Objective law: Anarcho-Capitalism vs. Minarchism

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
Thanks for not answering my question and changing the subject again. Lame.

Sorry but I try to avoid loaded questions.

Besides your questions don't address the thread subject.

Hayek's actions speak louder than his words, even if that is something that you have a hard time accepting.

And yours do?

Question for you guys...

Now that we have a global economy and have to compete globally against countries like China and Russia -- what would happen to the USA if we reduced the federal government to a fraction of its current size? What would that do to our country's standing in the world? Would we not be weakened?

Just throwing a question out there to be tossed around with. I see a lot of good discussion, and thought "what about globally? What would this do to the USA and the world at-large?"

originally posted by: greencmp
And yours do?

Mine were a direct response to yours but I'm not the one complaining about changing the subject. In fact they were on topic with the subject of that post.

Hayek approved of Pinochet. Just a simple little fact that seems to be causing you some grief.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Question for you guys...

Now that we have a global economy and have to compete globally against countries like China and Russia -- what would happen to the USA if we reduced the federal government to a fraction of its current size? What would that do to our country's standing in the world? Would we not be weakened?

Just throwing a question out there to be tossed around with. I see a lot of good discussion, and thought "what about globally? What would this do to the USA and the world at-large?"

Yes, that is the reason I must concede to the minarchist argument despite my wholehearted embracement of the ideal of economic anarchy or, as Marx derogatorily called it, anarchy of production.

As a constitutional minarchist, the powers awarded to the federal government are sufficient to the task of providing for defense. They can stand to lose a substantial part of their funding, mostly in a handful of particularly costly boondoggles.

That is a very interesting question. The foreign policy of a libertarian US would be a fascinating topic to go into.

What would it be?

a reply to: greencmp

Military defense is only one kind of defense. What about economic defense? This is now a global economy, and we could very well be forced into 3rd world status if the individual states are to weak to compete globally.

We can't just think with an Amero-centric, isolationist viewpoint anymore. We're a global superpower right now, and a large part of that is the strong arm the State Dept. Our economy keeps our currency as the reserve currency for the world.

We really have it good here in America because we are so economically powerful. If it wasn't for things like our GDP, we'd be surly slide into decline

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Military defense is only one kind of defense. What about economic defense? This is now a global economy, and we could very well be forced into 3rd world status if the individual states are to weak to compete globally.

I sense a bit of fear in this statement. I live in a 3rd world country and while some things definitely need to be improved, things are not unbearable.

I just read through the "Are "Third World" Regions Actually Starving?" thread and it reminded me of a thread I participated in a couple years back where someone insisted on perpetuating the stereotype that people in the 3rd world all make a living by digging in garbage dumps. I tried to point out that, logistically, that didn't even make sense but I got the message loud and clear that denying that ignorance was futile at best.

We can't just think with an Amero-centric, isolationist viewpoint anymore. We're a global superpower right now, and a large part of that is the strong arm the State Dept. Our economy keeps our currency as the reserve currency for the world.

You know it doesn't matter what viewpoint the average person has, maybe it has never mattered. Those in charge move things along, sometimes it's better and sometimes it's worse.

Greencmp asked me if I understood what fascism is. Truth be told I think I have a pretty good handle on it. Not in the derogatory form but the political ideal. I think that Mussolini stumbled on a real nugget of truth. Fascists where honest. While everyone fell in love with the idea that government serves the people, they made it clear that government serves itself but, they have to do a balancing act where they keep the majority content. If you think about it that is nothing new but they were a bit more honest about it, at least on paper.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: JeanPaul

You called Hayek a fascist.

Speaking about fascism:

“[A]s long-term institutions, I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period. At times it is necessary for a country to have, for a time, some form or other of dictatorial power. As you will understand, it is possible for a dictator to govern in a liberal way. And it is also possible for a democracy to govern with a total lack of liberalism. Personally, I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking in liberalism. My personal impression. . . is that in Chile . . . we will witness a transition from a dictatorial government to a liberal government . . . during this transition it may be necessary to maintain certain dictatorial powers, not as something permanent, but as a temporary arrangement.”

Do I need to translate this for you? Perhaps put it in historical perspective as far as Hayek's support of the fascist Pinochet in Chile?

originally posted by: JeanPaul

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: JeanPaul

You called Hayek a fascist.

Speaking about fascism:

“[A]s long-term institutions, I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period. At times it is necessary for a country to have, for a time, some form or other of dictatorial power. As you will understand, it is possible for a dictator to govern in a liberal way. And it is also possible for a democracy to govern with a total lack of liberalism. Personally, I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking in liberalism. My personal impression. . . is that in Chile . . . we will witness a transition from a dictatorial government to a liberal government . . . during this transition it may be necessary to maintain certain dictatorial powers, not as something permanent, but as a temporary arrangement.”

Do I need to translate this for you? Perhaps put it in historical perspective as far as Hayek's support of the fascist Pinochet in Chile?

That makes more sense to me now that I can see the quote in context. I agree that liberalism (classical) through dictatorship is preferable to socialism through democracy.

