Originally posted by: tss4
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Now when it comes to education, it is the same story. If public education were to be abolished, there wouldn't be an education crisis. There would be a number of schools for parents from all socio-economic backgrounds. Non-wealthy parents may not be able to send their kids to top tier schools, but they would get a choice in education at a lower cost. Just as there are car dealerships willing to sell affordable cars to middle class people, there would be schools willing to do the same.
Well, here is where we will have to agree to disagree. The problem is that a car has nothing to do with your earnings potential. Education has been shown over and over again to have a huge impact on eanrings potential. Part of what I love about this country (and I will always vote to defend) is the opportunity of the poor and middle class to raise themselves into a better life. The fact of the matter is that access to ivy leagues and the best education will be limited for those that most need the opportunites they provide for improving ones life. Our education system has is problems but it does far more good than harm. Also, I can't believe you didn't learn to read, write, perform basic math (possibly up to Calculus), Sciences, and history in school. So I think you might have learned something.
I've listened to your arguements for some time and I find them fascianting, but they have always relied on unlreailstic actions by the people and the marketplace.
I find the exact opposite to be true. I see people constantly hoping for unrealistic actions from the government. The entire idea of limited government is the idea that we could ever live in a world in which politicians behaved irrationally (i.e. did not tax and spend/regulate as much as they possibly can).
I keep asking you for examples of a society that has implemented your model succesfully (and as a result is a better place to live than what we live in now) and so far I have gotten the wild west, a community in PA that lasted for 10 years but didn't have to deal with any outside threats (and at the end of that time voluntarily gave up the anarchy), and now somalia.
Ultimately almost every societ has voluntarily given up anarchy. If they didn't the state would not exist, since no state can exist on brute force alone.
Ultimately, the problem is that you have this unproven faith that a completely free market will lead to a better society. Until, you can give some better examples, its going to be hard to have the same faith that you have.
I do not think that anarcho-capitalist ideas will be implemented by educating the public alone. There are far too many skeptics (such as yourself). Anarcho-capitalism will be implemented when free market institutions substitute government institutions and people begin to trust those institutions. The problem (as I pointed out before) is that because people believe that the government should monopolize a number of institutions, the free market will not be given a chance to show what it can do.
Authoritarianism is an extremely pervasive religion. To me , really, it is the universal religion. It spans virtually all cultures and areas of the globe. Now, imagine if it were some other religion that swept the globe. Let's say that Scientology had taken over the entire planet and the vast majority of people thought that Scientology was great. Of course, if this were the case there would be buildings for Scientology worship in every town and city. Now, suppose I came along and said that the world would be much better off without Scientology. And as a part of my objection I called for all the Scientology worship centers to be torn down, and the hierarchical social structure of Scientology to be abolished. Given the fact that Scientology was so popular and pervasive I think that it would be very likely for someone to challenge me to show them a single place in the world that didn't practice Scientology. But does this have anything to do with whether or not Scientology is good for the world? I don't think so. The fact that I would not be able to produce a single place in the world where Scientology is not practiced really would have no bearing on whether or not what I was saying was true. To argue that Scientology must be good for the world because there is nowhere where it is not practiced is to imply that universal belief means automatically that the institution is good for the world.
The same applies to the state. The state exists because people believe it ought to exist, and this is a very deep rooted belief for most people. But the problem is that beliefs can be highly irrational. Belief in the state is one such belief. There are a few main elements of popular beliefs in which the state rests upon. One of the main ones is objectification of morality. Almost everyone has some idea of how they would like to see society. There is almost no one who looks at society and sees perfection in every aspect. But people make the leap from imperfection to imposition of force. People believe that their own moral system (whatever it is) should be imposed on an absolute basis. They also want others to perceive their moral beliefs to be the objective truth. Since many believe the state to be a mystical outgrowth of the 'general will' or the 'sovereign,' people desire to have this higher power issue their moral system as an edict that must be obeyed. So not only do they want their moral system to be forcefully imposed, but they also want people to perceive their moral system to be objectively true based on the 'sovereign's' adoption of their moral system. However, a third appeal of state imposed morality is that of who bears the cost of enforcing it. In the case of the state, those who pay taxes bears the cost of enforcement, and not necessarily those who actually want to see the morals imposed.
