Is It Possible For The State To Exist

reply to post by RavagedSky

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.

Voting should have been in quotation marks.

Anarcho-capitalism is in essence a "state" where the "voting" power or ability to influence decisions depends on wealth only. Someone who has 10x the wealth of others has 10x more voting power in shareholder corporations since he is able to invest or corrupt 10x more, 10x more voting power through free market "voting" of products, 10 more power to ensure fulfilling of his decisions through paying 10x more private armies etc. You are right, its not majority rule, its wealthy rule, something even worse.

Without a government, corporations would be at the mercy of the consumer and the competition of the economy.

Or they would form a mono/oligopoly and rule us all, destroying eventual competition through private armies, if that competition even arise, you cannot compete for example in basic resources sector if someone controls all there is on earth.

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.

If it is able to destroy competition (by hiring more private armies, not just by winning in free market) and acquire monolopy in basic sectors, it can rip off whoever it wants.
If it becomes so wealthy that it can buy more armies and resources than the rest combined, is can do whatever it wants and if effect hold absolute power.

Anarcho-capitalism lacks something that prevents a corporation or individual from acquiring more power than the rest of the power spectrum combined. System with government makes it harder through redistribution of wealth, and if government becomes such powerful, everyone still has equal say in it, so its better than if corporation would become that, where the rich have far higher influence than the rest.

reply to post by Maslo


How, exactly, would this company -- which is only sustained by the profits it makes from voluntary consumers -- then successfully turn into a Fascistic/monopoly/private army and then successfully brutalize the customers that supply its income? Would that make any sense at all? Would anyone still support this company in any conceivable way?

You don't just raise a fleet of black helicopters and hundreds of thousands of highly-trained soldiers overnight.

The ONLY way that wars can be waged, or have ever been waged, is through taxation. What exactly is this theoretical Nazi-walmart going to do? Remember, this is a stateless society. There's no Treasury to take over -- so they can't take over the money supply because there is no central money supply. There's no central government. There is nothing for them to seize. Where will they go? What possible profit is there to be made?

So tell me: What will they do? Wade slowly through the countryside and scavenge toasters and hairdryers from houses that have long since been abandoned by their owners the moment that news of an invasion came through?

Remember, in a stateless society, you also don't know who has a weapon and who doesn't. Which means any citizen can and likely will be armed. This sort of uncertainty is an absolute nightmare for any mobilized army.

Also, what would these armed citizens -- which greatly outnumber this army -- be doing in the mean time? Playing Xbox and waiting for a new fascist state to be erected? No. They would ban together with every other company and completely eradicate this rogue private army which would have long-since gone bankrupt before it even got to the battlefield.

You cannot take over a stateless society. It would be the most difficult, frustrating, inefficient campaign in history. When there is no state, there is no central power structure to take over.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Of course he has the right to use violence against the other 60.

He's an elected official.

This gives him the right to take anyone's property using military hardware and paramilitary commandos.

Excellent answer Comrade!

Your zeal will get Food Rations for your whole family this month!

Praise Lenin.

Lenin like George W. Bush was a authoritarian dictator. Anarchy has no real leaders so....Phail.

reply to post by RavagedSky

How, exactly, would this company -- which is only sustained by the profits it makes from voluntary consumers -- then successfully turn into a Fascistic/monopoly/private army and then successfully brutalize the customers that supply its income?

If the owner(s) want it and the available wealth coporation can invest into military is higher than what the victims can, what exactly will stop it?

Would that make any sense at all? Would anyone still support this company in any conceivable way?

For the same reason ordinary people support local warlords in Somalia, Taliban in Afghanistan or dictators. From fear. And if the corporation has a local monopoly on important supplies (forced or not), they have no choice.

You don't just raise a fleet of black helicopters and hundreds of thousands of highly-trained soldiers overnight.

Why not, if you have enough money, anything is possible. And why exactly would you need to do it overnight?

There's no Treasury to take over -- so they can't take over the money supply because there is no central money supply. There's no central government. There is nothing for them to seize. Where will they go? What possible profit is there to be made?

They can take over peoples gold and property and use them for work, in exchange for basic supplies and "protection". There are many ways how to exploit people if you have them under occupation and dont have to respect any conventions.

What will they do? Wade slowly through the countryside and scavenge toasters and hairdryers from houses that have long since been abandoned by their owners the moment that news of an invasion came through?

Not everyone is able to move and take his wealth with him, majority of people cant. How can factory owner move his wealth?

Remember, in a stateless society, you also don't know who has a weapon and who doesn't. Which means any citizen can and likely will be armed. This sort of uncertainty is an absolute nightmare for any mobilized army.

If the corporation has better equipped and bigger army than all citizens combined, attacking would be pointless, and guerilla tactics will not be effective after they seize peoples remaining weapons. There is no reason why they would not do it, it is not "democratizing" occupation like Afghanistan or Iraq.

Also, what would these armed citizens -- which greatly outnumber this army -- be doing in the mean time? Playing Xbox and waiting for a new fascist state to be erected? No.

Maybe they will, you know the unthinking majority. And does not matter if they are outnumbered, war is no longer about numbers, but money, equipment and technology. 100 soldiers with cutting edge equipment and many times more money and resources can beat 10 000 average wealthy citizens with rifles and 20th century military arms easily.

You cannot take over a stateless society. It would be the most difficult, frustrating, inefficient campaign in history. When there is no state, there is no central power structure to take over.

New central power structure can be set up pretty easily, why need to take over the old? If there is no central power structure to oppose the take over so it would be easier, IMHO.

