Pages:
Author

Topic: Your dream political system (Read 2910 times)

legendary
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1358
September 03, 2014, 08:33:37 AM
#67
The corperation is a fiction created by the state and enforced by state laws

%) State laws were written using the same logic as corporate charters, that's why states and corporations have similar structure. Corporation is a typical entity of business activity in any well developed society. Not because of state but because it's a natural order of things. It's not even a sign of capitalism because they exist even under anticapitalist regimes.

AC has no such laws and so there may be no such corperation.
In case if you didn't notice, corporations doesn't care about law too much. Even more, they're writing their own. Smiley

A corperation is in no way like a seed of the state.
Please elaborate why do you think so.

A state has a legal monolopy on the iniation of force against people, there is no coperation on earth that has such a monolopy.
State has this monopoly only because it holds on suitable amount of wealth. Wealth is a source of any real power. If you have wealth then you can do virtually anything, otherwise you're nothing because you even won't be able to buy weapons or feed your army.

There has never been a monolopy such as you have decribed occur in a free market and nor could there due to increasing marginal pricing of buisnesses.
There are many different types of monopoly. Some of them are state-created (e.g. radio frequencies regulation), but many others are naturally occurred (e.g. transport infrastructure or water supply).

fascist mercantilistic state sponsored enterprise.
People are greedy and mercantilistic creatures. That's the reason why state is greedy and mercantilistic, because state is formed by people. That's why the communism doesn't work at the current development level of our civilization.

as any sector returning super normal profits will attract compition.
Or cause some assasinations of unwanted competitors. We're not living in the ideal world, remember? Smiley

No such centralisation of wealth occurs in free markets, as the only way to acrue wealth is to please customers who volentarly trade with you. No please customers, no trade, no wealth. Free markets create greater wealth distribution, not centralisation.
Tell this to bitfury or [email protected], please.

You a communist?
I'm a realist who have analyzed many real-life examples.
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
September 03, 2014, 07:24:17 AM
#66
thats because you don't understand that anarchy and capatalism are not contradictory terms, they are synomyms.


This because I perfectly understand that they're contradictory. Money or any other kind of wealth is a source of power by definition. If you have the source of power, then the only thing you need is somebody who will decide to use it for own profit.

Any corporation is very similar to state:

constitution - company's charter;
legislation - assembly of share holders;
government - council of directors;
head of state - chief executive officer;
interior ministry - security service;

and so on. In fact, any corporation it's like a seed of the state.

In case of free market capitalism we have a soil for this seed, and we'll get a competition between many "states" in one society. Due to planning issues some of these corporations will become bankrupt or will merge with others. As the result, eventually we'll see inevitable centralization of wealth which will lead to corporative dictatorship. Corporative dictatorship means a situation when few monopolies proclaims itself as a new government and this will be the end of so-called anarcho-capitalism.

Type of the resulting regime will depend on internal structure of "the power prize winner" corporation, it could vary from absolute monarchy to direct democracy.

1. The corperation is a fiction created by the state and enforced by state laws, AC has no such laws and so there may be no such corperation.

2. A corperation is in no way like a seed of the state. A state has a legal monolopy on the iniation of force against people, there is no coperation on earth that has such a monolopy.

3. There has never been a monolopy such as you have decribed occur in a free market and nor could there due to increasing marginal cost of buying each buisnesses, the cost of which must be passed on to the consumer and wil make you buisness less competative. Any psudo monolopy that exists currently only does so with state protection and laws and is such not a natural monolopy and is in fact a a fascist, mercantilistic, state sponsored enterprise.

4. So corperations such as you decribe may only exist with the sponsorship of the state.

5. No such centralisation of wealth occurs in free markets, as the only way to acrue wealth is to please customers who volentarly trade with you. No please customers, no trade, no wealth. Free markets create greater wealth distribution, not centralisation.

6. Free markets promote compition and drive down profits, no buisness will acrue sufficient wealth as any sector returning super normal profits will attract compition.

You a communist?

Also it is not a source of power it is a store of energy, power is energy per unit time, wages are an expression of power, wealth is a form of energy stored.
legendary
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1358
September 03, 2014, 07:13:00 AM
#65
thats because you don't understand that anarchy and capatalism are not contradictory terms, they are synomyms.


Thats because I perfectly understand that they're contradictory. Smiley Money or any other kind of wealth is a source of power by definition. If you have the source of power, then the only thing you need is somebody who will decide to use it for own profit.

Any corporation is very similar to state:

constitution - company's charter;
legislature - assembly of share holders;
government - council of directors;
head of state - chief executive officer;
interior ministry - security service;

and so on. In fact, any corporation it's like a seed of the state.

