tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18934603.post114607287350581054..comments2024-02-26T10:25:52.212-08:00Comments on The Radical Libertarian: Market Anarchy Evangelism with David MillsAaron Kinneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18934603.post-1146329848755347952006-04-29T09:57:00.000-07:002006-04-29T09:57:00.000-07:00Concider poker. Just like the free market, players...Concider poker. Just like the free market, players exchange chips by taking risks. As the game continues however, there will be certain players who accumulate more chips than other players. The end result is just a single player who has all the chips. The game then ends unless the winner's chips are re-distributed to the other players. If poker isn't quite the right anology, concider "monopoly". Same game really, and quite the same ending. If this still seems irrevelant, concider Micro$oft. What's the real difference between a politician holding all the chips and a businessman holding all the chips? <BR/><BR/>The only anarchist counter arguement I can think of is that in a completly free market, monopolies are impossible. The only place I've ever seen this happen is amoungst the bushmen of the Khalarhi desert in Africa. These people own absolutly nothing. Left completly to its own devices, the market behaves like matter under the influence of gravity. Its only a matter of time before a black hole forms.<BR/><BR/>Is capitalism "progressive"? If so, what are we progressing twoards in a universe with no edge nor any center? All I can imagine is a day when American children are 50% plastic and eat electricity for breakfast. Will they stand out in the rain and catch lightening on their tongues? Is the sterilized, standardized mechanized American menu really superior to what bushmen eat? Frankly, dirt is tastier than styrofoam. As reguards starving foreigners, they don't have any food because the king decreed they all eat cake. The king got to be the king because some dirt farmer had a bumper crop and turned his plow into a swoard. Those he didn't kill then starved. Then the King starved when he found his Gold was about as edible as dirt.<BR/><BR/>Again, how exactly does a completly free market discourage the accumulation of wealth? Quite a paradoxical oxymoron, non? <BR/><BR/>Returning to our bushmen friends - these people regurarly live into their 80's without an HMO. It seems to me modern medicine is just a means of keeping people alive in what is essentially a toxic waste dump. Ah, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder, even if the beholder is blind. "Progressive medicine" reminds me of one of Gulliver's travels. He meets a race of people who never die. Unfortunately their oldest citizens are little more than animated, rotting corpses. Hopefully we will become 100% plastic before this happens. Then Europeans can not only refer to Americans as children, they can call us children's toys!<BR/><BR/>In the final analysis, I think the Chineese might just be evolving a system more suited to the shrinking resources of a very finite planet. Small businesses are free to compete with little governmental regulation. Past a certain size however, the government either treats mega-business as a public utility as the Russians did or smash it to bits with anti-trust laws as the Americans do. Anarchy can only benefit the people if the people themselves are perfect. Unless we all evolve into robot insects, nobody will be perfect. Until then, everybody needs big brother. <BR/><BR/>Roger L. SieloffRoger L. Sieloffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13476311531191759112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18934603.post-1146280810146495852006-04-28T20:20:00.000-07:002006-04-28T20:20:00.000-07:00Roger L. Sieloff,You said:I suppose this is the cr...Roger L. Sieloff,<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/><I>I suppose this is the crux of our divergenance - I am not a capitalist. Capitalism was, is and will always be the accumulation of wealth. Ours being a finite universe, this means making a good living ultimately means making someone else worse off. Sorry, but I just can't believe money can be created out of nothing. </I><BR/><BR/>Capitalism, or the free market, has a superior incentive for productivity and, in turn, progress. That incentive is personal profit, or in other words, a personal "accumulation of wealth". However, I contend that the "accumulation of wealth" that you seem to despise is something that happens in even the most collectivist red-commie society. The only difference is that in a collectivist economy the state owns it, or "everybody" owns it, which means "nobody" really. <BR/><BR/>And you are wrong about your finite universe claims. Our universe also is constant in terms of energy and matter. Physicists says that usable energy will decrease into nothingness, but that will happen regardless of how we utilize energy in the meantime. Do you honestly think that the finite universe wont run out of energy is private property and self-ownership principles are denied across the Earth? <BR/><BR/>I dont believe that money can be created out of nothing either. Money is created out of energy, or productivity; work. Even the reddest commie will glorify work. Market Anarchists also glorify work. But Market Anarchists also glorify self-ownership and private property, and we take these principles to their logical conclusion. Dont sit there and pretend that productivity is bad, or that private ownership is bad. <BR/><BR/><I>The assertation American medicine is the finest in the world strikes me as a bit boastful.