The problem with this though, is that a contradiction inevitably occurs. If I want my morals to be objectified and have the state issue them as edicts, others will want the same. And when those others have the state issue their own edicts, eventually a disagreement takes place. There is almost nobody who agrees with everything the state does. But they have bought into the state's moral wheel of fortune lock stock and barrel. When the wheel doesn't go their way, they believe that the state's edicts take precedence over their own moral judgement. This is to say that they reserve their own moral judgement and obey the state's edict. This is a contradiction that is so bizarre, I still cannot figure it out. There are literally millions of people out there who decide for themselves that their own judgement is to yield to the state's. To rephrase once again, this is tantamount to one deciding for himself that one is not qualified to act on one's own volitions and moral beliefs.
One way to illustrate this is suppose there was a Marxist who ended up working in a capitalist system. Every day he goes to work, and every day his anger grows towards his 'exploitative' employer. So one day he fantasizes about going to his employer's place of business and smashing his machines. Not being a man of violence however, he decides against this. But he realizes that there is another way of achieving what he wants in a perfectly 'civilized' manner. He decides to write an extremely persuasive manifesto. And he spreads this manifesto far and wide, until the swelling of popular support for his twisted ideology grows so much that state picks up on it. And once the state picks up his manifesto it decides to issue edicts saying that all owner's of businesses are to have their machines smashed. So what happened? The Marxist got his wish, and the amount of resources he expended to get his wish was relatively very small compared to what it would have been in absence of a state. But inevitably for this to have occurred, those within the general population who did not want to smash any machines had to expend their own resources to support the state's actions.
This is ridiculous though. Not only did the Marxist not have to expend very much of his own resources to get what he wanted, he unjustly forced others to join his cause in bringing down capitalism. Now imagine what it is like in a mass franchise democracy, like the one we have today. We don't have to contend with only one Marxist fanatic, we have to contend with millions of otherwise peaceful individuals who merely have to go into a voting booth and pull a lever to get what they want (or at least what they think they want). These otherwise peaceful individuals who would never expend their own resources to enact their violent moral impositions, end up passively supporting it through political means. This is fueled by the myth that democracy or even any form of government can really be 'civilized.' Democracy, especially, is seen as a highly civilized process where everyone gets to have their 'say.' And in democracy highly civilized debates take place in fancy buildings with fancy decor and carpeting. But what happens after the debates are over and the votes have been cast and tallied up? The edict (whatever it may be) comes down, and becomes the "Law." Politicians give their final swipes of approval with the pen, and then the "Law" becomes 'enforceable.' We are not talking about enforcement by kind old grandmothers who use merely the power of persuasion to try to get you to obey. We are talking about enforcement at the end of the barrell of a gun. We are talking about the kind of enforcement that has people winding up in a small cell with concrete walls. Behind all the civilized debates, and rhetoric is a team of law enforcers with powerful and dangerous weapons ready at any moment to ride out to a 'perpetrator's' location and smash their door down. Advocates of democracy do not really advocate softball debating, they merely try to cover up their lust for the expediency of force with these civilized proceedings. They know for a fact that they can get their way if they have a vanload of men with guns they can unload at any time, anywhere. Hence, they maintain their position that no matter how irrational or outrageous the politician's laws are, they are to be obeyed without question. Afterall, these edicts are really straight from the 'sovereign.'
And finally, another major belief that the state rests upon is the automaton belief. People see others as inherently selfish, and uncaring. And they believe that without a strong state, people would just go through life as automatons, only paying heed to to their small groups of family and friends. They see society as becoming a mass of people on cell phones walking past each other without so much as a small signal of recognition of those in 'need.' Of course, those who believe this believe that the state is the best way to remedy this situation. Come hell or highwater, those automatons are going to sit up, pay attention and pay heed to others outside their own social spheres!
Facebook
Twitter