CDZ Anarcho Capitalism is Actually Tried and It Works Well on a Very Large Area

[grbb]

Theres' a city down in Mexico, though, that kicked all of the corrupt politicians and the corrupt police out. The cartels who were rapijng their natural resources wit hthe aid of the corrupt government and police naturally left. Then they put armed guards on the borders so no politicians could get back in.

They're saying they're using the anarchy model. They're doing pretty good so we hear.

It's a pretty big city, too, I think 30,000 people.

Um those people see to have organized, which means it isn't anarchy after all. I'm just saying.

It's the closest thing to anarchy. They all con-sensually join some fort of consensual defense pact.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Theres' a city down in Mexico, though, that kicked all of the corrupt politicians and the corrupt police out. The cartels who were rapijng their natural resources wit hthe aid of the corrupt government and police naturally left. Then they put armed guards on the borders so no politicians could get back in.

They're saying they're using the anarchy model. They're doing pretty good so we hear.

It's a pretty big city, too, I think 30,000 people.

Um those people see to have organized, which means it isn't anarchy after all. I'm just saying.

It's the closest thing to anarchy. They all con-sensually join some fort of consensual defense pact.

Unless you are being forced to live where you currently live you are also con sensually agreeing to be governed by whatever government you have.

 

[grbb]

The problem with libertarianism is that it's too strict. All taxes are robbery under libertarianism. Imagine governments without revenue? There is no such thing.

Um, that's kind of the point.

Now, show me. Where is a libertarian country? Not yet right?

It's arguable that the first 150 years of Murica was primarily a libertarian state...Even so, we didn't even make it past the first president before all their high minded principles were violated....So why even bother with a state at all?

Instead, give each local government reasonable autonomy to raise taxes, guard security, and make any rules they wish. Make sure those local governments compete with one another.

no

If those local governments have autonomy then chance is, one of them, will be libertarian/minarchist. Then you move there.

So what if other local governments are not libertarian? So what if other governments are racists, religious, or whatever. All we need is one libertarian region, and we simply move there.

Even under free market, we do not really have anarchy. We have competing regulated venues.

You don't go to a cinema and then let the market decides what movies are in the cinema. Cinemas have rulers/owners. They decide what movies to show you decide which cinemas to go.

In a sense, the market does decide what movies are in the cinema. Whatever the rulers/owners decide is the decisions by the market.

On top of those cinemas are governments that ensure that the cinema do not defraud their customers. You don't go to a cinema, pay for ticket, and then suddenly have the ticket price go up after you pay.

However, governments that govern those cinemas do not have to be thick. Even with no governments regulation cinemas tend to be fair. Cinemas that are full with thieves, thugs, pick pockets, will run out of customers. Cinemas have incentive to treat customers fairly.

The same with local governments. Let local governments decide what rules to make. Let local governments decide how they tax people, how they build infra structure.

We need a thin layer of libertarian governments on top of that. The layers need to be thin. It should mainly prevent wars between local governments. More like how Nato/WTO govern the countries.

The local governments will tend to be fair. If they charge too high taxes, customers will go somewhere else. In fact, I would expect income taxes will be gone soon. Too easy to avoid income taxes. It'll be replaced by less oppressive land tax. A thin layer of government on top of that will ensure that taxes do not increase abruptly. If the local government raise taxes, you have plenty of time to move out.

 

[Oddball]

If those local governments have autonomy then chance is, one of them, will be libertarian/minarchist. Then you move there.

So what if other local governments are not libertarian? So what if other governments are racists, religious, or whatever. All we need is one libertarian region, and we simply move there.

Even under free market, we do not really have anarchy. We have competing regulated venues.

You don't go to a cinema and then let the market decides what movies are in the cinema. Cinemas have rulers/owners. They decide what movies to show you decide which cinemas to go.

In a sense, the market does decide what movies are in the cinema. Whatever the rulers/owners decide is the decisions by the market.

On top of those cinemas are governments that ensure that the cinema do not defraud their customers. You don't go to a cinema, pay for ticket, and then suddenly have the ticket price go up after you pay.

However, governments that govern those cinemas do not have to be thick. Even with no governments regulation cinemas tend to be fair. Cinemas that are full with thieves, thugs, pick pockets, will run out of customers. Cinemas have incentive to treat customers fairly.

The same with local governments. Let local governments decide what rules to make. Let local governments decide how they tax people, how they build infra structure.

We need a thin layer of libertarian governments on top of that. The layers need to be thin. It should mainly prevent wars between local governments. More like how Nato/WTO govern the countries.

The local governments will tend to be fair. If they charge too high taxes, customers will go somewhere else. In fact, I would expect income taxes will be gone soon. Too easy to avoid income taxes. It'll be replaced by less oppressive land tax. A thin layer of government on top of that will ensure that taxes do not increase abruptly. If the local government raise taxes, you have plenty of time to move out.

 

[Oddball]

Unless you are being forced to live where you currently live you are also con sensually agreeing to be governed by whatever government you have.

Ah, the old "social contract" nonsense.

 

[DandyDonovan]

The problem with libertarianism is that it's too strict. All taxes are robbery under libertarianism. Imagine governments without revenue? There is no such thing.

Um, that's kind of the point.

Now, show me. Where is a libertarian country? Not yet right?

It's arguable that the first 150 years of Murica was primarily a libertarian state...Even so, we didn't even make it past the first president before all their high minded principles were violated....So why even bother with a state at all?

Instead, give each local government reasonable autonomy to raise taxes, guard security, and make any rules they wish. Make sure those local governments compete with one another.

no

If those local governments have autonomy then chance is, one of them, will be libertarian/minarchist. Then you move there.

So what if other local governments are not libertarian? So what if other governments are racists, religious, or whatever. All we need is one libertarian region, and we simply move there.

Even under free market, we do not really have anarchy. We have competing regulated venues.

You don't go to a cinema and then let the market decides what movies are in the cinema. Cinemas have rulers/owners. They decide what movies to show you decide which cinemas to go.

In a sense, the market does decide what movies are in the cinema. Whatever the rulers/owners decide is the decisions by the market.

On top of those cinemas are governments that ensure that the cinema do not defraud their customers. You don't go to a cinema, pay for ticket, and then suddenly have the ticket price go up after you pay.

However, governments that govern those cinemas do not have to be thick. Even with no governments regulation cinemas tend to be fair. Cinemas that are full with thieves, thugs, pick pockets, will run out of customers. Cinemas have incentive to treat customers fairly.

The same with local governments. Let local governments decide what rules to make. Let local governments decide how they tax people, how they build infra structure.

We need a thin layer of libertarian governments on top of that. The layers need to be thin. It should mainly prevent wars between local governments. More like how Nato/WTO govern the countries.

The local governments will tend to be fair. If they charge too high taxes, customers will go somewhere else. In fact, I would expect income taxes will be gone soon. Too easy to avoid income taxes. It'll be replaced by less oppressive land tax. A thin layer of government on top of that will ensure that taxes do not increase abruptly. If the local government raise taxes, you have plenty of time to move out.

You're truly dreaming if you don't think people would quickly figure out a way to abuse your proposed system.

Which brings us full circle to my earlier point. We currently have the best system, except that we have allowed the shittiest people to become entrenched in their positions, ot just the elected leaders, but the federal employees that allegedly work for those elected leaders.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Unless you are being forced to live where you currently live you are also con sensually agreeing to be governed by whatever government you have.

Ah, the old "social contract" nonsense.

View attachment 242758

Works as designed except for the stupidity of voters, who end up voting in scum bags who abuse the system all the while not giving one shit about the needs of actual voters.

 

[Oddball]

Unless you are being forced to live where you currently live you are also con sensually agreeing to be governed by whatever government you have.

Ah, the old "social contract" nonsense.

View attachment 242758

Works as designed except for the stupidity of voters, who end up voting in scum bags who abuse the system all the while not giving one shit about the needs of actual voters.

What, are you trying to make my point for me?

 

[DandyDonovan]

Unless you are being forced to live where you currently live you are also con sensually agreeing to be governed by whatever government you have.

Ah, the old "social contract" nonsense.

View attachment 242758

Works as designed except for the stupidity of voters, who end up voting in scum bags who abuse the system all the while not giving one shit about the needs of actual voters.

What, are you trying to make my point for me?

I realized two pages ago that we are in full agreement on this topic. Well actually I've noticed that on several topics , so in that respect I would like to congratulate you on being correct on many topics.

 

[grbb]

The problem with libertarianism is that it's too strict. All taxes are robbery under libertarianism. Imagine governments without revenue? There is no such thing.

Um, that's kind of the point.

Now, show me. Where is a libertarian country? Not yet right?

It's arguable that the first 150 years of Murica was primarily a libertarian state...Even so, we didn't even make it past the first president before all their high minded principles were violated....So why even bother with a state at all?

Instead, give each local government reasonable autonomy to raise taxes, guard security, and make any rules they wish. Make sure those local governments compete with one another.

no

If those local governments have autonomy then chance is, one of them, will be libertarian/minarchist. Then you move there.

So what if other local governments are not libertarian? So what if other governments are racists, religious, or whatever. All we need is one libertarian region, and we simply move there.

Even under free market, we do not really have anarchy. We have competing regulated venues.

You don't go to a cinema and then let the market decides what movies are in the cinema. Cinemas have rulers/owners. They decide what movies to show you decide which cinemas to go.

In a sense, the market does decide what movies are in the cinema. Whatever the rulers/owners decide is the decisions by the market.

On top of those cinemas are governments that ensure that the cinema do not defraud their customers. You don't go to a cinema, pay for ticket, and then suddenly have the ticket price go up after you pay.

However, governments that govern those cinemas do not have to be thick. Even with no governments regulation cinemas tend to be fair. Cinemas that are full with thieves, thugs, pick pockets, will run out of customers. Cinemas have incentive to treat customers fairly.

The same with local governments. Let local governments decide what rules to make. Let local governments decide how they tax people, how they build infra structure.

We need a thin layer of libertarian governments on top of that. The layers need to be thin. It should mainly prevent wars between local governments. More like how Nato/WTO govern the countries.

The local governments will tend to be fair. If they charge too high taxes, customers will go somewhere else. In fact, I would expect income taxes will be gone soon. Too easy to avoid income taxes. It'll be replaced by less oppressive land tax. A thin layer of government on top of that will ensure that taxes do not increase abruptly. If the local government raise taxes, you have plenty of time to move out.

You're truly dreaming if you don't think people would quickly figure out a way to abuse your proposed system.

Which brings us full circle to my earlier point. We currently have the best system, except that we have allowed the shittiest people to become entrenched in their positions, ot just the elected leaders, but the federal employees that allegedly work for those elected leaders.

The fact that you have the shittiest people to become entrenched means you don't have a good system.

However, don't worry. The market it self is a good system. Just pick a country you like. Then all countries will go closer to closer to libertarianism.

 

[grbb]

Unless you are being forced to live where you currently live you are also con sensually agreeing to be governed by whatever government you have.

Ah, the old "social contract" nonsense.

View attachment 242758

Works as designed except for the stupidity of voters, who end up voting in scum bags who abuse the system all the while not giving one shit about the needs of actual voters.

What about if those stupid voters simply vote for their interests?

Think about welfare parasites?

 

[DandyDonovan]

The problem with libertarianism is that it's too strict. All taxes are robbery under libertarianism. Imagine governments without revenue? There is no such thing.

Um, that's kind of the point.

Now, show me. Where is a libertarian country? Not yet right?

It's arguable that the first 150 years of Murica was primarily a libertarian state...Even so, we didn't even make it past the first president before all their high minded principles were violated....So why even bother with a state at all?

Instead, give each local government reasonable autonomy to raise taxes, guard security, and make any rules they wish. Make sure those local governments compete with one another.

no

If those local governments have autonomy then chance is, one of them, will be libertarian/minarchist. Then you move there.

So what if other local governments are not libertarian? So what if other governments are racists, religious, or whatever. All we need is one libertarian region, and we simply move there.

Even under free market, we do not really have anarchy. We have competing regulated venues.

You don't go to a cinema and then let the market decides what movies are in the cinema. Cinemas have rulers/owners. They decide what movies to show you decide which cinemas to go.

In a sense, the market does decide what movies are in the cinema. Whatever the rulers/owners decide is the decisions by the market.

On top of those cinemas are governments that ensure that the cinema do not defraud their customers. You don't go to a cinema, pay for ticket, and then suddenly have the ticket price go up after you pay.

However, governments that govern those cinemas do not have to be thick. Even with no governments regulation cinemas tend to be fair. Cinemas that are full with thieves, thugs, pick pockets, will run out of customers. Cinemas have incentive to treat customers fairly.

The same with local governments. Let local governments decide what rules to make. Let local governments decide how they tax people, how they build infra structure.

We need a thin layer of libertarian governments on top of that. The layers need to be thin. It should mainly prevent wars between local governments. More like how Nato/WTO govern the countries.

The local governments will tend to be fair. If they charge too high taxes, customers will go somewhere else. In fact, I would expect income taxes will be gone soon. Too easy to avoid income taxes. It'll be replaced by less oppressive land tax. A thin layer of government on top of that will ensure that taxes do not increase abruptly. If the local government raise taxes, you have plenty of time to move out.

You're truly dreaming if you don't think people would quickly figure out a way to abuse your proposed system.

Which brings us full circle to my earlier point. We currently have the best system, except that we have allowed the shittiest people to become entrenched in their positions, ot just the elected leaders, but the federal employees that allegedly work for those elected leaders.

The fact that you have the shittiest people to become entrenched means you don't have a good system.

However, don't worry. The market it self is a good system. Just pick a country you like. Then all countries will go closer to closer to libertarianism.

False, even the best systems have flaws, and the shittiest people taking control seems to be the one thing ALL systems have in common, our system just believe it or not encourages the least amount of scum baggery by those who are in control.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Unless you are being forced to live where you currently live you are also con sensually agreeing to be governed by whatever government you have.

Ah, the old "social contract" nonsense.

View attachment 242758

Works as designed except for the stupidity of voters, who end up voting in scum bags who abuse the system all the while not giving one shit about the needs of actual voters.

What about if those stupid voters simply vote for their interests?

Think about welfare parasites?

Ideally, I wouldn't let them vote.

 

[grbb]

Actually we have another important point. Libertarianism is essential when government control large area of land.

No world government means the globe is essentially libertarian.

For smaller areas, libertarianism isn't that necessary. If an area is small enough, people can easily get out to another country. In fact, if a country is replaced by competing provinces, people can move more easily there.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Unless you are being forced to live where you currently live you are also con sensually agreeing to be governed by whatever government you have.

Ah, the old "social contract" nonsense.

View attachment 242758

Works as designed except for the stupidity of voters, who end up voting in scum bags who abuse the system all the while not giving one shit about the needs of actual voters.

What about if those stupid voters simply vote for their interests?

Think about welfare parasites?

Ideally, I wouldn't let them vote.

You wouldn't? What exactly you mean by I wouldn't let them vote?

Simple , I don't believe universal suffrage is a good idea.

Do you let your children have a say in important family matters? Why not? Oh that's right, because they aren't qualified in such matters.

 

[grbb]

Ah, the old "social contract" nonsense.

View attachment 242758

Works as designed except for the stupidity of voters, who end up voting in scum bags who abuse the system all the while not giving one shit about the needs of actual voters.

What about if those stupid voters simply vote for their interests?

Think about welfare parasites?

Ideally, I wouldn't let them vote.

You wouldn't? What exactly you mean by I wouldn't let them vote?

Simple , I don't believe universal suffrage is a good idea.

Do you let your children have a say in important family matters? Why not? Oh that's right, because they aren't qualified in such matters.

I actually agree with you on this one.

Now, how exactly, are you going to persuade the people in democratic countries, to let go universal suffrage?

You don't just disallow stuffs. You need power to do so. Power comes from supporters. How do you get enough support to invalidate universal suffrage?

There are ways I can think off. I want to know your ideas.

Do you allow stockholders to vote on important corporate matters? YES. Typical stockholders may be much dumber than typical CEO. However, that's the only way to ensure that their interests are represented.

Universal suffrage is okay if welfare parasites' children do not get citizenship for free easily. Anyone wants citizenship have to contribute to the pool.

The problem with your idea is that states are not corporations. Dumb people may not know what's best for the state but they can be hired by dictators to kill and terrorize others. A way to avoid that is democracy.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Works as designed except for the stupidity of voters, who end up voting in scum bags who abuse the system all the while not giving one shit about the needs of actual voters.

What about if those stupid voters simply vote for their interests?

Think about welfare parasites?

Ideally, I wouldn't let them vote.

You wouldn't? What exactly you mean by I wouldn't let them vote?

Simple , I don't believe universal suffrage is a good idea.

Do you let your children have a say in important family matters? Why not? Oh that's right, because they aren't qualified in such matters.

I actually agree with you on this one.

Now, how exactly, are you going to persuade the people in democratic countries, to let go universal suffrage?

You don't just disallow stuffs. You need power to do so. Power comes from supporters. How do you get enough support to invalidate universal suffrage?

There are ways I can think off. I want to know your ideas.

Do you allow stockholders to vote on important corporate matters? YES. Typical stockholders may be much dumber than typical CEO. However, that's the only way to ensure that their interests are represented.

Universal suffrage is okay if welfare parasites' children do not get citizenship for free easily. Anyone wants citizenship have to contribute to the pool.

The problem with your idea is that states are not corporations. Dumb people may not know what's best for the state but they can be hired by dictators to kill and terrorize others. A way to avoid that is democracy.

I think a little differently. I don't even neccesarily think someone who is on welfare or what have you should be automatically disqualified from voting, nor do I believe that simply being wealthy should give one the ability to vote.

