View Single Post
Old 07-11-2007   #7 (permalink)
Jasper84
under construction
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Utrecht, the Netherlands
Posts: 593
Send a message via MSN to Jasper84
Default Re: Economic Anarchy

Quote:
Originally Posted by yaaarrrgg
Although I think, if one goes this far, why not just have full blown anarchy? Economic power and political power are two abstractions of the same thing. I'm not sure one can really distinguish the two except in theory. Even in the U.S. it's pretty easy to convert one form of currency into the other.
I read quite a bit of the website about Ayn Rands thinking, the government is there to prevent 'initiation of force' the government is supposed to be the only organization allowed to use force, unless someone is in direct threat.
I find the site quite consistent on some things, but it assumes a lot about that free free market works, and that, it can be funded by money from its courts. (which i find rather doubtful, and probably denies the poor of the courts, effectively meaning they are fair game for 'initiation of force'.) It also claims that stuff like roads and public space do not have to be managed by government either.

Should note that utabintarbo said he thought of the website as 'Cliff notes'. I find the attempts to define it interesting though, are there more social sites that try to define it also? I have done a little trying to define it myself, but not much yet. I do have the feeling that a-priori, i am not sure whether one should base such a system on trying to define it precisely.
Edit: Hehe, now i read you better, i guess you knew this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bns
Except that people get backed into a corner and have no choices. And companies don't take advantage of those who are well off; they take advantage of those who can't defend themselves, who couldn't even afford a retainer if they wanted to sue. That's what bothers me, and it's what gives the lie to the "free market" myth.
I agree, they often say "vote with your pocket", but the fact is that most of current money is either in the hands of the rich, or in corporations. I do not see how that will change in minarchism. People will just have a very small vote, which, then, they barely can use, because they need essentials, while the rich can afford to wield their money as power. Also, that is a lot of votes to think about, i do not think you can really make them all work.

Last edited by Jasper84 : 07-11-2007 at 12:11 PM.
Jasper84 is offline   Reply With Quote