Objective law: Anarcho-Capitalism vs. Minarchism

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: JeanPaul

It's assuming history is correct and human behavior continues to be unpredictable.

Human needs aren't unpredictable.

originally posted by: JeanPaul

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: JeanPaul

It's assuming history is correct and human behavior continues to be unpredictable.

Human needs aren't unpredictable.

Here's a homework assignment:

Make a plan for running your country and taking care of all of its people and clearly elaborate on all of the details and back up plans for all manner of problems that may arise. Quantify all of the resources and what exports will be necessary, what imports will be lacking and be able to predict what their prices and availability will be. See to it that no effort is wasted and no work unnecessarily replicated.

We can post it on here and let our politicians know that we have figured out the solution to the human condition and it is documentable nay, documented.

originally posted by: greencmp
It's assuming history is correct and human behavior continues to be unpredictable.

Wouldn't that mean that people can't be trusted to govern themselves?

You just posted the number one pro-government argument.

a reply to: daskakik

How do you figure?

a reply to: greencmp

I find it hard to believe that anyone who claims to be an anarachist has never heard that argument.

I also find it ironic that you are trying to use it as an argument against.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: greencmp

I find it hard to believe that anyone who claims to be an anarachist has never heard that argument.

I also find it ironic that you are trying to use it as an argument against.

Who says I'm an anarchist?

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?"

-Frédéric Bastiat

a reply to: greencmp

You still should have seen that argument when choosing between full on AC and minarchy with a side of economical anarchy.

It's still ironic that you should use it to argue against planned economies.

ETA: That quote proves I was right, you have seen it.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: JeanPaul

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: JeanPaul

It's assuming history is correct and human behavior continues to be unpredictable.

Human needs aren't unpredictable.

Here's a homework assignment:

Make a plan for running your country and taking care of all of its people and clearly elaborate on all of the details and back up plans for all manner of problems that may arise. Quantify all of the resources and what exports will be necessary, what imports will be lacking and be able to predict what their prices and availability will be. See to it that no effort is wasted and no work unnecessarily replicated.

We can post it on here and let our politicians know that we have figured out the solution to the human condition and it is documentable nay, documented.

First off, you're assuming I don't advocate market socialism, which requires no planning (Lange model is of interest but it is also essentially planned). There are other forms of market socialism which simply replace singular owners with worker run firms operating under the same economic conditions as capitalism. The only issue some people bring up with that is "innovation", the entrepreneur would have to be rewarded for his/her efforts. That's fine by me.

Secondly, as far as a planned economy goes, you're assuming I have access to high level computing power and information gathering capabilities. A decentralized planned economy would require the use of supercomputers (they do exist you know), with information gathering online. Analyzing populations and determining what amount of food/shelter/medical care is needed is not an impossible task. It was before the 21st century.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: JeanPaul

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: JeanPaul

"This time will be different, trust me, you'll see."

-JeanPaul

Part of the reason Bolsheviks were so authoritarian was precisely because the west/capitalist nations targeted them, straight out the gate Russia was targeted with war to end the socialist experiment. Of course Lenin himself was authoritarian but being surrounded by hostile armies will do that to a person.

This is why all non Bolshevik/non authoritarian forms of socialism have been squashed. Since they weren't authoritarian they were unable to fend off the attacks waged by capital. The SDP in Germany was squashed by Hitler. The libertarians in Spain were squashed by Franco. The democratic socialists in Chile weer squashed by Pinochet. On and on.

Well, now you're making a little more sense. The truth is there are other collectivists who would gladly join a small enclave but, just as anarcho-capitalists have trouble securing their borders, so do anarcho-communists. But, I contend that even with a secure border, planned economies stagnate and the absence of private property in the means of production eliminates innovation.

"A small enclave" of (industrial) socialism is not possible.