For those that do not know what it is, it is a brand of anarchy (anarcho-capitalism), but it is distinct from pure anarchy as whilst pure anarchy promotes a lack of authority of any kind, anti-statists believe authorities such as police and courts are necessary, but that their function is better left in the hands of multiple private entities that are in competition.

Here are some videos that provide a good introduction to the subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A (this one's a tad conspiratorial, but it lays the groundwork for why a state is undesirable)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yllGnH3h8Hg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-oLOSnITmM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyCfJmpVfMQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxVD_Z2-Czg (this is where it starts to get really in depth, this is part 1 of a 5 part series, each being around half an hour long, I don't really expect anyone to watch them)


Let me know what you think.

Completely unconvinced it'd work any better, overall! Just tell me how it'd be financed, without a state?

...What is 'it'?

If you mean services that are currently provided by most states (police, roads, etc.), they would be financed by customers willingly exchanging their money for the service, the same way as any other privatized resource...

Before you tell me why these things cannot be privatized, just know I've debated this many, many times before, so think your argument through

There's no way I would be willing to turn those services over to people who are driven only to make as much money as possible. I know, proponents of this idea always say that screwing over customers is not good for business, but look at how the financial industry is run. And besides, if you don't like how much you're being charged to drive on the roads, what's your alternative?

Interesting theory. But very impractical. The current powers that be would never allow it to happen.

As far as debating it, pro or con. Thats a waste of breath and / or keyboard strokes.

If you mean services that are currently provided by most states (police, roads, etc.), they would be financed by customers willingly exchanging their money for the service, the same way as any other privatized resource...

Before you tell me why these things cannot be privatized, just know I've debated this many, many times before, so think your argument through

B. stupid idea. We had this system round here for some time. It was called the middle ages (or dark ages). Guess why.

Burzum Wrote:

If you mean services that are currently provided by most states (police, roads, etc.), they would be financed by customers willingly exchanging their money for the service, the same way as any other privatized resource...

Before you tell me why these things cannot be privatized, just know I've debated this many, many times before, so think your argument through

B. stupid idea. We had this system round here for some time. It was called the middle ages (or dark ages). Guess why.

Great point. There are historical examples of this sort of system not working. The only examples I've ever heard of anti-statism actually working leave out critical details that include major intervention on the part of the state to keep business interests from screwing the populace.

A more modern example of this concept is Haiti. Haiti has a police force and, I believe, courts. Otherwise the government does nothing. If they want infrastructure, some private institution has to set it up. How's that working for them?

^ not too good

impractical

The first film with animals actually being abused was dreadful - setting the sage for statism as a sicko movement.  

I am totally opposed to putting anything in the hands of profiteers, it is a dirty business and life is cheap to them.

I consider it a dangerous idea.

Here is a report of what privitazation looks like in 'real life'

http://tucsoncitizen.com/cell-out-arizon...necessary/

You mean the financial industry that is perverted by state intervention through entities such as the Federal Reserve (which artificially expands the currency the state claims a monopoly on), or GSE's such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

This is the problem most people seem to have with accepting the free market. They conflate corporatism with capitalism, and confuse areas of the market that are regulated into the ground by the state (example, the US healthcare system) as being 'free'. The financial industry is NOT a free market.

Drive on a different road? It's not like there would be a single road owned by one person.

I know what you're likely going to say, that it would be 'impractical' to take a different route simply to save money, but don't people often take different routes to avoid the congestion of state roads? And with the added disadvantage of not punishing poor road management.

Multiple competing road companies means there would be incentive to build efficient road systems that do not cause congestion in order to not lose customers.

Not only this, but your logic can be applied to any other case of consumerism: Is it not impractical to walk 10 minutes down the road to a cheaper restaurant because the one you are at is charging outrageous prices?

I know, it's the main roadblock, which is why awareness needs to be spread in order to make anti-statists the majority.

I'm going to be nitpicky and point out that the dark age is not synonymous with the middle ages, the dark age was a part of the middle ages.

Also, historians no longer use the term 'Dark Ages' in a pejorative sense, to quote the Wikipedia Article for you: "However, many modern scholars who study the era tend to avoid the term altogether for its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate for any part of the Middle Ages."

The Dark Age was in no way anarchic, either. States were still very much existent. In Western Europe you had warring germanic kingdoms that were attempting to control the failing Western Roman Empire, and in Eastern Europe, the Eastern Roman Empire was still very much in existence.

The drop in production after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire was caused by... The collapse of the Western Roman Empire! The chaos of a collapsed state is not proof that you need a state, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce0b520mR6Y

To sum up the video, when a state collapses, all programs, services and resources that were provided by and managed by the state are obviously going to experience a sudden jolt of underproductivity, as either private entities or a new state must be given time in order to clean up the mess left by the loss of a monopolistic agency.

This is NOT what anti-statists want, anti-statists want a peaceful and gradual transition from state to statelessness.

Really? Source please. From what I've read, I don't get that picture. Quoted from Haiti's Wikipedia page: "a long history of oppression by dictators – including François Duvalier and his son Jean-Claude Duvalier – has markedly affected the nation"

A modern example of this concept is Hong Kong. Hong Kong has been rated as having the freest economy in the world. The government steers clear of most areas of the market, and they have one of the lowest tax rates in the world. How's that working for them? Well, Hong Kong is one of the largest economic forces in the world, and is near the top of the GDP per capita list.

Ironically though, Hong Kong has a very poor medical system. Guess what? Their medical system is controlled by their government.

A dictator is a private person. Who owns a territory (de facto). Which he does with what he wants.
You need the state to split up the power into such small "particles" that no one can do too much damage (see checks and balances).

I think you are misunderstanding my usage of the term 'state'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_%28polity%29

"In the social sciences, a state is the compulsory political institution of a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory."


As opposed to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federated_state

This post was last modified: 03-07-2011 10:30 AM by Burzum.