In case of free market capitalism we have a soil for this seed, and we'll get a competition between many "states" in one society. Due to planning issues some of these corporations will become bankrupt or will merge with others. As the result, eventually we'll see inevitable centralization of wealth which is leading us to corporative dictatorship. Corporative dictatorship means a situation when few monopolies proclaims itself as a new government and this will be the end of so-called anarcho-capitalism.

Type of the resulting regime will depend on internal structure of "the power prize winner" corporation, it could vary from absolute monarchy to direct democracy.
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
September 03, 2014, 06:23:17 AM
#64
I'd say that anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron.

thats because you don't understand that anarchy and capatalism are not contradictory terms, they are synomyms.

anarchy is the non iniation of force and volentry free interactions and even you enjoy these benifits every singe day in many of the choices you make.

when you watch a tv show, who makes that choice? you? did anyone force you? anarchy baby!

here is an another example. Women choose who they want to sleep with and rape is illeagle. Is this a bad thing? are you pro rape?

The free choice is an expression of anarchy and the ilegality and moral evil of rape stems from the right of sovernity over ones property (when you consider that a man or woman must have soverenty over their body and be free from the iniation of force! rape in this case is defined as the forceful posession of ones body, which is ones property)

It then follows that as capatalism is the action of volentry trade between two partys, If the trade is volentry then it is free and if it is free it is again anarchic. It is also fair as when making this free choice both partys of the trade must beleive themselves to be betteroff for making the trade, or no trade would occur.

So in reality, anarchy and capatalism are the same thing. Free market capatalism can not exist without absolute property rights, the non iniation of force against a person or property and volentry interactions.

Such a state of affairs would lead to all trades being trades where both partys benifit, and that would be a great produces of wealth and happyness.

Anarchy and Capatalism are the same thing, they are redudent terms, not oxymornic.

legendary
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1358
September 03, 2014, 05:56:47 AM
#63
I'd say that anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron.
legendary
Activity: 1199
Merit: 1047
September 03, 2014, 05:50:24 AM
#62
There is no any perfect political system for every person,No matter how perfect of a political system you would make,there will always be people whom you harm.Some citizens aren't made for any political system whom we call non law abiding citizens,Good for nothing

Who is harmed by anarchocapitalism? Parasites that have to start doing something productive to live?
legendary
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
September 02, 2014, 12:55:17 PM
#61

Also support Anarchocapitalism as the way forward.
legendary
Activity: 1199
Merit: 1047
September 02, 2014, 12:53:42 PM
#60
Anarchocapitalism. Because I'm against violence. All exchanges should be voluntary.

full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
August 30, 2014, 09:06:27 PM
#59
Indoctrination from an early age pacifies a naturally dangerous animal? who could of guessed?

*cough* state run school system *cough*
legendary
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1358
August 30, 2014, 09:01:53 PM
#58
There is no any perfect political system for every person,No matter how perfect of a political system you would make,there will always be people whom you harm.Some citizens aren't made for any political system whom we call non law abiding citizens,Good for nothing

I prefer to compare farm animals to wild animals, some animals are dangerous to farm.....




full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
August 30, 2014, 08:58:57 PM
#57
There is no any perfect political system for every person,No matter how perfect of a political system you would make,there will always be people whom you harm.Some citizens aren't made for any political system whom we call non law abiding citizens,Good for nothing

I prefer to compare farm animals to wild animals, some animals are dangerous to farm.....
member
Activity: 65
Merit: 10
August 30, 2014, 02:20:14 PM
#56
There is no any perfect political system for every person,No matter how perfect of a political system you would make,there will always be people whom you harm.Some citizens aren't made for any political system whom we call non law abiding citizens,Good for nothing
legendary
Activity: 1134
Merit: 1002
You cannot kill love
August 30, 2014, 01:12:19 AM
#55
I see what you're saying, but you can still care about things, you can care for other humans, you can still have ambition and purpose in life.

Good and Evil aren't black and white, the very same thing can be caring for someone and hazard to another. Anarchy is sort of the last state of individualism, because the Good/Evil duality locks you around yourself. Most people needs some sort of guidance, something they can believe in to set this black and white inexistent world and even if some could actually live totally free and act somewhat accordingly to your utopia, they are a tiny percent, most won't and conflicts would raise everywhere.
And how would you set conflicts under Anarchy? In a situation where both believe to be right, why would John's view should prevail over Joe's or vice-versa?

Let those who want to fight fight.  Let those who want peace live in peace.  That's all we can do.  Karma and natural selection takes over from there.  The positives will attract positives, the negatives attract negatives and earth purges itself.

Karma is all the guidance we truly need.  Way more effective than any man made law.
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1000
August 29, 2014, 11:47:29 PM
#54
I see what you're saying, but you can still care about things, you can care for other humans, you can still have ambition and purpose in life.