</I><BR/><BR/>Well its a good thing that <STRONG>I didnt make that assertion</STRONG>, isnt it?! I only said it was relatively better than Canadas, and I attributed this mostly to the fact that it was not totally socialized like Canadas was. So dont act like Im saying things that Im obviously not.<BR/><BR/><I>Frankly, I think medicine in this country is more concerned with managing poor health than actually curing disease. True, we have gotten very sophisticated at dealing with heart disease and cancer, but America still remains one of the few places on earth where one can literally eat themselves to death. I find that disturbing and discusting - and cancer? The ingredients list on a can of soda pop reads like the index of a college chemistry text. I ought to know - I'm a chemist!</I> <BR/><BR/>You have no idea what you are talking about, for two reasons. The artificial ingredients count in food are irrelevant to a statist vs market anarchy discussion, and the food quality in more statist countries is far inferior to those that allow privatization of their food industry. You are insane to try to use some kind of food quality argument in the context of a statist vs free market food economy. Food quality is far and away superior when the food market is privatized. <BR/><BR/>And your eating death argument is also absurd. For every American who dies from eating too much, thousands more people die outside of America from starvation. Not to mention the fact that when a person eats to death, its by choice; but with a starving person, it isnt by choice. <BR/><BR/>I dont even think it matters now if I mention this or not, but I might as well: The populations on Earth with the highest life spans are the ones who benefit from a prosperous and privatized food market.<BR/><BR/><I>So, is this what "freedom" is all about in America? If it is, then it is nothing more than the blissful freedom from responcibility, encouraged by the illegitimate security that technology can eventually solve any problem.</I><BR/><BR/>No. The problem is that America isnt free... not really. It may be more free than some other countries, but it is less free than many. And no country is truly free, yet. <BR/><BR/><I>As far as "anarchist capitalism" is concerned, I'm afraid all it brings to my mind is "organized crime".</I><BR/><BR/>I beg to differ. Organized crime is when people use coercion. Coercion is used by states, and mobsters. Government officials are no different than mobsters. <BR/><BR/>Fact 1: Taxes and theft (government and mobsters) are both coercive.<BR/>Fact 2: Voluntary value exchange (market anarchy) is not coercive.<BR/><BR/>If you think market anarchy is similar to organized crime, then why dont you elaborate on your claim, and explain the analogy? I just explained mine. <BR/><BR/>And then why dont you tell me which social system <STRONG>you</STRONG> believe does not resemble "organized crime"?Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18934603.post-1146196264120434632006-04-27T20:51:00.000-07:002006-04-27T20:51:00.000-07:00I suppose this is the crux of our divergenance - I...I suppose this is the crux of our divergenance - I am not a capitalist. Capitalism was, is and will always be the accumulation of wealth. Ours being a finite universe, this means making a good living ultimately means making someone else worse off. Sorry, but I just can't believe money can be created out of nothing.<BR/><BR/>The assertation American medicine is the finest in the world strikes me as a bit boastful. Frankly, I think medicine in this country is more concerned with managing poor health than actually curing disease. True, we have gotten very sophisticated at dealing with heart disease and cancer, but America still remains one of the few places on earth where one can literally eat themselves to death. I find that disturbing and discusting - and cancer? The ingredients list on a can of soda pop reads like the index of a college chemistry text. I ought to know - I'm a chemist! <BR/><BR/>So, is this what "freedom" is all about in America? If it is, then it is nothing more than the blissful freedom from responcibility, encouraged by the illegitimate security that technology can eventually solve any problem.<BR/><BR/>As far as "anarchist capitalism" is concerned, I'm afraid all it brings to my mind is "organized crime".<BR/><BR/>Roger L. SieloffRoger L. Sieloffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13476311531191759112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18934603.post-1146084709315194912006-04-26T13:51:00.000-07:002006-04-26T13:51:00.000-07:00Very true Delta, and thank you for the comment!Very true Delta, and thank you for the comment!Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18934603.post-1146074065308679652006-04-26T10:54:00.000-07:002006-04-26T10:54:00.000-07:00I hadn't really thought about it before that anarc...I hadn't really thought about it before that anarchism really is a more misunderstood idea that even atheism. But I guess it's not too much of a surprise. Growing up anarchism is basically associated with chaos and people killing each other in the streets, just as atheism is associated with immorality and such.<BR/><BR/>Yet it's much more difficult to bring people around to anarchism it seems than it is to bring them around to atheism. A lot of factors come into this, one of course being that it's much easier to make some sort of argument for government than it is to make an argument for an invisible sky daddy.<BR/><BR/>However, Bush and the current political atmosphere make it easier to bring people around, and we should capitalize on that.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15708796218860983185noreply@blogger.com