (or sales woman, as seems to be the case) who promises a return to the good old days.
Tea Party. LOL. I agree with this. There is no return to those idyllic days of yore, during America's modest days as a small Republic. This is not the nature of empires and has never happened. Economic collapse is how empires end...never by ceding power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pollyanna View Post
This ain't pessimism - it's reality. In short: too many people, certainly too many for a systemless society without the coordination that government brings.
I believe you misunderstand "anarchism". No one is advocating "chaos" - again, they're not one-in-the-same. Order is absolutely necessary, naturally. Libertarians advocate *voluntary* order, in all cases. Coercive, violent monopolies are not moral institutions and ultimately, they cannot hold order for long and create more problems than they hope to solve. This order is based entirely on the threat (and use) of murder...even as much as a parking ticket.

Polly, I'm not insisting that you agree with me, I'm simply saying that your rationale for the acceptance of statism is not good enough for me. I've long since rejected these types of arguments for the reasons I gave...they're inherently contradictory.

Impossible? Again, maybe...maybe not. I practice non-aggression and peaceful, positive free market exchanges, everyday. Speculating on possibility doesn't make it an unworthy cause.

I'll leave you with a thought from my favorite economist and biggest influence:

"If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action." - Ludwig von Mises
Reply With Quote