So would your definition of government be "a group of excessively violent and oppressive people wielding power over others?"
I'd say that's a fair definition.
Topic: What is the differenc between AnCap and everything else? (Read 1805 times)
I'd say that's a fair definition.
I'd say that's an accurate description. As for completely doing away with organizations like the Mafia and governments, probably not completely. It might succeed in turning the Mafia "straight", but there will always be people who want to control others, and those people will always try to start governments. The best we can do is knock 'em down every time they start hurting people.
Very cool, thanks. I suppose we are in agreement. So would your definition of government be "a group of excessively violent and oppressive people weilding power over others?" If not, then what is your definition of government (and your definition of mafia) that is necessarily exclusive to "coca-cola" type companies?
So is AnCap's goal to eliminate the "red market?" Is that possible? I don't think a world without violence is achievable, sadly.
Basically, yes. It's possible to remove the acceptance of violence, but you're right, completely getting rid of violence is impossible. That's not AnCap's goal. AnCap's goal is simply to place all people who use initiatory violence in the same category: criminals.
Ah! This makes sense. Thank you. Would you agree then that the U.S. Government, for instance, is just an enormous and violent company? Also, do you think AnCap can do away with violent mafias and governments?
I'd say that's an accurate description. As for completely doing away with organizations like the Mafia and governments, probably not completely. It might succeed in turning the Mafia "straight", but there will always be people who want to control others, and those people will always try to start governments. The best we can do is knock 'em down every time they start hurting people.
So is AnCap's goal to eliminate the "red market?" Is that possible? I don't think a world without violence is achievable, sadly.
Basically, yes. It's possible to remove the acceptance of violence, but you're right, completely getting rid of violence is impossible. That's not AnCap's goal. AnCap's goal is simply to place all people who use initiatory violence in the same category: criminals.
Ah! This makes sense. Thank you. Would you agree then that the U.S. Government, for instance, is just an enormous and violent company? Also, do you think AnCap can do away with violent mafias and governments?
So is AnCap's goal to eliminate the "red market?" Is that possible? I don't think a world without violence is achievable, sadly.
Basically, yes. It's possible to remove the acceptance of violence, but you're right, completely getting rid of violence is impossible. That's not AnCap's goal. AnCap's goal is simply to place all people who use initiatory violence in the same category: criminals.
What does a government do that a company can also not do, theoretically? I think that government is an arbitrary label.
That is actually a great way of looking at it. I agree with you, there really isn't any difference other than the label. And I've been struggling with this acknowledgement myself. What if this is the best it will/can be? Just like free market forces, we've reached a government equilibrium. Although that might be the case, the government we know today was formed before the internet or bitcoins. It is now possible for every citizen to have access to the material & vote on every issue. It is also possible to hide your money in plain sight & use anywhere the internet is available. I'm not sure how long governments will operate as we know them today if citizens have the ability to voluntarily defund them. How long will the world allow so few people to make such important decisions for them? I can't think of a greater precursor to a revolution.
Thanks for posting! That's such a great question.
@myrkul
So is AnCap's goal to eliminate the "red market?" Is that possible? I don't think a world without violence is achievable, sadly.
What does a government do that a company can also not do, theoretically? I think that government is an arbitrary label.
That is actually a great way of looking at it. I agree with you, there really isn't any difference other than the label. And I've been struggling with this acknowledgement myself. What if this is the best it will/can be? Just like free market forces, we've reached a government equilibrium. Although that might be the case, the government we know today was formed before the internet or bitcoins. It is now possible for every citizen to have access to the material & vote on every issue. It is also possible to hide your money in plain sight & use anywhere the internet is available. I'm not sure how long governments will operate as we know them today if citizens have the ability to voluntarily defund them. How long will the world allow so few people to make such important decisions for them? I can't think of a greater precursor to a revolution.
On the contrary, the difference between the Mafia and Coca-Cola is that Coke provides its product on the open market, without using violence to defend it's turf against Pepsi, and if it did, people would quickly stop buying Coke.
