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

[grbb]

I am not defending statism. To be frank, I like libertarianism. However, it's precisely because I like it, I like to point out where it's already working. Instead of complaining where we are not free, why not point out and be grateful of what freedom we still or already have, and think how to make it grow.

Rather than complaining that life is bad, why not see what's working in life. See what cause it. Be grateful with it. And based on what worked, think how to make what's working works even more.

Have principles of anarcho capitalism ever tried in the world?

Which area?

Well, what about the whole globe.

I am not joking. Do we have earth government?

Think about it. We don't. Well, we can say UN or WTO. There are more like treaties rather than government. Or we can say yea we have earth government, however, it's so small.

US government is like Batman more than cops. Drunken rich guy at day, vigilante behind the screen.

What else libertarians and anarcho capitalists hate? Redistribution of wealth right?

How much wealth got redistributed by rich country to poor countries? Almost none.

War? Well. War happens. But most countries actually live peacefully.

Some libertarians would complain that this is NOT libertarian ism. Under libertarianism each individual is an independent political unit. Libertarian revolves around individuals and condemn collectivism.

I said, it is almost as good as libertarianism. At least it's a good start.

Donald Trump, for example, lower tax rate for corporations. Why? Because of competition in China. Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

A libertarian "value" namely lowering taxes, happen because on a big scale, the countries are in anarcho capitalistic state.

Anarcho capitalists say that we need private enterprise to "protect us" instead of "government". Well, if the whole globe is under one government, then yea, we should.

But the world is not under one government. If you do not like the terms and laws in one government you can always move to another country.

Most countries in the world do not have exit visa. Of course if no countries provide a good "libertarian laws" yet, then we should just realize that perhaps pure libertarianism, like 4m LED TV, is just not on the market yet.

The world divided into many countries, each of which free to run as they please, is just like corporations.

While each country have sovereignty just like corporations, most countries embrace far more freedom today than what our ancestors get.

Most countries have no or little discrimination based on race or religion, which is a libertarian value. Most countries are at least halfway capitalistic.

Does implementation of libertarianism in the globe improves our wealth? Hell YEAH.

If countries do not compete with one another, the government can tax people sky high. We will all be poor. If your governments do not have to compete with other governments, your tax rate will be very high. US tax rate once reach 90%. Rulers, like voters can just demand a gazillion minimum wage. Countries will be like Venezuella.

But countries do compete with one another. Capitalists that's oppressed in US can simply move their factories to China. Now, as China gets richer too, it starts demanding bigger and bigger tax from capitalists. So? Capitalists will move to Indonesia, Vietnam, and Africa.

The fact that libertarianism control the whole globe, as if the market God is the true ruler of our globe turns countries into pretty much shops. Anyone oppressed in one country, like American factory owners that are oppressed by raising minimum wage, will simply go to China.

The whole world gets richer and richer.

We now have cellphone, we can trade in bitcoin, we have internet. More and more governments embrace more and more capitalism, bringing prosperity to their people and the world.

So yes. This application of anarcho capitalism, that doesn't treat individuals as political units, do lead to countries becoming more and more libertarians. At the end, each individuals see more and more freedom.

Weed is legal in Colorado. Porn is everywhere and free. Gambling is legal. Income tax for corporations drop. The productive gets richer and richer. And the redistributed wealth is less and less.

This leads to another point. Libertarians do not depend too much on morality. Donald Trump doesn't lower corporate tax because American voters are moral. Donald Trump lower corporate tax because he needs to compete with China.

I see many many ways on how to make the world a more libertarian place.

However, the fact that countries are pretty much libertarian with each other should serve as inspiration.

For example, what about if we ask our countries to "split up" and turn into "defense pact" more than real government.

This is actually closer to US before expansion of federal government.

The problem with Americans is that they live in a very large and powerful country. They have a government that can tax them no matter where they go. Citizens of small countries do not have that problem. If your government demand too much, you just travel a few km away and shop around for better rules.

We do not need libertarianism in all states in a country. If even one of the state is libertarian, that state will be the most prosperous, and we can just move there. In fact, competition among states/provinces will force ever state to lower taxes, honor freedom, and guard the only thing we need from government, security.

That would be a next step.

 

[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.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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

At some point maybe we should realize that no matter what form of government you have if you allow the least among you to run it, it is destined to fail.

By least among us, I don't mean the poorest. Our form of government is the greatest ever seen, but we've let the least among us become the very people who run the government and over the decades we've remained the best country in the world despite those leaders, not because of them, but we are not the freedom loving country where everyone had an equal opportunity that we once were, that's for damn sure.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Private police? Private judges? That oughtta be a hoot. We can charge anyone we want with a crime then go hire our own private police to go arrest them, then haul em in to our own private court to see our own private judge and everything will work out just the way we want.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Private police? Private judges? That oughtta be a hoot. We can charge anyone we want with a crime then go hire our own private police to go arrest them, then haul em in to our own private court to see our own private judge and everything will work out just the way we want.

Democrats pretty much have that now.

 

[Oddball]

Hayek wrote about that very thing in 1943....Looking at the political landscape of today, he was prophetic.....Another reason I don't believe that a minarchist state will ever remain so.

