Is It Possible For The State To Exist

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

surely thats like taxing them?

Nope.

They don't have to pay and they can buy their own nukes if they want.

But maintaining a nuclear arsenal is expensive and for a fee, they would have the use of mine.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Don't be mad at me over the fact you enjoy taking people's money by force.

I dont enjoy it. I advocate quite strict conditions to be met before you can use other peoples money, including working for the state, have to take job if it is available, and no procreation.

Well then, I guess that makes violent theft just fine.

If manage to become unemployed and get sterilized, I'll be sure to go on a looting spree.

reply to post by Exuberant1


And what if the other nation offered the private nuke corporation more money (and part of war loot) to stop the protection and instead do nothing or even help the invaders? In anarcho-capitalism money makes might, and might makes right.

reply to post by Maslo


Can a violent aggressor nation be trusted to keep their word?

I dunno, I think I'll stick with my reliable customer base.

*Tempting offer though, but it is just too risky.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

And what if the other nation offered the private nuke corporation more money (and part of war loot) to stop the protection and instead do nothing or even help the invaders? In anarcho-capitalism money makes might, and might makes right.

A nuclear holocaust would put a crimp in future profits.

I think we can be fairly confident in the fact that no one will be launching nukes if they were put into the hands of private security guards.

And you got it backwards - in socialism might makes right, which is the entire point of this thread.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Well then, I guess that makes violent theft just fine. If manage to become unemployed and get sterilized, I'll be sure to go on a looting spree.

Sure, go for it. But looting spree means that you will have just enough money to survive, no more. After all, you have a basic right to live, not to live well.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Well then, I guess that makes violent theft just fine. If manage to become unemployed and get sterilized, I'll be sure to go on a looting spree.

Sure, go for it. But looting spree means that you will have just enough money to survive, no more. After all, you have a basic right to live, not to live well.

edit on 20/11/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

I would, but I'm not an immoral person, so I have to take a pass on that.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by Maslo

 

Can a violent aggressor nation be trusted to keep their word?

I dunno, I think I'll stick with my reliable customer base.

*Tempting offer though, but it is just too risky.

If they would pay in advance more than fees and promise even more after? Thats the point - rich will always triumph the poorer in anarcho-capitalism.

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by Maslo

 

Can a violent aggressor nation be trusted to keep their word?

I dunno, I think I'll stick with my reliable customer base.

*Tempting offer though, but it is just too risky.

If they would pay in advance more than fees and promise even more after? Thats the point - rich will always triumph the poorer in anarcho-capitalism.

In socialism, I would say the poor triumph over the rich, but as we can see from our own economy, that just doesn't happen.

reply to post by mnemeth1

A nuclear holocaust would put a crimp in future profits.

The other side pays to prevent the use of nukes.

I think we can be fairly confident in the fact that no one will be launching nukes if they were put into the hands of private security guards.

Depends only on the profit/loss ratio for the corporation with nukes. M.A.D. nukes would not be launched. Others could be.

And you got it backwards - in socialism might makes right, which is the entire point of this thread.

Might ALWAYS makes right. The question is only who has the greatest might.- either "corporation" where every citizen is an equal shareholder (state), or private entities where the decisions how to use the might and what is the right are done by a few persons exclusively.

reply to post by Maslo


Since corporations are publicly owned and voluntarily funded, I'll take my chances with the peaceful people.

A corporation engaging in bad conduct would lose business.

Eventually it would get run out of business if it wasn't meeting the public's needs.

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by Maslo

 

Can a violent aggressor nation be trusted to keep their word?

I dunno, I think I'll stick with my reliable customer base.

*Tempting offer though, but it is just too risky.

If they would pay in advance more than fees and promise even more after? Thats the point - rich will always triumph the poorer in anarcho-capitalism.

I wouldn't believe them.

They say their credit is good yet they have to invade other people's territory.

Plus they are competition and it doesn't help me to give my competition any help establishing themselves in my business territory.

*I would also work for free sometimes. This would keep my potential future customers safe by keeping their enemies on their toes.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Maslo

 

Since corporations are publicly owned and voluntarily funded, I'll take my chances with the peaceful people.

A corporation engaging in bad conduct would lose business.

Eventually, it would get ran out of business if it wasn't meeting the public's needs.

edit on 20-11-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

How such corporation in principle differs from the state, except for the fact that it is a corporation, so the "voting" power of every shareholder depends on his money invested? (which is bad difference IMHO, I am all for some form of meritocracy, but wealth should not be the ONLY criterion).

A corporation engaging in bad conduct against the poor/middleclass majority would not loose business, it would make even more profit if the rich decide to fund it a bit more, and promise it part of the further profit gained from said bad conduct.

Anarcho-capitalism is in essence a state where the voting power depends on the wealth only.