Perhaps this is more clear: the differences between Coca-Cola, the Mafia, and government are differences of degree, not qualitative differences.Right people would stop buying Coca-Cola in that scenario. But if a gang started being as civil to its competitors as Coke is to Pepsi, then that gang would lose out fast. If the U.S. was as nice to England back in 1776, the U.S. would have lost out.
You might be surprised... (some) Bloods and Crips have agreed to a truce, and are doing just fine. I think the US probably did have to give England a bloody nose back in 1776, but, again, dealing with government. All they understand is violence. Coke, on the other hand, competes just fine with Pepsi, and even all the other soda brands, and never once did I hear of a man in a blue delivery uniform shooting one in a red.
There's a distinct difference between Mafia and Government on one side, and private companies on the other. That difference is the market. Mafia and government operate in the red market, where violence is an acceptable fact of business. Pepsi and Coke work in the white market, where it is not.
Oh, and agorism is very cool to me. WIll look more into it.
I'll be back on the forum in about 24 hours. Switching my shift up tomorrow.
Thanks for always being up for discussion!
I'll be back on the forum in about 24 hours. Switching my shift up tomorrow.
Thanks for always being up for discussion!
No worries 
On the contrary, the difference between the Mafia and Coca-Cola is that Coke provides its product on the open market, without using violence to defend it's turf against Pepsi, and if it did, people would quickly stop buying Coke.
.
Perhaps this is more clear: the differences between Coca-Cola, the Mafia, and government are differences of degree, not qualitative differences.
Right people would stop buying Coca-Cola in that scenario. But if a gang started being as civil to its competitors as Coke is to Pepsi, then that gang would lose out fast. If the U.S. was as nice to England back in 1776, the U.S. would have lost out. So what is the underlying difference that makes it so?
I don't think so. If 300 million Americans (soldiers included) wanted a new constitution (and say canada and mexico and pakistan all hate america) they would get their revolution somehow. A better statement IMO is "the ratio of discontent with the US government to the US govt's power is currently too low for a revolution to work."
On the contrary, the difference between the Mafia and Coca-Cola is that Coke provides its product on the open market, without using violence to defend it's turf against Pepsi, and if it did, people would quickly stop buying Coke.
My contention is that advocating AnarchoCapitalism might just be the frustration of being unable to mount a revolution, because the U.S. Gov't is TOO rich and TOO powerful and TOO evil a company.
Perhaps this is more clear: the differences between Coca-Cola, the Mafia, and government are differences of degree, not qualitative differences.
Right people would stop buying Coca-Cola in that scenario. But if a gang started being as civil to its competitors as Coke is to Pepsi, then that gang would lose out fast. If the U.S. was as nice to England back in 1776, the U.S. would have lost out. So what is the underlying difference that makes it so?
Quote
because I know the US government to be too rich and too powerful for revolution to work,
I don't think so. If 300 million Americans (soldiers included) wanted a new constitution (and say canada and mexico and pakistan all hate america) they would get their revolution somehow. A better statement IMO is "the ratio of discontent with the US government to the US govt's power is currently too low for a revolution to work."
My point is that humans will make human mistakes and have human desires.
Oh, indeed. But I ask you this: What is the difference between the Mafia and the Government?
Nothing.
Well, no, not exactly. One has a flag.
No need to be smug. I'm not set in my stance or just wanting to argue, I'm trying to form an opinion.
Oops. Dry humor fail. Sorry. I was trying to make a joke.
Quote
Now, what is the difference between the Mafia, and Coca-Cola?
Nothing as well.
My contention is that advocating AnarchoCapitalism might just be the frustration of being unable to mount a revolution, because the U.S. Gov't is TOO rich and TOO powerful and TOO evil a company.
No, My advocacy of agorism is because I know the US government to be too rich and too powerful for revolution to work, and because I know that no violent revolution has ever succeeded in creating lasting freedom. AnCap is just the system I advocate to replace the coercion and violence of government.