Good and Evil aren't black and white, the very same thing can be caring for someone and hazard to another. Anarchy is sort of the last state of individualism, because the Good/Evil duality locks you around yourself. Most people needs some sort of guidance, something they can believe in to set this black and white inexistent world and even if some could actually live totally free and act somewhat accordingly to your utopia, they are a tiny percent, most won't and conflicts would raise everywhere.
And how would you set conflicts under Anarchy? In a situation where both believe to be right, why would John's view should prevail over Joe's or vice-versa?
legendary
Activity: 1134
Merit: 1002
You cannot kill love
August 29, 2014, 11:25:53 PM
#53
Does anarchy equate to not caring about anything?
Yep, because you shouldn't try to use your absolute power for anything. Otherwise it won't be an anarchy, am I right? Smiley

I see what you're saying, but you can still care about things, you can care for other humans, you can still have ambition and purpose in life.
legendary
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1358
August 29, 2014, 11:09:22 PM
#52
Does anarchy equate to not caring about anything?
Yep, because you shouldn't try to use your absolute power for anything. Otherwise it won't be an anarchy, am I right? Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1134
Merit: 1002
You cannot kill love
August 29, 2014, 09:47:14 PM
#51
Does anarchy equate to not caring about anything?  To me, anarchy equates to freedom.  Volunteerism.  Living for your own will.
legendary
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1358
August 29, 2014, 02:13:49 PM
#50
Elective monarchy, maybe? It can be a solution for such dilemma... Nobody will run around your daughter if new monarch is elected by people's assembly or appointed by council of lords. Smiley

Non initiation of force, loop closed.
What do you mean? Roll Eyes

Quote
An elective monarchy is a monarchy ruled by an elected monarch, in contrast to a hereditary monarchy in which the office is automatically passed down as a family inheritance.

There were many elective monarchy states in the history. Kingdom of Rome, Holy Roman Empire, Kingdom of Serbia, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and dozens of others. Some of these states were stable enough to exist during many ages.

Famous modern example is the Vatican city, it employs an elective theocratic monarchy with legislatures. This system have survived more than 1000 years  Shocked
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
August 29, 2014, 01:32:22 PM
#49
Just try to imagine that you have got an absolute power in some way.. It doesn't matter how, maybe through a coup, from royal ancestry or as the result of mutual destruction of existing opposition. Which kind of political system would you prefer to create?

A variant of this, sometimes played with by Mensans, is that after one person describes their ideal system a second person gets to choose a role for the first person within that system. Things then become very messy as the implications dawn.

Corny example:

A: I would pick a monarchy. I've always wanted to be king/queen.
B: OK, monarchy it is. You are a peasant within the monarchy and one of the arrogant nobles has just noticed your daughter. Is it still your system of choice?
A: No, no, of course not. Umm - I pick a completely flat egalitarian system then. Nobody has any special ranks, privileges, entitlements and so forth.
B: OK, egalitarian it is. You are a megalomaniac within that flat system. You are sure that you know best. You crave power and you need to be the boss. Is it still your system of choice?
A: No, I guess not. Umm - I know - the golden rule - do unto others - will be the only rule in my system.
B: OK, golden rule it is. You are a masochist within that system, begging others to beat you. Every time you come upon a sadist they refuse to do it. Is it still your system of choice?

Crazy-making stuff.      Wink

Elective monarchy, maybe? It can be a solution for such dilemma... Nobody will run around your daughter if new monarch is elected by people's assembly or appointed by council of lords. Smiley

Non initiation of force, loop closed.
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
August 29, 2014, 01:31:18 PM
#48

So if you find a way to make gold for cheap you dont tell anyone, its kinda like if you've hacked bitcoin. Grin

If you've done that you've reduced the cost of energy down to basicly 0 and made it an (for all purposes) unlimited resource. As money is a store of economic energy, which is a function of biological / physical energy, you've ended the need for storing economic energy by creating unlimited, free energy and so unlimited free resources.....

If economics is the problem of limited resources and unlimited wants, you've killed economics.

would be a creepy social structure if that happened, my money is on raise of dictators (with lightsabers?)

Cant really respond to the previous science post i dont understand science on the same level as you but i will preorder a lightsaber Smiley

As regards this one, if gold were made for cheap im thinking as regards money & stores of value we'd just shift the goal posts elsewhere.  If we truly did find ways to produce something out of virtually nothing star trek style then perhaps.... to quote the NLP founder "Information is the currency of the future" & maybe that should be extended to things like creativity etc.  In star trek they seem to have a social order haha



On the meaning of Star Trek, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBRf8DVkc-8

Pages:
Jump to: