Who is going to build a road that doesn’t lead to where they are going? Or should someone build the road than charge people for driving on it? Sounds like an easy way to exploit people, especially poor people and have no reason to expect good roads.
How about looking at charter schools. We let the free market have access to the pool of education funds. Charter schools are a nearly universal failure; they don’t educate as well, they waste more money, and what’s worse is that they are helping bring about new racially divided schools. Want to know who has the best education in the world? Socialist countries. Finland in particular. And it’s not even expensive, it’s just has a socialized priority.
Let’s also be clear that charities are far more wasteful of money. Tax money gets more research done, helps more people and reduces overhead. Social Security is a great example; people could give to the poor elderly before Social Security, of course. They didn’t. Before it was instated nearly fifty percent of senior citizens lived in poverty. Now about ten percent do. Food stamps feed more than food pantries. The list goes on and on.
And let’s not forget that the State is the embodiment of the will of the people collectively. It does things that individuals can not be incentivized to do on their own yet everyone wants. Roads, education, police and military, monetary security, business regulation, advancements in science and technology…
Need I go on? I mean, I took government in high school so I’m aware of these basic functions. I can back this up with videos if it makes it easier.
@carvin
So let me get this straight: people are incapable of building the roads, defending themselves, being charitable for one another, etc? But a group of people who call themselves “the State” is? Please explain: how is the free market incapable of providing services that “the State” is currently providing such as roads, schools, etc.
People are incapable of performing what a government can perform; infrastructure, defense, social services, regulations for industry. They can not ‘govern themselves’ in so much as be a government for themselves. Which is what you should mean since that is the meaning in that keeps the same meaning of govern. Yes, there are some rich white people who can live off land they own… mostly… but they didn’t get rich without the help of government, nor could they secure the land they supposedly live off of.
@Background Pony #573E
Also, libertarians already have a system of accountability far more reliable than government. It’s called the free market! Key to its implementation: you better be nice to your fellow man and offer him the best quality product or service at a reasonable price, or he’ll go to your competitors.
So let me get this straight…if people are not fit to govern themselves, then how can a small group of those same people govern the rest of the population?
If people are shitty, then governments tend to be shitty. You have to remember: governments are just a group of people, nothing more. They don’t have any special powers or abilities just because they somehow gained the power to violently rule over all of mankind.
The real danger of anarchy is that people left to their own devices are shitty. I’d like to depend on a system of accountability rather than someone feeling like they shouldn’t steal from me because they think they can run faster than I can.
@carvin
Well, for every situation, I wouldn’t know for sure. Most succinct answer is to just use common sense. For example: Going back to the hypothetical theft situation I mentioned earlier: I could either chase you down and tackle you or shoot you in the leg. Neither of those should be too extreme in that situation.
That’s one of the beauties of anarchism: you control your own life…as opposed to governance, where you basically put control of your life in the hands of some incompetent douchebag in Washington D.C. (or whichever nation’s capital city you happen to be governed by.)
@Background Pony #573E
Sure, but who defines what is worth using what amount of force? If you use too much force, who says you were wrong? This is still anarchy, the rules are whatever you want them to be, as are the punishments.
People could enforce the rules against each other in the absence of the state. For example: if you stole something from me, I would be in the right if I used as much force as necessary to take back my stolen property.
Remember how the pirate code was mostly just a bunch of suggestions? That’s how anarchy works. Without someone to enforce the rules, they are suggestions.
I’ll grant you that to some degree. I should point out that, according to the dictionary and its etymology, “anarchy” means without rulers, not without rules.
Please, we all know that Apple Jack is the likely libertarian. Flutters is green party, pinkie pie is mostly an anarchist (I guess not that different from libertarian…), rarity is a liberal feminist, rainbow dash is some sort of lgbt activist and all the princesses support the monarchist socialism that’s in place.
Please do: after all, the burden of proof is on you to show why force has to be initiated against peaceful people.
Who is going to build a road that doesn’t lead to where they are going? Or should someone build the road than charge people for driving on it? Sounds like an easy way to exploit people, especially poor people and have no reason to expect good roads.
How about looking at charter schools. We let the free market have access to the pool of education funds. Charter schools are a nearly universal failure; they don’t educate as well, they waste more money, and what’s worse is that they are helping bring about new racially divided schools. Want to know who has the best education in the world? Socialist countries. Finland in particular. And it’s not even expensive, it’s just has a socialized priority.
Let’s also be clear that charities are far more wasteful of money. Tax money gets more research done, helps more people and reduces overhead. Social Security is a great example; people could give to the poor elderly before Social Security, of course. They didn’t. Before it was instated nearly fifty percent of senior citizens lived in poverty. Now about ten percent do. Food stamps feed more than food pantries. The list goes on and on.
And let’s not forget that the State is the embodiment of the will of the people collectively. It does things that individuals can not be incentivized to do on their own yet everyone wants. Roads, education, police and military, monetary security, business regulation, advancements in science and technology…
Need I go on? I mean, I took government in high school so I’m aware of these basic functions. I can back this up with videos if it makes it easier.
So let me get this straight: people are incapable of building the roads, defending themselves, being charitable for one another, etc? But a group of people who call themselves “the State” is? Please explain: how is the free market incapable of providing services that “the State” is currently providing such as roads, schools, etc.
capable*
That claim ignores the fact that some, if not, most people are incapable defending themselves and/or others.
Or you can just beat the shit out of your fellow man and take his stuff instead. Yay freedom!
Also, libertarians already have a system of accountability far more reliable than government. It’s called the free market! Key to its implementation: you better be nice to your fellow man and offer him the best quality product or service at a reasonable price, or he’ll go to your competitors.
So let me get this straight…if people are not fit to govern themselves, then how can a small group of those same people govern the rest of the population?
If people are shitty, then governments tend to be shitty. You have to remember: governments are just a group of people, nothing more. They don’t have any special powers or abilities just because they somehow gained the power to violently rule over all of mankind.
The real danger of anarchy is that people left to their own devices are shitty. I’d like to depend on a system of accountability rather than someone feeling like they shouldn’t steal from me because they think they can run faster than I can.
Well, for every situation, I wouldn’t know for sure. Most succinct answer is to just use common sense. For example: Going back to the hypothetical theft situation I mentioned earlier: I could either chase you down and tackle you or shoot you in the leg. Neither of those should be too extreme in that situation.
That’s one of the beauties of anarchism: you control your own life…as opposed to governance, where you basically put control of your life in the hands of some incompetent douchebag in Washington D.C. (or whichever nation’s capital city you happen to be governed by.)
Sure, but who defines what is worth using what amount of force? If you use too much force, who says you were wrong? This is still anarchy, the rules are whatever you want them to be, as are the punishments.
People could enforce the rules against each other in the absence of the state. For example: if you stole something from me, I would be in the right if I used as much force as necessary to take back my stolen property.
Remember how the pirate code was mostly just a bunch of suggestions? That’s how anarchy works. Without someone to enforce the rules, they are suggestions.
I’ll grant you that to some degree. I should point out that, according to the dictionary and its etymology, “anarchy” means without rulers, not without rules.
The difference between anarchy and libertarianism is a police state. More or less.
If by anarchist, you mean anarcho-capitalist, then yeah…libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are pretty much the same.