I think there should be a simple exam given once every four years if you pass, you're eligible to vote, if not, you're not. Just pick any random 20 questions off the current citizenship test, you must answer 15 or more correctly to vote.

Perversely I think about half of our current members of Congress, and at least 75 % of the Democrats in such would not be able to meet those standards.

Do you think Maxine Waters could get 15 of 20 questions about our government correct?

 

[flacaltenn]

Um, the whole globe being under one gubmint would be the antithesis of anarcho-capitalism.

I ditched libertarians because even if -and that's a big IF- they could ever succeed in paring back The State to it's constitutional constraints, all evidence shows that it will never ever stay that way.....They're just another flavor of statist, pissin' in the wind.

View attachment 242669

Seriously? It's a big fail to you because "it will happen again"?? So goes most of man's (woman's) best en devours -- AMIRITE?

Without libertarians there would be NO broadly consistent Civil Libertarians today.
Without libertarians there would be no other group arguing for open equal ballot/debate access.
Without libertarians -- everyone would LOVE them some NSA Domestic Spying program.

I'll take the marginal victories and being CONSISTENTLY FUCKING CORRECT on most of issues for 30 years.

Consistent and right on Foreign Policy, on economic govt sanity, on Civil Liberties, on Govt/Corporate collusion on Justice Reform and Pot and on the THREAT of the 2 party system to our country..

Got a good history of being RIGHT on stuff 20 years before folks agree with us.. Even if there's a bunch of primadonnas that are running the "political wing" of the party, Institutes like Cato, Reason Foundation, Institute for Justice ARE the sole voices of issue debate and sanity left in this country...

 

[Oddball]

Um, the whole globe being under one gubmint would be the antithesis of anarcho-capitalism.

I ditched libertarians because even if -and that's a big IF- they could ever succeed in paring back The State to it's constitutional constraints, all evidence shows that it will never ever stay that way.....They're just another flavor of statist, pissin' in the wind.

View attachment 242669

Seriously? It's a big fail to you because "it will happen again"?? So goes most of man's (woman's) best en devours -- AMIRITE?

Without libertarians there would be NO Civil Libertarians today.
Without libertarians there would be no other group arguing for open equal ballot access.
Without libertarians -- everyone would LOVE them some NSA Domestic Spying program.

I'll take the marginal victories and being CONSISTENTLY FUCKING CORRECT on most of issues for 30 years.

Consistent and right on Foreign Policy, on economic govt sanity, on Civil Liberties, on Govt/Corporate collusion on Justice Reform and Pot and on the THREAT of the 2 party system to our country..

Got a good history of being RIGHT on stuff 20 years before folks agree with us..

With libertarians, we ended up with the monstrosity that we have today.....But this time, we can make centralized authority of The State work!

 

[flacaltenn]

Um, the whole globe being under one gubmint would be the antithesis of anarcho-capitalism.

I ditched libertarians because even if -and that's a big IF- they could ever succeed in paring back The State to it's constitutional constraints, all evidence shows that it will never ever stay that way.....They're just another flavor of statist, pissin' in the wind.

View attachment 242669

Seriously? It's a big fail to you because "it will happen again"?? So goes most of man's (woman's) best en devours -- AMIRITE?

Without libertarians there would be NO Civil Libertarians today.
Without libertarians there would be no other group arguing for open equal ballot access.
Without libertarians -- everyone would LOVE them some NSA Domestic Spying program.

I'll take the marginal victories and being CONSISTENTLY FUCKING CORRECT on most of issues for 30 years.

Consistent and right on Foreign Policy, on economic govt sanity, on Civil Liberties, on Govt/Corporate collusion on Justice Reform and Pot and on the THREAT of the 2 party system to our country..

Got a good history of being RIGHT on stuff 20 years before folks agree with us..

With libertarians, we ended up with the monstrosity that we have today.....But this time, we can make centralized authority of The State work!

View attachment 245589

It's the people we elect, not the paperwork of the Constitution that has been the problem..

And THAT problem stems from a populace that is basically badly educated and not taught to think critically. When politics becomes reality TV --- aint no spark of brilliance gonna rescue that act...

The Founders KNEW this. Assumed the nation would be moral and sane. Favorite quotes about what's gone wrong here... What we have here is lack of choice and quality on the ballots. And the main CULPRIT for that is something that Washington and J. Adams ALREADY KNEW back in the daze...

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
JOHN ADAMS, letter to Jonathan Jackson, October 2, 1789


However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796