Topic: Freedom is ... - page 5. (Read 14409 times)

Many ways, I will give you a few examples then you will need to use your imagination.

Foundations
NGO
Lobbying
Endowments
PACs
Dedications
Scholarships
Funded Research
Advertising
Movies
Books
Screenplays
TV Shows
Radio Shows
Political Movements
Pornography
Celebrities
etc....

By saying "Capitalism is not that smart," you are actually saying "I am not that smart," since what capitalism does is determined by what YOU buy.


If there is a monopoly, chances are it will charge more than trains, and people will pick trains, or even invest some other mode of travel. Monopolies never last, because when pushed hard enough, someone always comes up with alternatives.
Otherwise, if roads are cheaper and more efficient... what's the problem?

Merely saying and acting like I own a natural well doesn't actually mean anything. Unless I produced it, mixed resources with labor I don't own it and anyone that claims otherwise is a fraud and should be fought against exactly the same as one would fight an evil sadistic bully/thug who'd want to impose his will upon you through the use of violence.

But if I put my sweat and blood into building a well on land I cultivated you better believe I can charge the maximum if I want. But why would I be so stupid? You can just build your own well next door and start competing with me, what a stupid thing would that be. I much rather keep the price at a reasonable level and turn my labor of building that well into a nice profit and have you be a farmer and have you turn your labor into a nice profit for you.


You see IN ALL PROBLEMS YOU THINK CAPITALISM CAUSES YOU ARE ACTUALLY DESCRIBING CORPORATISM and I'm very much opposed to that. If someone says they own a whole river just because they said so and they try to enforce that through force they should be defended against with any force necessary.



So you see, your theoretical examples do not match reality and to not match the AnCap framework.

Also, how is it acquired?

You wish that is what Capitalist's only interests are.   WRONG.  There is this thing called Power & Influence which after you get a certain amount of money, becomes more important that digits in a bank account.   You need to read more history on this subject.  I personally have read histories on many industrialist and bankers whom we could consider proto-typical Capitalists and guess what I found across the board?

Once they got a large sum of money, their effort and activities became increasingly focused on power and influence.   

Do you know why this is?   IT IS BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY WILL DIE AT SOME POINT.   This means that their legacy and influence in what they care about and that does not have a direct correlation to making profit.   They may have their own ideas on how society should be run or what culture will be taught, don't ever forget this.   It is crucial to everything around you.

See, that's the best thing about capitalists. You always know what their interests are: Profit, both short- and long-term. Running you out of business would not be helpful to my long-term profit potential, and the short term benefits would not be worth that loss.

It would depend on what your "interests" where at the time.   I just wanted to highlight there are other ways to be aggressive and cause others harm that does not require physical abuse. 

I "could," but would I? If I were supplying water, and you need water, which would be more profitable for me, charge you rates so high that you cannot stay in business, or charge you a rate that will keep you coming back for more?

Do a little research into game theory, specifically the iterated prisoner's dilemma.

Well on face value it would not be known because we both have incomplete information in our mutually agreed upon trade.  My point is when you control resources and means to productions and likely influence on distribution, you can enact harm on people through your trading practices. 

An example is we are in a town, you were there first and claimed the only water access for the town.   I am a farmer or manufacturer and needed water for my production.  You "could" charge me a rate that would put me out of business or make me uncompetitive because you owned that resource or you had interests that would benefit from me not competing with you.    This actually happens all the time and we do have laws the counter these types of tactics.

I am just showing you that all violence does not need to be physical, thats all.

Ah hah! So we get to the root at last. How is mutual voluntary trade and private ownership not peaceful?

Explain please.

That is a poor response and justification for your use of language which I took directed at me.    

Also your assumption that these were peaceful people is a large assumption as well.  The act of Capitalism which is part of AnCap is not economically peaceful and being that the money/profit derived from this activity is my sole manner of acquiring the goods I need for my survival, you could in fact through collusion, enact violence on my pocket-book and deny me the means of my survival.  You think just because I am not clubbing you over the head I can not be violent or aggressive against you.  Interesting...