Why the Worst Get on Top | F. A. Hayek

 

[Natural Citizen]

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

It was the women in the town how did it. They stepped up. And they started just by passing out little notes to each other, it was very down low.

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.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Hayek wrote about that very thing in 1943....Looking at the political landscape of today, he was prophetic.....Another reason I don't believe that a minarchist state will ever remain so.

Why the Worst Get on Top | F. A. Hayek

Heh heh. You're using terms a lot of people have likely never heard on here, Oddball.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Hayek wrote about that very thing in 1943....Looking at the political landscape of today, he was prophetic.....Another reason I don't believe that a minarchist state will ever remain so.

Why the Worst Get on Top | F. A. Hayek

Good book, one that relates closely to an earlier quote

paraphrased

"those who seek power in government, probably shouldn't have any power in government"

 

[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.

 

[Oddball]

Private police? Private judges? That oughtta be a hoot. We can charge anyone we want with a crime then go hire our own private police to go arrest them, then haul em in to our own private court to see our own private judge and everything will work out just the way we want.

We already have private police...Pinkerton's is a good example.

I see no downshot to privatized courts and professional for-hire jurors, when compared to the oligarchic shit show the judicial system has devolved into today....Could be funded through insurance products, rather than inefficient and aggressive tax theft currently funding it.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Private police? Private judges? That oughtta be a hoot. We can charge anyone we want with a crime then go hire our own private police to go arrest them, then haul em in to our own private court to see our own private judge and everything will work out just the way we want.

We already have private police...Pinkerton's is a good example.

I see no downshot to privatized courts and professional for-hire jurors, when compared to the oligarchic shit show the judicial system has devolved into today....Could be funded through insurance products, rather than inefficient and aggressive tax theft currently funding it.

Those things have to be ran by PEOPLE and thus would without question end up being just as corrupt as what we now have.

 

[Oddball]

Those things have to be ran by PEOPLE and thus would without question end up being just as corrupt as what we now have.

So what you're saying is that we'd be no worse off.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I see no downshot to privatized courts and professional for-hire jurors, when compared to the oligarchic shit show the judicial system has devolved into today....Could be funded through insurance products, rather than inefficient and aggressive tax theft currently funding it.

Yeah. A case could be made. True libertarianism permits for it. But freedom is scary. Ya know? It's not for everyone. If people want to get together and do that, libertarianism permits for it. The Amish, for example, get to opt out. And the Mennonites.

It's a good topic. One that I willingly admit I don't have many answers for. There's some smart people, people of average means, regular people, who can talk about it rather well, though. I usually follow along as best I can trying to figure out why I wouldn't go along with it, even if everything my logic tells me that I should. We're a big tent full of all different kinds of people who hold libertarianish beliefs. It's kind of scary if you hang around some of em long enough. lol. I left libertarianism as a movement for that reason alone.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Those things have to be ran by PEOPLE and thus would without question end up being just as corrupt as what we now have.

So what you're saying is that we'd be no worse off.

Correct. See my earlier post. We CURRENTLY have the best system , except for the fact that the least qualified people seem to end up running our government.

Ask yourself this if you owned a small mom and pop restaraunt (or choose your industry really) how many of the 435 Reps and 100 Senators would you consider hiring to run it? Let's be honest, the answer would be very few, and there probably wouldn't be a single Democratic on that short list. We literally elect the dumbest, most dishonest, most asinine, and crookedest people we can find. And that goes double for Democrats. I wouldn't trust the likes of Maxine Waters to manage a child's lemonade stand. Yet here she is, making decisions that effect hundreds of millions of people, at least.

 

[Natural Citizen]

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

As was mentioned, they're using the anarchy model as a template.

You'd have to watch the discussion to see what they're doing. I didn't expect anyone to watch it unless it was something they were actually interested in, to be honest. The casual passer-by.

I'm not normally a video watcher myself, but since it's my people putting it out, I shared it for reference just because it's relevant to the topic here.

 

[grbb]

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

That is precisely my point. A whole globe under one government is the antithesis of anarcho capitalism.

HENCE, our world, where there is no one world government, is a sample of anarcho capitalism.

In fact, I no longer think a world wide libertarianism as an ideal anymore.

I think what we need is small regions governed by a for profit organization. On top of those small regions we have thin layer of bigger government.

The big government should be libertarian/minarchist/anarcho capitalistic (like our world's government). However, the local can be anything. You want to build white only countries? Up to you. Muslim only countries up to you. You're a corporation. It's up to you how you run your local mini states.

Those who don't like can just go.

The bigger government on top of that will ensure that you treat your population reasonably fairly. So no sudden increase in tax, for example. If tax rate go up, people should have time to go to another local government. No butchering people for organs, etc.

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

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.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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

As was mentioned, they're using the anarchy model as a template.

You'd have to watch the discussion to see what they're doing. I didn't expect anyone to watch it unless it was something they were actually interested in, to be honest. The casual passer-by.

I'm not normally a video watcher myself, but since it's my people putting it out, I shared it for reference just because it's relevant to the topic here.

i watched the video. I'm just saying the very fact that they are organized means they aren't in anarchy.

 

[Oddball]

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

 

[Natural Citizen]

So why even bother with a state at all?

^^^This^^^