It would seem that his foresight on that particular example was reasonably accurate, Chile's economy is the freest and most stable in South America. They are now shifting toward socialism but, with good results. I make the case that initial socialist endeavors are indeed successful but, that "cushion" of confiscated accrued capital improvements is quickly expended with no resources to take their place.

Chile’s economic freedom score is 78.5, making its economy the 7th freest

Economy of Chile

"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."

-Alexis de Tocqueville

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: greencmp

Military defense is only one kind of defense. What about economic defense? This is now a global economy, and we could very well be forced into 3rd world status if the individual states are to weak to compete globally.

We can't just think with an Amero-centric, isolationist viewpoint anymore. We're a global superpower right now, and a large part of that is the strong arm the State Dept. Our economy keeps our currency as the reserve currency for the world.

We really have it good here in America because we are so economically powerful. If it wasn't for things like our GDP, we'd be surly slide into decline

I would argue that "We" don't compete globally as the US per se, individuals and corporations do. States (and countries) compete to attract the productive operations of successful businesses. Whenever a state or country involves itself in private commerce, either corruption or failure is inescapable.

Tariffs are specifically authorized in the constitution. As much as I want free markets for the world, I do agree that unfettered trade outside of the US is wanting and therefore, we can't give away the store making an example for a while yet. That will change as the world becomes more free. Within the US, we can have economic freedom.

If we repeal the 16th amendment and fund the federal government through tariffs and state-to-federal (as opposed to federal-to-state) subsidies, the control could be placed more properly in the hands of the states.

A stateless currency would do a lot to promote property rights around the world including in the US though, the federal government does have constitutional claim to mint currency. What isn't clear is whether the constitution requires that that currency be backed.

I am not an isolationist either but, I do not think we have a good foreign policy plan.

While I don't always listen to myself...

"No communication is better than bad communication."

-greencmp

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: JeanPaul

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: JeanPaul

You called Hayek a fascist.

Speaking about fascism:

“[A]s long-term institutions, I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period. At times it is necessary for a country to have, for a time, some form or other of dictatorial power. As you will understand, it is possible for a dictator to govern in a liberal way. And it is also possible for a democracy to govern with a total lack of liberalism. Personally, I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking in liberalism. My personal impression. . . is that in Chile . . . we will witness a transition from a dictatorial government to a liberal government . . . during this transition it may be necessary to maintain certain dictatorial powers, not as something permanent, but as a temporary arrangement.”

Do I need to translate this for you? Perhaps put it in historical perspective as far as Hayek's support of the fascist Pinochet in Chile?

That makes more sense to me now that I can see the quote in context. I agree that liberalism (classical) through dictatorship is preferable to socialism through democracy.

It would seem that his foresight on that particular example was reasonably accurate, Chile's economy is the freest and most stable in South America. They are now shifting toward socialism but, with good results. I make the case that initial socialist endeavors are indeed successful but, that "cushion" of confiscated accrued capital improvements is quickly expended with no resources to take their place.

Salvador Allende wasn't a Bolshevik (Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist). They planned on a decentralized democratic form of production with the use of computers. I don't think computing power was strong enough at the time but this still scared Hayek. It scared him because this had never been attempted. Hayek theorized the only way to get over the calculation problem (*under socialism) was with the use of some sort of super computer.

Anyhow, Allende was also democratically elected. So, you support fascism over democracy. You support coercion/force. You are a statist. You're not an "ancrho" capitalist. You're not a "libertarian". You are a supporter of fascism.


*edit

And Hayek's support of fascism wasn't just theoretical. He flew to Pinochet like a school girt would a high school quarter back. He helped plan Pinochet's nightmare. He then denied all of the torture/killing in various news papers, praising Pinochet's regime. There was literally blood on Hayek's hands. Same with Milton Friedman's "Chicago Boys".

The so called "free market" goons actually support fascism when it comes down to it.

originally posted by: JeanPaul

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: JeanPaul

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: JeanPaul

You called Hayek a fascist.

Speaking about fascism:

“[A]s long-term institutions, I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period. At times it is necessary for a country to have, for a time, some form or other of dictatorial power. As you will understand, it is possible for a dictator to govern in a liberal way. And it is also possible for a democracy to govern with a total lack of liberalism. Personally, I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking in liberalism. My personal impression. . . is that in Chile . . . we will witness a transition from a dictatorial government to a liberal government . . . during this transition it may be necessary to maintain certain dictatorial powers, not as something permanent, but as a temporary arrangement.”

Do I need to translate this for you? Perhaps put it in historical perspective as far as Hayek's support of the fascist Pinochet in Chile?

That makes more sense to me now that I can see the quote in context. I agree that liberalism (classical) through dictatorship is preferable to socialism through democracy.

It would seem that his foresight on that particular example was reasonably accurate, Chile's economy is the freest and most stable in South America. They are now shifting toward socialism but, with good results. I make the case that initial socialist endeavors are indeed successful but, that "cushion" of confiscated accrued capital improvements is quickly expended with no resources to take their place.