Capitalism: Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods and services for profit. -

Those proposing AnCap are of two camps:
1) Establish an AnCap society somewhere else, such as by SeaSteading. In that case, the people you feel compassionate about will be left with their safety nets, and you don't have to worry about them. The only people who do end up in the AnCap society will be the ones who voluntarily move there, knowing all the risks.
2) Society and government as a whole are slowly devolving into AnCap, thanks to globalization and technologies like the Internet, Bitcoin, Tor, 3D Printing, file sharing, etc, which will make the government lose more and more power due to not being able to regulate the things it used to. In this scenario, AnCap is pretty much the inevitable end, so arguing about why it's good or bad for us is irrelevant, and we should instead focus on what it could entail and how to be ready for it.

As for those outwardly "wealthy" and "moneyd" types, a lot of their wealth is actually owned by their bank in the form of loans and credit cards. All they own is a bunch of junk that they're only losing money on. Your real wealth, or net worth, is determined by how productive you are in a society, which I believe should be encouraged. If you simply won the lottery, or inherited a large sum, you likely won't keep that money for long, either.

I AM in business, and am talking from experience. Yes, you can lie, and be an exploitative monopoly, but you won't have customers or be a monopoly for long, since you'all be inviting competition or innovation. You can just say "fuck'em" and get out, but in that case you hopefully have made your money legitimately.

The maximum legitimate role of government is to provide external security, an internal police force, and courts. Ie, the industries of security and justice. And those can certainly be provided privately, so the minimum role is none.

I'll address the points in order: First, nobody is entitled to anything. Period. That's life, get used to it. TANSTAAFL.
Roads don't have to be toll maintained, that's just one way to do it. Another perfectly viable method is advertisement. A while back, KFC was filling in potholes in exchange for the ability to put their logo on the patch. Billboards are an accepted site along the highway, the funds from them could go towards the road maintenance. Or to apply the "freemium" model, perhaps you could pay to travel in special lanes.
As to elections, I don't think you actually understand AnCap. There would be no elections in an AnCap society, because there would be no posts to elect anyone to. AnCap is entirely privately run.

Again, the solutions you propose are the cause of the problems you point out. The government controls education, so of course they produce good little drones. Private education would solve that.

This whole discussion where certain people advocate violence against peaceful people merely because they refuse to do something became unbecoming so I fail to see your point.

I bet that is "exactly" what they will be hired on.   No posts in Ancap, wow I feel safe.

Agreed. Kids can't make choices about their lives. Though how that education is actually provided for is what's debatable.


I'd rather travel by train, flying car, or work over the internet. Why is it that I have to pay for a car, car insurance, maintenance, gasoline, and taxes to support it all in US, when I can pay a much cheaper fare and travel conveniently by train on a profitable railroad in Europe or Japan?
Though the sprawl in US, with everything and everyone being so far apart, is a symptom of the road systems that would be an issue if AnCap was to take over here.


There would be no "posts" in AnCap. People will be hired based on their skills, and services will be "voted" on by purchases. Don't like the person at some "post?" Pay someone else.

You need to spend more time in business.  It is called lying to your customers.  There is much less competition in most industry and most are basically monopolies so either you pay ball or not.  Also, you don't need to "get far", you just need to "get enough" and cash out and say "f**k em".   

I am not going to waste my time with this line of discussion.  I would rather continue elsewhere, no offense I hope but I just think you are not being objective enough on this subject.

Well now you bring a good line of discussion to go into:

How would you feel about the State if we cut those benefits you spoke of?  Is that a major part of you angst?

Before I address your comment about my wanting to help (I'll give my reasoning), I would like to state I believe everyone universally is entitled to education in a Capitalistic society.   Also road should be maintained for everyone, it should not become a class issue to travel in your country, at least to the doorstep of someones property.  Elections should be funded by the public with no private money at all, issues are what get you elected and that is all.  Even in AnCap you would have some form of elections to posts everyone agreed you needed.

Now here is my issue with your hardline approach to whine people off of welfare services.  I agree we would be stronger without them, the problem I have is the intentional perversion of the education and culture that has really brainwashed the populous into this servile state.  I have to have some compassion for their situation and realize it is not all their cause and fault (some yes, not all).   Also I don't believe "wealth" ie "money" should be the determinate factor on a person worth in society as well.  Look where is has gotten us, no where except we have a few extra goodies.