My point is that humans will make human mistakes and have human desires.
Oh, indeed. But I ask you this: What is the difference between the Mafia and the Government?
Nothing.
Well, no, not exactly. One has a flag.
No need to be smug. I'm not set in my stance or just wanting to argue, I'm trying to form an opinion.
Quote
Now, what is the difference between the Mafia, and Coca-Cola?
Nothing as well.
My contention is that advocating AnarchoCapitalism might just be the frustration of being unable to mount a revolution, because the U.S. Gov't is TOO rich and TOO powerful and TOO evil a company.
My point is that humans will make human mistakes and have human desires.
Oh, indeed. But I ask you this: What is the difference between the Mafia and the Government?
Nothing.
Well, no, not exactly. One has a flag.
Now, what is the difference between the Mafia, and Coca-Cola?
My point is that humans will make human mistakes and have human desires.
Oh, indeed. But I ask you this: What is the difference between the Mafia and the Government?
Nothing.
My point is that humans will make human mistakes and have human desires.
Oh, indeed. But I ask you this: What is the difference between the Mafia and the Government?
What does a government do that a company can also not do, theoretically? I think that government is an arbitrary label.
"Legitimately" use aggressive force.
A company could also use force that would evoke quotations around "legitimately."
Of course they could. But everyone would see those quotations. If a government uses aggressive force (say, to enforce its laws) then everyone is OK with that, because it's a government. If a company uses aggressive force to enforce its edicts, then people tend to have a problem with that.
But in reality, a lot of people are not OK with what the government does. The difference between governments and successful companies is not that everybody is OK with one of them. Revolts happen against governments, revolts happen against companies.
Government = some humans wielding great power. Anarcho-Capitalism = all humans wielding great power.
Fixed that for you.
[/quote]
That just isn't true.
My point is that humans will make human mistakes and have human desires.
What does a government do that a company can also not do, theoretically? I think that government is an arbitrary label.
"Legitimately" use aggressive force.
A company could also use force that would evoke quotations around "legitimately."
Of course they could. But everyone would see those quotations. If a government uses aggressive force (say, to enforce its laws) then everyone is OK with that, because it's a government. If a company uses aggressive force to enforce its edicts, then people tend to have a problem with that.
Government = some humans wielding great power. Anarcho-Capitalism = all humans wielding great power.
Fixed that for you.
Government = humans wielding great power. Anarcho-Capitalism = humans wielding great power.
What does a government do that a company can also not do, theoretically? I think that government is an arbitrary label.
"Legitimately" use aggressive force.
A company could also use force that would evoke quotations around "legitimately." A company could lull a nation into complacency.
I think the world is in a state of AnCap. I see the government as one big company that "extorts" people for money and prints its own money too. They take polls of the population and try to (or at least appear to) act in the best interest of the public. The list goes on.
Could it be that AnCappers are just angry at how powerful and irrational and immoral this company is and seek an alternative? Do they want to just hit the reset button on society so that their version of power distribution gets a fair chance?
What does a government do that a company can also not do, theoretically? I think that government is an arbitrary label.
The world is increasingly neither anarchic nor capitalistic, which is the difference. Seeing the government as one big company at the commanding heights of the economy is of course what you are meant to see, since this is the conceit that holds sway in this era. But this phenom (governments centrally planning and directing substantial portions of economic "investments"- my how the leftists have poisoned the well with that word) is known more customarily as state capitalism, corporatism, and fascism.Could it be that AnCappers are just angry at how powerful and irrational and immoral this company is and seek an alternative? Do they want to just hit the reset button on society so that their version of power distribution gets a fair chance?
What does a government do that a company can also not do, theoretically? I think that government is an arbitrary label.
Of course I don't generally like what the government does, but what keeps a company from doing exactly the same things you list as bad?
Is it just that AnCap proposes more evenly distributed power, and calls it something else? I think that would be nice as well.
What does a government do that a company can also not do, theoretically? I think that government is an arbitrary label.
"Legitimately" use aggressive force.
Jump to: