Daily Anarchist Forum

Videos => Anarcho-Capitalist Videos => Topic started by: kunkmiester on March 09, 2012, 07:26:07 PM



Title: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: kunkmiester on March 09, 2012, 07:26:07 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YfgKOnYx5A

Might be worth putting on the front page.


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: Syock on June 30, 2012, 11:54:39 AM
Is CATO against the central bank yet? 

When I first heard of CATO, I thought it was cool that there was a libertarian think tank.  Then I heard what they were for and against and they sounded very neo-con republican in their approach to economics.  I stopped caring about CATO since then. 


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 30, 2012, 12:41:59 PM
Friedman is really intelligent and a superb writer. The arguments he provides don't ever depend upon NAP and things like that (a huge plus). He always argues from economics, and never resorts to moralizing. Now that I've seen this video, I would recommend it over Stefan's arguments any day, because he doesn't ever talk about morals or non-aggression.

Did anyone else notice that his voice seems to trail off at the end of his sentences?


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: Tom J on October 04, 2012, 04:02:48 PM
From the chapter "NATIONAL DEFENSE: THE HARD PROBLEM" of his book "The Machinery of Freedom", available online:

"These arguments suggest that it may be possible to defend against foreign nations by voluntary means. They do not prove that it will be; I am only balancing one imperfect system against another and trying to guess which will work better. What if the balance goes the other way? What will I do if, when all other functions of our government have been abolished, I conclude that there is no effective way to defend against aggressive foreign governments save by national defense financed by taxes — financed, in other words, by money taken by force from the taxpayers?

In such a situation I would not try to abolish that last vestige of government. I do not like paying taxes, but I would rather pay them to Washington than to Moscow — the rates are lower. I would still regard the government as a criminal organization, but one which was, by a freak of fate, temporarily useful. It would be like a gang of bandits who, while occasionally robbing the villages in their territory, served to keep off other and more rapacious gangs. I do not approve of any government, but I will tolerate one so long as the only other choice is another, worse government. Meanwhile, I would do my best to develop voluntary institutions that might eventually take over the business of defense. That is precisely what I meant when I said, near the beginning of this book, that I thought all government functions were divided into two classes — those we could do away with today and those we hope to be able to do away with tomorrow."




Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: kunkmiester on October 04, 2012, 11:41:03 PM
That's another reason I think government abolition would be gradual.  Too many would go ahead and endorse one to form a military to defend the territory at first, which would work, and it would only be when larger areas form more libertarian governments that some areas become completely free.  It's a gradual process.


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: Syock on October 06, 2012, 06:42:15 AM
I'm not sure we will ever see that trend on a consistent basis. 


First: A thief comes over to you, and you are just as well armed, but willingly give up your wallet.
Second: A thief comes over to your home with his friends, and you willingly give up your savings.
Third: The thief gang comes over to your home very well armed from stolen weapons, and takes yours too. 


By not fighting back when governments are weak, you end up with massive gangs of heavily armed thieves.  The same can be said of the mafia.  If you give them an inch, they will always take a foot.  It is the nature of things. 

No matter how people try to justify it, as protection or necessary, remember that the people that make and use today's advanced weapons are still just people.  If there is a market for weapons to protect the country, there will still be people to create them and people to defend the country.  That resource doesn't go away just because people resist the theft and eventual enslavement of themselves to a government. 


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: Tom J on October 10, 2012, 02:19:44 PM
Freidman’s view quoted in my previous post is in the category of a minarchist, AISI. And the idea all “functions of our government” can be “abolished” except for what he considers “national defense” is impossible, as a significant degree of the former is needed for the existence of the latter.  


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on October 11, 2012, 09:27:19 PM
Freidman’s view quoted in my previous post is in the category of a minarchist, AISI. And the idea all “functions of our government” can be “abolished” except for what he considers “national defense” is impossible, as a significant degree of the former is needed for the existence of the latter.  
Friedman is not a minarchist. He follows his arguments where they take him, without caring how you or I classify him. His point is that he doesn't have a good explanation for how to replace something, and instead of just waving his hands and making something up, admits he doesn't know. He says there may be ways to do it voluntarily, and if there are, he's all for it. But under the assumption it's impossible, then he wouldn't expend effort to get rid of the last sliver of the state. He never even said he would support it, simply that he wouldn't act against it. He would still see it as a criminal organization. Sounds anarchist to me, not that the label matters.


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: BobRobertson on October 12, 2012, 08:19:11 AM
... and instead of just waving his hands and making something up, admits he doesn't know.

It astounds me how often I get told that if I don't have a plan for how to perfectly replace some function that govt does, I therefore have nothing to offer and should shut up.

Reminds me of religion, where just because I say I do not know what the ultimate Answer to Everything is, I am therefore an ignorant amoral hedonistic nihilist.

Self defense is something I cannot delegate, but I can hire an insurance company. I see no reason that, faced with an actual military threat, those same insurance companies won't act. Or individuals. Just look at how effective the RPG is against modern military might.

RPGs are cheap, and, in a truly free society, easy to buy, "Just in case", by the case.


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: Tom J on October 15, 2012, 05:45:46 AM
... and instead of just waving his hands and making something up, admits he doesn't know.

It astounds me how often I get told that if I don't have a plan for how to perfectly replace some function that govt does, I therefore have nothing to offer and should shut up...


If you picked up that sentiment in my post you're mistaken.


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: BobRobertson on October 15, 2012, 09:36:54 AM
... and instead of just waving his hands and making something up, admits he doesn't know.

It astounds me how often I get told that if I don't have a plan for how to perfectly replace some function that govt does, I therefore have nothing to offer and should shut up...


If you picked up that sentiment in my post you're mistaken.

I was referring only to the words I quoted, which weren't even yours.


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: Tom J on October 20, 2012, 12:33:00 PM
Freidman’s view quoted in my previous post is in the category of a minarchist, AISI. And the idea all “functions of our government” can be “abolished” except for what he considers “national defense” is impossible, as a significant degree of the former is needed for the existence of the latter.  
Friedman is not a minarchist. He follows his arguments where they take him, without caring how you or I classify him. His point is that he doesn't have a good explanation for how to replace something, and instead of just waving his hands and making something up, admits he doesn't know. He says there may be ways to do it voluntarily, and if there are, he's all for it. But under the assumption it's impossible, then he wouldn't expend effort to get rid of the last sliver of the state. He never even said he would support it, simply that he wouldn't act against it. He would still see it as a criminal organization. Sounds anarchist to me, not that the label matters.

He calls himself an anarchist. Below is his definition of government and "coercion":

Quote

In Part 1, I described myself as an anarchist and asserted that government has no legitimate functions. In this part I shall attempt to justify that statement.
...

Before I proceed with my argument, I must define what I mean by 'government'. A government is an agency of legitimized coercion. I define 'coercion', for the purposes of this definition, as the violation of what people in a particular society believe to be the rights of individuals with respect to other individuals.

For instance, people in this society believe that an individual has the right to turn down a job offer; the denial of that right is a form of coercion called enslavement. They believe that an individual has the right to turn down a request for money or an offered trade. The denial of that right is called robbery or extortion.

Government is an agency of legitimized coercion. The special characteristic that distinguishes governments from other agencies of coercion (such as ordinary criminal gangs) is that most people accept government coercion as normal and proper. The same act that is regarded as coercive when done by a private individual seems legitimate if done by an agent of the government.


I assume by “coercion” he means aggression, because coercion is the act of forcing or threatening and isn’t, in itself, opposed by anyone (essentially). It’s certain types of circumstances it’s used that are opposed, and what those circumstances are varies a great deal amongst people. By “people” in his definition of “coercion”, he apparently means “most people”, if you go on what he writes 2 paragraphs later. This is a collectivist use of the word “people” (politicians typically use the word “people” this way); it shows no recognition for the existence of the minority(s) in a population.

It’s a very flawed definition of government in 3 ways because (1) it doesn’t apply to the rule of states or empires over populations where there’s less than majority support (which covers a great deal of the world), (2) because “most people” don’t all believe the same on what they consider “the rights of individuals with respect to other individuals”, and (3) those “rights” don’t have to be property rights.


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: BobRobertson on October 22, 2012, 08:12:53 AM
He calls himself an anarchist. Below is his definition of government and "coercion":

I don't see anything wrong with his definition. I'm sure I wouldn't use exactly the same words, but that's about it.

"Legitimate" coercion: If I take your money without your consent, it's theft. If the state does it, it's taxation. The latter is "legitimate" specifically because the state says it is.

Another example. The state changes the tax codes, laws, regulations, etc, at will. I am then held to the terms of those changes, even if I not only did not agree to them but did not know they existed. That is the unilateral alteration of contract, which is "wrong" when done by a private party, but "right" when done by the state.



Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: Tom J on October 23, 2012, 07:41:22 AM
He calls himself an anarchist. Below is his definition of government and "coercion":


"Legitimate" coercion: If I take your money without your consent, it's theft. If the state does it, it's taxation. The latter is "legitimate" specifically because the state says it is.



Define “legitimate”. He never did, and you haven't either.

Without the threat of penalty for non payment of taxes and the means to back up that threat, the state wouldn’t be able to collect taxes, no matter what it “says it is”. No different than a civilian with a gun robbing you.


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: BobRobertson on October 23, 2012, 08:07:32 AM
Define “legitimate”. He never did, and you haven't either.

Really?  :-\

Legitimate:
  • 3
  • a : accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements <a legitimate government>
  • b : ruling by or based on the strict principle of hereditary right <a legitimate king>
  • 4
  • : conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards <a legitimate advertising expenditure> <a legitimate inference>
Quote
Without the threat of penalty for non payment of taxes and the means to back up that threat, the state wouldn’t be able to collect taxes, no matter what it “says it is”. No different than a civilian with a gun robbing you.

What you seem to be missing is that it is "wrong" when a man with a gun does it, but "right" when a man with a gun and a badge does it. The difference between the two is solely that one is an agent of the state, and the other is not. It is wrong for a thief because the thief is not an agent of the state. The tax collector is not a thief because he is an agent of the state.

The state is the institution with the territorial monopoly on legitimate coercion.


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on October 25, 2012, 11:05:53 PM
It’s a very flawed definition of government in 3 ways because (1) it doesn’t apply to the rule of states or empires over populations where there’s less than majority support (which covers a great deal of the world), (2) because “most people” don’t all believe the same on what they consider “the rights of individuals with respect to other individuals”, and (3) those “rights” don’t have to be property rights.
You're right on all accounts. Nevertheless, the idea makes sense to me as I read it. Maybe government can't be so clearly defined. If I tried, I would come up with a similar definition. I'd say it's a protection racket that people have been deluded into believing is helpful. So what if the definition isn't as general as it could be. The target audience understands exactly what he wants to say.


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: Tom J on October 26, 2012, 06:51:17 PM

Quote
Without the threat of penalty for non payment of taxes and the means to back up that threat, the state wouldn’t be able to collect taxes, no matter what it “says it is”. No different than a civilian with a gun robbing you.

What you seem to be missing is that it is "wrong" when a man with a gun does it, but "right" when a man with a gun and a badge does it.

It’s not “wrong” to those who believe it’s “right” when the man with badge does it.

Quote
The difference between the two is solely that one is an agent of the state, and the other is not. It is wrong for a thief because the thief is not an agent of the state. The tax collector is not a thief because he is an agent of the state.

The state is the institution with the territorial monopoly on legitimate coercion.

You’ve ignored the difference I first pointed out between coercion per se, and aggression, that Friedman didn’t recognize in his definitions. There are many conditions where it’s perfectly legal and/or “conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards” for civilians to use coercion against others – and not a violation of individual rights either. Using the dictionary definition of coercion, Friedman’s definition of ‘government’ means all civilians who use coercion are states, which is nonsense.

If one believes property rights are fundamental, in the NAP sense, the state can be defined simply as “the agency that commits institutionalized aggression”, as Stephan Kinsella does in his article linked below. But Friedman, being a consequentialist, can't 'define' it that way.

http://libertarianstandard.com/2010/05/03/the-nature-of-the-state-and-why-libertarians-hate-it/


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: Tom J on October 27, 2012, 03:23:46 AM

Quote
You're right on all accounts. Nevertheless, the idea makes sense to me as I read it. Maybe government can't be so clearly defined. If I tried, I would come up with a similar definition. I'd say it's a protection racket that people have been deluded into believing is helpful. So what if the definition isn't as general as it could be. The target audience understands exactly what he wants to say.

I didn’t suggest it couldn’t clearly be defined. Which target audience "understands exactly what he wants to say"?


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: MAM on October 30, 2012, 11:19:31 PM
If you believe might equals right you are a bandit, a murderer, a thief. It doesn't matter what uniform you wear.

If you don't believe might equals right you have begun to travel the path of freedom.


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: BobRobertson on October 31, 2012, 07:53:35 AM
What you seem to be missing is that it is "wrong" when a man with a gun does it, but "right" when a man with a gun and a badge does it.

It’s not “wrong” to those who believe it’s “right” when the man with badge does it.

Tom, you'll have to explain to me why you said that, because that is exactly what I had just said and yet you seem to be trying to disagree with me.

Something that is wrong for everyone else is magically transformed into a legitimate act by the badge.

Quote
There are many conditions where it’s perfectly legal and/or “conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards” for civilians to use coercion against others – and not a violation of individual rights either.

Maybe it would be easier if you could just give some examples, because I am unable to discern any principle by which you are making this judgement.

The problem is not that I "am ignoring", it's that I am just "not seeing".


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: Syock on October 31, 2012, 09:00:46 AM
Tom, you'll have to explain to me why you said that, because that is exactly what I had just said and yet you seem to be trying to disagree with me.

Something that is wrong for everyone else is magically transformed into a legitimate act by the badge.

He is saying most people disagree with the NAP.  This is the whole "George ought to help" problem.  A lot of people think George ought to help.  They don't care if they have to threaten to kill George to do it.  They disagree with the moral concept.  Because it is on a societal level they can more or less ignore your morality, especially because their view allows them to violate you.


An example of coercion that comes to mind that is not aggression would be a trade negotiation.  For example, when Intel went to customers and told them not to offer AMD products, or the price for Intel products would go up for them, to the point that their business would be uncompetitive.   


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: BobRobertson on October 31, 2012, 09:54:47 AM
An example of coercion that comes to mind that is not aggression would be a trade negotiation.

I would have said that trade negotiation is not coercion because it's not force.

A Boycott, by that measure is "coercion" as well, something I cannot agree with.

I guess "coercion" is going the way of "anarchy", where several words are going to have to be used instead of what was one well defined word.

There is no justification of violent self defense against a Boycott, or a trade negotiation. There is when someone comes to my house to take my stuff, and the fact that they have a badge makes no difference to the act of armed robbery.


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: Syock on October 31, 2012, 11:34:00 AM
It would also depend on which definition of force you are using.  

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/force?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic
4.power to influence, affect, or control; efficacious power:

I don't believe these are new uses for the words at all.  They just seem to be assumed in a specific meaning of the batch due to context, which is not always clear.  That is just how language is. 


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: Tom J on October 31, 2012, 08:11:50 PM
What you seem to be missing is that it is "wrong" when a man with a gun does it, but "right" when a man with a gun and a badge does it.

It’s not “wrong” to those who believe it’s “right” when the man with badge does it.

Tom, you'll have to explain to me why you said that, because that is exactly what I had just said and yet you seem to be trying to disagree with me.

Something that is wrong for everyone else is magically transformed into a legitimate act by the badge.

Syock was correct. Most people don’t identify with the NAP, and don’t see the tax collector as a thief and doing "wrong". Friedman’s “coercion” requires that not to be the case, to just begin to make sense.

Quote
There are many conditions where it’s perfectly legal and/or “conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards” for civilians to use coercion against others – and not a violation of individual rights either.
Quote


Maybe it would be easier if you could just give some examples, because I am unable to discern any principle by which you are making this judgement.

The problem is not that I "am ignoring", it's that I am just "not seeing".

It’s largely “legitimate” almost everywhere to defend oneself and others from a violent attack (and the threat of) against one's person and property, using force, when the attack is from civilians. That’s also the case in a great many places in the world, when the violent attack is an illegal one from the police, even if in those circumstances, justice is harder, if not impossible to come by. Also, legal sports usually involve coercion to one degree or another - with some having it central to the sport, like boxing and football.



Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: BobRobertson on November 01, 2012, 07:43:01 AM
I find it astounding that there is any confusion between the mutually agreed upon violence of boxing and the armed robbery that is taxation.

Oh well.


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: MAM on November 01, 2012, 09:47:22 AM
I find it astounding that there is any confusion between the mutually agreed upon violence of boxing and the armed robbery that is taxation.

Oh well.

I too find this paradox astounding.


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on November 01, 2012, 03:13:37 PM
You're right on all accounts. Nevertheless, the idea makes sense to me as I read it. Maybe government can't be so clearly defined. If I tried, I would come up with a similar definition. I'd say it's a protection racket that people have been deluded into believing is helpful. So what if the definition isn't as general as it could be. The target audience understands exactly what he wants to say.

I didn’t suggest it couldn’t clearly be defined.
I did.

Quote
Which target audience "understands exactly what he wants to say"?
The West.


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: BobRobertson on November 02, 2012, 07:48:47 AM
The West.

Indeed.

The "East" is so thoroughly convinced that government is "like the family, with the parents telling the children what to do" that it's impossible to find common ground.


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: Tom J on November 03, 2012, 07:16:26 AM
You're right on all accounts. Nevertheless, the idea makes sense to me as I read it. Maybe government can't be so clearly defined. If I tried, I would come up with a similar definition. I'd say it's a protection racket that people have been deluded into believing is helpful. So what if the definition isn't as general as it could be. The target audience understands exactly what he wants to say.

I didn’t suggest it couldn’t clearly be defined.
I did.

Quote
Which target audience "understands exactly what he wants to say"?
The West.

Fuzzy expressions are so magical.


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: Tom J on November 04, 2012, 08:33:43 AM
I read his book years ago, and another quote that stood out to me then, and still does, involves the subject of private money. He argues favorably of a private money and banking system when addressing the subject. However near the end of his remarks, he writes:

 “My own opinion is that, even if there were no legal barriers to the use of private money, the existing fiat system would remain in use unless it became very much worse than it now is”.

AISI, no government fiat money system would be able to compete with a fully free private money and banking system, and that's part of the reason it’s not permitted. I also don't see how taxes would be collected if a fully free private money and banking system were allowed.



Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: Syock on November 04, 2012, 09:28:45 AM
I also don't see how taxes would be collected if a fully free private money and banking system were allowed.

It wouldn't unless people wanted to, same as now.  Ever hear about shooting the taxman?  Capone took that to another level.  The best weapon they have is fear.  They couldn't collect taxes today with their own system if everyone just decided to stop paying. 


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: Tom J on November 08, 2012, 06:49:05 AM
I also don't see how taxes would be collected if a fully free private money and banking system were allowed.

It wouldn't unless people wanted to, same as now.  Ever hear about shooting the taxman?  Capone took that to another level.  The best weapon they have is fear.  They couldn't collect taxes today with their own system if everyone just decided to stop paying.  

I think under such a system it could and would be possible to hide a great deal of one’s income and wealth from the state. And the legal justification for the state to freeze or seize one’s financial assets held in a truly private bank would be a different matter than it is now for the state to do that, AISI.

Also, after making my post I recalled in the 1990’s he was saying that in 30 years or so a significant segment of the economy would be hidden from the government, due to transactions being made encrypted via the internet. I suspect, however, he adjusted his prediction date after all the post 9/11 cyber “security” laws were passed.


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: Syock on November 08, 2012, 08:30:48 AM

I think under such a system it could and would be possible to hide a great deal of one’s income and wealth from the state. And the legal justification for the state to freeze or seize one’s financial assets held in a truly private bank would be a different matter than it is now for the state to do that, AISI.

Also, after making my post I recalled in the 1990’s he was saying that in 30 years or so a significant segment of the economy would be hidden from the government, due to transactions being made encrypted via the internet. I suspect, however, he adjusted his prediction date after all the post 9/11 cyber “security” laws were passed.


Well the internet has been causing them trouble.  They have been freaking out about how much potentially stolen tax money is being lost due to sites like Amazon. 


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: MAM on November 08, 2012, 11:57:14 AM
They cannot take that which is not given. They are pathetic a paper tiger roaring and saying "Look at me! Fear Me!" Bah I concern myself with myself let them do what they will.


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: Syock on November 08, 2012, 03:25:57 PM
They cannot take that which is not given. They are pathetic a paper tiger roaring and saying "Look at me! Fear Me!" Bah I concern myself with myself let them do what they will.

They are only paper when everyone leaves it behind.  Right now it is far from paper. 


Title: Re: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism
Post by: MAM on November 08, 2012, 03:49:47 PM
They cannot take that which is not given. They are pathetic a paper tiger roaring and saying "Look at me! Fear Me!" Bah I concern myself with myself let them do what they will.

They are only paper when everyone leaves it behind.  Right now it is far from paper. 

I leave it behind.