Humans have created an artificial, abstract environment that sits on top of and intertwined with the real environment. Because the abstract environment still operates within the scheme of the real environment, we are still open to the same abuses, threats and conflicts that the natural world would eitherwise deal with if our human societies did not exist. However, the artificial construct we've created causes harm, damage and death in unexpected ways that challenge our notion of happiness and survival. We cling to society and therefore it's understandable that we feel the need to create the safety blanket of laws, regulations and social programs.

In my personal opinion, it could go either way as time goes by. Maybe we could perfect some new adaptation - but it would have to be one that is sustainable when we finally get there - clearly we are not there yet.

The other way it could go is the distruction of the current cultural paradigm and a more individualist and small collectivist mentality, where we are still connected as a species, but more local in our existence.

reply to post by mnemeth1

As Jean-Jacques Rousseau beautifully said it (thanks Misoir) existence of state is based on violence, lies, crime, corruption and evil and objective of every state is to become the Babylon - everyone knows that state with the highest tower is the greatest state. It is not so sad and even so bad that we live in this establishment of pure evil but it is very sad that most of us flat out deny it and live in some kind of hypnotised state of pre-programmed value system where ethics and moral philosophy is almost hard-coded in our brains.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

Sounds like a terrifying future. Everything comes down to money, you will agree to wipe a nation of the planet for the right fee? Sick

Armored car companies agree to protect your property from theft, using force to do so if necessary.

However, they will not attack someone for a fee.

A company engaging in such activity in a state of anarchy would be subject to retribution from other protection services.

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

God Suede, why don't you grow a sack and move to Somalia already???

you premise these theoretics upon a state which will not exist here until the world is in trauma, therefore you
run the distinct possibility that you be moaning about this in some form forever. ATS should collect enough to get you to Somalia where you can get lost in the sheer bliss...

Originally posted by Janky Red

God Suede, why don't you grow a sack and move to Somalia already???

you premise these theoretics upon a state which will not exist here until the world is in trauma, therefore you
run the distinct possibility that you be moaning about this in some form forever. ATS should collect enough to get you to Somalia where you can get lost in the sheer bliss...

Our government is about to turn the US into Somalia by destroying the currency.

Somalia isn't in a state of chaos because of anarchy, they are in a state of chaos because the previous governments and warlords destroyed the country.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by mnemeth1
If it was impossible to take another persons property by threats or violent force?

Discuss.

you should clarify by saying "if it was impossible to [LEGALLY] take another person's property by threats or violent force [UNDER IMMUNITY OF THE LAW]

Anybody can take someone's property through threats or violent force, the law simply tries to prevent this, but when the law has the power to take property, it can then be abused. Government is like technology, when it falls into evil hands bad things happen.

impossible

as in, it is literally impossible.

as in, it can not be done.

as in, there's just no way man.

Well that is a hypothetical that isn't even worth considering, because that impossibility is in this reality, impossible.

I understand what your trying to get at though, and no its not possible to enforce property seizure without threats of violence or force, unless of course its a passive person who just gives it up at "hello"...

I love this guys threads

breathlessly anti-government, yet uses the government created internet, drives down state roads, etc etc etc.

heh...down with the government (except for the stuff they do for us).

dude, stop being a hyopcrite and shut your net down if your totally anti-government, else deal with the fact that you are directly feeding the beast you pretend to hate.

reply to post by SaturnFX


People create things.

Government assumes control of those things - it does not create.

What creation it does is done through the use of funds expropriated by force and threats of force.

People create things.

This is the absolute truth; I saw the title of this topic on the side panel of ATS's home page. Then I read the description about threats or violent force, and I said to myself, "I bet you Mnemeth1 created that topic". I click on it.. and I was correct.

Mnemeth1, don't these topics get old? Nearly all your topics are about the same thing. Did you really need to make another one? Isn't the words on your avatar enough?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Is It Possible For The State To Exist
If it was impossible to take another persons property by threats or violent force?

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

People create things.

Government assumes control of those things - it does not create.

What creation it does is done through the use of funds expropriated by force and threats of force.

People create things.

ok, right...people create things, however, people work for other people and organizations, be it microsoft or the federal government.

I have no control personally what microsoft is creating..however, if I don't like what the government is creating, I can swap out managment during an election..because like it or not, I am part of that company

I would love to see the argument take place of a person working at a computer manufacturing place as he tries to take home 200 computers he just made, saying he made it, not a company, but a person...him.

The government is a entity..sort of like a person. a government is controlled (this one theoretically anyhow) by the people and if the government is doing something we generally dont like, we can alter that.
so in short...the government is actually a big popup person...a giant person and you are but a single cell within that person.

as a cell works for the body, a person works in some aspect for their government. You can object to that on principle and say its a form of communism thought (its not). the only difference between a communist government and a open democracy isn't the cell analygy, it is simply the direction the great government body moves.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy

This is the absolute truth; I saw the title of this topic on the side panel of ATS's home page. Then I read the description about threats or violent force, and I said to myself, "I bet you Mnemeth1 created that topic". I click on it.. and I was correct.

Mnemeth1, don't these topics get old? Nearly all your topics are about the same thing. Did you really need to make another one? Isn't the words on your avatar enough?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Is It Possible For The State To Exist
If it was impossible to take another persons property by threats or violent force?

edit on 21-11-2010 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)

Don't you get tired of defending violence?

reply to post by SaturnFX


So you believe that if the government didn't violently loot people, the internet wouldn't exist.

Looks like I have my work cut out for me here.