Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Tiervexx

Regulars
  • Posts

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    Not Specified

Tiervexx's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/7)

0

Reputation

  1. Iceland was anacho-capitalist for +300 years. And Somalia is currently developing into one (in the years since clinton left it alone). But can you give an example of a government behaving as a benevolent defender of rights for very long at all before deteriorating into an institution of legitimized coercion? It is totally ridiculous to think that such a thing as government, something that holds a monopoly on force, can exist without attracting the worst powerfreaks of humanity in large numbers.
  2. In the purely theoretical sense, this makes sense, but in the practical world this post made no sense what so ever. You might as well have just typed lasagna a bunch of times as your refutation of anarcho-capitalism. You are basing your description of government on the wild assumption that government can be controlled and that it will behave the way you want it too, and that it can be affective at anything.
  3. Mises and Rothbard where big believers in reason, they just believed that certain things had to remain subjective, and I agree with them, although I may be closer to Rand than they where. I have actully had more success using economic arguments than emotional or moral aproaches. This is not always the case, but many people will feel like they are bing attacked if you tell them about how immoral and disgusting their big-government views are. I think that when dealing with many socialists it is better to first make them question how their views work, then ease in a little bit of the moral justification (after all, nobody can come up with a clear justification for taxation, it can't be done). I am a very big fan of David Friedman BTW. How did you meet him and did you adopt any of his views?
  4. It would seem that many objectivists spend so much time thinking about philosophy that you forget about the sciences that might help you achieve the kind of world you would want to live in. It sounds like all arguments against Anarcho-capitalism from the objectivist point of view are more or less based on the assumption that having more than one protection agency would cause them to get violent with each other. Rather than just depend on this assumption we should look into it in depth. Open, legitimate firms that put time and effort into maintaining a good reputation have many huge competitive advantages over underground gangs. This is why the bootleggers of the 1920s fell from power so quickly after prohibition was lifted, because gangs are not competitive. If there was only 3 competing defense firms, there would be the very real possibility of the type of chaos that I'm sure you all associate with anarchy. But if there are +100 firms, or even a lot less than that there is almost no risk of such a thing happening, because if a few start fighting, than they would rapidly lose power and resources(fighting is expensive) and a few other firms could step in and steal all their customers. If the current performance of police departments is any indication than any private firm with more than 1000000 clients would be well above their optimum size. This means that in America, the number of defense firms would be a lot closer to 100 than three. Each firm would have a slightly different understanding of the law, but this would not really matter. It is much more cost efficient for them to solve their differences through a simple bargaining process. If you want a much more detailed description of the process I would suggest you read The Machinery of Freedom by noted economist David Friedman.
×
×
  • Create New...