Originally posted by Maslo
How such corporation in principle differs from the state?

Well for starters, corporations don't run around looting people.

They have to have the government do that for them.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Maslo
How such corporation in principle differs from the state?

Well for starters, corporations don't run around looting people.

Because in order to have a cease-fire with the state, they have to respect its laws (which are decided by majority, no matter the wealth). Disband the state, and there would be nothing preventing the rich controling the wealthiest corporations to do whatever they want, even if the poor/middleclass do not agree and are part of the same corporation, since the rich will always "overfund them".

And there is another problem - government moderately loots wealthier people to provide for those whose life is threatened by povetry. Will private corporations do the same positive thing, considering that rich would practically own them? If not, it would be a bad change compared to current situation, since as I have said:

If the alternative is death or (possibility of) life-threatening situation, violent theft (if it does not endanger the victim or seriously limit his quality of life) is not only moral, it is immoral to not do it! Right to live is more important than right to property.

en.wikipedia.org...

A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. The bottom half of the world adult population owned 1% of global wealth.[11] Moreover, another study found that the richest 2% own more than half of global household assets.[12]

The richest 2% can in effect decide policy of ANY publicly owned defense (or other) corporation, even if everyone in the world was the shareholder. If we consider that the poor have to use larger part of their income for living costs thus they are able to invest even less % of their already far lower wealth and income, even less would be enough. In anarcho-capitalism, the top 1% would rule the world by absolute power.

reply to post by Maslo


so what?

how does this make violent looting OK?

Also, corporations can never do what they want. They have to please their customers and provide a valuable service.

Only government can do what it wants regardless of the violence and pain they cause.

reply to post by mnemeth1

so what? how does this make violent looting OK?

Of course, considering the alternative, violent looting is the most optimal choice when right to live and right to property come into conflict.

Also, corporations can never do what they want. They have to please their customers and provide a valuable service.

That would not be a problem if the 2% richest corporation will own almost all of the worlds basic resources, factories and markets in the world. The alternative to not buying their products would be living like a neolithic man.

Only government can do what it wants regardless of the violence and pain they cause.

Everyone mightier than the rest combined can do what he wants, there is no way around that in our universe. The point is only who will that be and what will he do.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Now, to answer your original question:

Is It Possible For The State To Exist If it was impossible to take another persons property by threats or violent force?

It depends on the will of the top class (those few % with the most of worlds property and therefore power). If they decide to pay into such a voluntary state scheme and not side with forces that work against it, then it will work. If they decide against it, it will collapse, no matter what poor/middleclass majority (but economical and power minority) wants. And they may decide that way, since the rich do not need almost any state services (they can buy them privately only for themselves), so paying them would be a clear economic loss to them, in addition to limiting their otherwise absolute power.
That is the answer concerning the minimal state (only security, police, law, some basic infrastructure etc.). If we talk about advanced state providing also advanced infrastructure, education, healthcare, welfare alternatives for the poor, then they will probably decide against it, or pay so little that we could not afford such services. Things like these are also disfavored by many greedy middle-class people, so they would probably also decide against it. They are still the minority in the society, but economically they would be the majority, so it will not work.

It's impossible for say California to fund LAPD if it wasn't for the Asset Seizure laws.

They hunt around and try to find someone with 1 pot plant then they seize that persons home, cars, bank accounts and that revenue stream helps fund the jackbooted thugs.

The ATF put a bid out on www.Fedbizops.gov a couple years ago as they wanted to order a couple hundred leathermen's engraved with "Always Think Forfeiture".

The State has been stealing citizens property to supplement it's income. There's nothing you can do about it if they steal your assets under the Asset Seizure statutes.

We don't live in no land of liberty and have no property rights.

Originally posted by Maslo

Anarcho-capitalism is in essence a state where the voting power depends on the wealth only.

Um. No. Obviously you're not even basically familiar with anarcho-capitalism if you don't understand that one of the basic tenets of it is that voting, or majority rule, is immoral and is not a valid way to solve social problems. Anarcho-Capitalists completely oppose it.

Also, all this stuff about corporations being evil monopolies with too much power is hilarious coming from the people who support government. Do you not realize that the only way private corporations become perverted and monopolistic in nature is BECAUSE government exists? Lobbyists! Behind the scenes financial support! When you have an all powerful state, corporations can pay politicians to do dirty work for them.

Without a government, corporations would be at the mercy of the consumer and the competition of the economy. Your company will not survive if you attempt to rip off your consumer, sell a bad product, maintain dishonest policies, or any other sort of unethical activity.

And speaking of monopolies... if we can all agree that they are bad, they why do we continue to let the State exist as a brutal monopoly? Do you have an option on who produces national security? Do you have an option on monetary policy? Do you have an option to stop giving the state your money when they wrong you or enact a policy that you find morally reprehensible?