Atheist/liberal correlation

[paulpablo]

If I lived in an area with such a non-government, the first thing I would do is form a collective with everyone I could, to ensure that my individual rights would be protected.  We would then establish rules about road usage and so on, and charge road users for the forces by which we make the roads safe for them.

Then we'd need a leader, and I would "volunteer" to be the first one.  Then we'd make a constitution, since so many people would now be a part of our collective that we'd need clear and fair standards for all.  Then I'd dress an orangutan in a suit and make him shout about brown people.

Wait a minute. . .

Obviously, anarchy can never work, because people are social animals, and will instantly make a new government to fill the void.

And you explained in a concise nut shell why anarcho-whatever is all complete nonsense.

Again, not that I don't see flaws in anarchist capitalism, but I think you could probably describe most political systems on paper and literally point out thousands of flaws.

A lot of people would say democracy is a good idea, but then if you look at the situation with the brexit.
Lots of people were saying democracy is a good idea but oh shit, the people voted for the wrong option!
And it is a fact for better or for worse that you are letting millions of illogical, indoctrinated, uneducated people vote for an important decision.

I'm not saying I'm against democracy or for anarchist capitalism just to clarify.
I don't believe that there really is a perfect government system.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I wonder how that's working in Somalia?

I'm not defending anarcho capitalism, but Somalia was equally fucked up when they had a government. Somalia has always been fucked up.

I know this. But certainly such a beneficent system that removes the hindrance of Evil Government® should show an improvement, right? The fact that its results are (at best!) "equally fucked up" rather impugns Jak's faith in unfettered anarchy.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think his response regarding Somalia was that it isn't a place that adopted anarchy as a philosophical solution, it adopted it because the government collapsed and the country was already full of crime and so on.

Special pleading is special. The definition of anarcho-capitalism given upthread says nothing about the requirement that society adopt it as a guiding philosophy. Unspoken in such an objection is that everyone must agree that in anarchy they must respect each others' rights, and that unspoken premise is exactly the weakness of anarchy -- because there will always be people who don't respect the rights of others, and how do you deal with them? Anarchy, as a political solution, ignores the fact that a certain portion of people are going to act contrary to the best interests of the group.

I don't think Somalia "adopted" anarchy, I think Somalia fell into anarchy after its government was destroyed by the civil war. But I doubt the result would be any different, because, well, people.

[CapnAwesome]

Stefan molyneux is an anarchist capitalist, or something along those lines.

In his videos I've seen him answer questions of "what about Somalia" and "what about roads" and various other questions.

I don't have unlimited access to the Internet myself at the moment so I don't watch his videos.

I think his response regarding Somalia was that it isn't a place that adopted anarchy as a philosophical solution, it adopted it because the government collapsed and the country was already full of crime and so on.

With regards to people forming their own organisations to take control of roads who have appointed leaders in guessing these would be against the laws in an anarchist capitalist society.

As there would still be laws, and police but without a government above them who can sometimes be above the law.

Not that I don't see flaws in that system but that was the point of view given by Stephen molyneux who I think is the most famous anarchist capitalist I know of.

The last thing I would want is the police to be the top of the food chain when it came to laws. It should be obvious to see the problem with that. Also anarchy does not lead to good roads. Otherwise you'd have good roads in places with little government, which are plentiful in the world. There are also private roads in the United States in fact I use on regularly as part of my job, and they almost universally suck. Sure, there would still be roads, but they would suck. I think the better answer to Somalia were is that it's fucked up with or without a government. The height of Somalia was in the 1400s and it's been all downhill for there. That it doesn't have a functioning government makes little difference really.

Anarcho-capitalism shares an identical problem to communism. It functions on hypothetical and ignores the huge flaws in the theory.

[CapnAwesome]

And you explained in a concise nut shell why anarcho-whatever is all complete nonsense.

Again, not that I don't see flaws in anarchist capitalism, but I think you could probably describe most political systems on paper and literally point out thousands of flaws.

A lot of people would say democracy is a good idea, but then if you look at the situation with the brexit.
Lots of people were saying democracy is a good idea but oh shit, the people voted for the wrong option!
And it is a fact for better or for worse that you are letting millions of illogical, indoctrinated, uneducated people vote for an important decision.

I'm not saying I'm against democracy or for anarchist capitalism just to clarify.
I don't believe that there really is a perfect government system.

Every system has flaws, that's why it's best to be a pragmatist. A little of this and a little of that. A bit of free markets and a bit of government. We don't live in a democracy, there isn't a pure democracy. If there were, there wouldn't be parliaments and congresses and presidents. We live in a mixed system. Sometimes the people decide, sometimes it's a Republic and sometimes the market decides.

 Anarcho capitalism has major major flaws.

[CapnAwesome]

I'm not defending anarcho capitalism, but Somalia was equally fucked up when they had a government. Somalia has always been fucked up.

I know this. But certainly such a beneficent system that removes the hindrance of Evil Government® should show an improvement, right? The fact that its results are (at best!) "equally fucked up" rather impugns Jak's faith in unfettered anarchy.

True that. I don't think there has ever been a time when a government failing has led to anything good for the people of a country. On the contrary, you normally see the rise of warlords and religious fanatics. Which I think would happen with a voluntary collapse of government as well. Except the warlords would be business men and the religious fanatics....well they would still be the same.

[abaris]

Except the warlords would be business men and the religious fanatics....well they would still be the same.

You have to take it one step further. Such as asking, who runs the army? Is it a competitive branch too? So what would be the marching orders? Most likely on the lines of Al Capone, to take out the competition. Interventionalism would be raised to a whole new level. Corporation A might be interested in the resources of a certain place and since they're commanding at least a portion of the army, what would prevent them from simply taking them by force?

Same goes for police, obviously. Competing companies owning competing police forces would end up in brawls, in the best of cases and most likely in bloodshed.

We're talking about the so called Anarcho Capitalist model this guy feels like promoting, after all. That means, absence of any stately order and all in the hands of business.

[paulpablo]

Just as an additional point, a pretty major point I forgot to mention.

The system that Stefan molyneux in particular talks about it anarchist capitalism with an enforced rule of no initiation of force.

From what I've heard of his show his ideas are slightly more nuanced than giving simple rules that will work with every society right now if you implemented then today.

He talks about how people should stop spanking their children and family issues as a foundation to the rule of no initiation of force.

I've watched the shows a lot and they're interesting ideas to hear.

[CapnAwesome]

Just as an additional point, a pretty major point I forgot to mention.

The system that Stefan molyneux in particular talks about it anarchist capitalism with an enforced rule of no initiation of force.

From what I've heard of his show his ideas are slightly more nuanced than giving simple rules that will work with every society right now if you implemented then today.

He talks about how people should stop spanking their children and family issues as a foundation to the rule of no initiation of force.

I've watched the shows a lot and they're interesting ideas to hear.

Enforced by who and enforced how? The parallels with communism are so obvious. Yeah, it works as long as the fundamentals of human nature are changed for 100% of the population.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Exactly. We call the enforcing arm "government".