Salvador Allende wasn't a Bolshevik (Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist). They planned on a decentralized democratic form of production with the use of computers. I don't think computing power was strong enough at the time but this still scared Hayek. It scared him because this had never been attempted. Hayek theorized the only way to get over the calculation problem (*under socialism) was with the use of some sort of super computer.

Anyhow, Allende was also democratically elected. So, you support fascism over democracy. You support coercion/force. You are a statist. You're not an "ancrho" capitalist. You're not a "libertarian". You are a supporter of fascism.

*edit

Says the communist.

The problem with socialism is that planning doesn't work.

Not because we don't have cool enough robot overseers.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: JeanPaul

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: JeanPaul

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: JeanPaul

You called Hayek a fascist.

Speaking about fascism:

“[A]s long-term institutions, I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period. At times it is necessary for a country to have, for a time, some form or other of dictatorial power. As you will understand, it is possible for a dictator to govern in a liberal way. And it is also possible for a democracy to govern with a total lack of liberalism. Personally, I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking in liberalism. My personal impression. . . is that in Chile . . . we will witness a transition from a dictatorial government to a liberal government . . . during this transition it may be necessary to maintain certain dictatorial powers, not as something permanent, but as a temporary arrangement.”

Do I need to translate this for you? Perhaps put it in historical perspective as far as Hayek's support of the fascist Pinochet in Chile?

That makes more sense to me now that I can see the quote in context. I agree that liberalism (classical) through dictatorship is preferable to socialism through democracy.

It would seem that his foresight on that particular example was reasonably accurate, Chile's economy is the freest and most stable in South America. They are now shifting toward socialism but, with good results. I make the case that initial socialist endeavors are indeed successful but, that "cushion" of confiscated accrued capital improvements is quickly expended with no resources to take their place.

Salvador Allende wasn't a Bolshevik (Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist). They planned on a decentralized democratic form of production with the use of computers. I don't think computing power was strong enough at the time but this still scared Hayek. It scared him because this had never been attempted. Hayek theorized the only way to get over the calculation problem (*under socialism) was with the use of some sort of super computer.

Anyhow, Allende was also democratically elected. So, you support fascism over democracy. You support coercion/force. You are a statist. You're not an "ancrho" capitalist. You're not a "libertarian". You are a supporter of fascism.

*edit

Says the communist.

The problem with socialism is that planning doesn't work.

Not because we don't have cool enough robot overseers.

Non Bolshevik socialism has never been allowed to work. In Germany before WW2 they funded fascists to end the attempt. Spain in the 1930's , they funded fascists to end the attempt. Chile they funded fascism to end the attempt. All throughout South America death squads and military dictatorships.

"Robot overseers" has nothing to do with modern computing power. It's possible to democratically gather information, analyze it and move forward with production in not market form.

It's also possible to place workers in control of production under market socialism. Ending the "need" for singular owners. Market socialism also scares the ruling capitalist class. They'd also squash any attempts at market socialism with violence/fascism/coercion.

Pretty much any alternative economic system will be squashed, isolated and sabotaged by capital. As history has shown.

a reply to: JeanPaul

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

-JeanPaul

Hell, look at China's version of market socialism. I'd say it's working. Not politically desirable of course but economically viable.

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.

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.

originally posted by: JeanPaul
Hell, look at China's version of market socialism. I'd say it's working. Not politically desirable of course but economically viable.

Yes, I am looking at that very closely. You should too.

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.

That's assuming innovation hasn't been funded by government. That's also assuming people only invent things for profit. This is also assuming mankind needs some sort of ever expanding technological economy. We're stuck here on earth and there's really no need for all this useless junk. A new cell phone every year. 20000 different pairs of shoes. Homes full of crap that's thrown away after the novelty wears off. How is all this "innovation" to be ecologically maintained?

We really haven't innovated much since the 1950's and most of it has been funded by government for military application. Medical science is important of course, look to Cuba and what they're doing. In fact, much of our R&D in the west is held back by the corporate profit chase. Pharmacology is the new thing. Massive profits generated via treating symptoms rather than the underline cause. A billion people popping various pills. A billion people throwing away junk into a perpetually expanding landfill. The whole system is unsustainable, immoral and unstable. Sure, with a planned economy we'd have a lot less consumer products because production would be facilitated for need rather than all these silly manufactured desires. This abject "individualist" consumer culture is unhealthy.

It's not even individualism proper. The idea that buying all sorts of junk is the ultimate expression of individualism. Fad's and behavior generated via mass marketing campaigns, subversion and manipulation. This is a very dystiopian version of "individualism". The corporations have absolutely perverted our conception of reality itself. Try watching "Century Of Self" sometime. It's about 5 hours long so it takes a while.

Anyhow, you should read some of Joseph Schumpeter's old work on how socialism might manifest and how the "entrepreneur" would be maintained and or even be discarded by socialism so as to produce for need rather than facilitating an expanding technological cancer which is eating up the globe.

Part two of this post is short and sweet. Market socialism is not a planned economy. It's simply worker run capitalism and it discards all of your criticisms.

a reply to: JeanPaul

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