Anarchy is a Fantasy

I love talking to people about anarchy. I try to be as cordial as I can be. I’m not always successful, but one thing I always try to do is stay on point and keep to the subject. Name calling has no place when debating serious subjects. It seems that the statist side doesn’t agree with this sentiment. Recently I got into it with a fan of the “Occupy Democrats” page. It was pretty heated but I feel the conversation should be shared.

The “debate” was about this article:

The article lays out the typical progressive fallacy that the Obama shrank the deficit and that it’s a big deal. The conversation is as follows:

Me: Deficit does not equal debt. You guys always talk about deficit and how Obama cut it and you confuse it with debt. Debt has bloated exponentially under the Obama administration. As of right now the debt is over $18 trillion.

When Obama took office, the debt was only about $10 trillion. Learn basic economic vocabulary please.

Earl Hughs: Austerity 101: The Three Reasons Republican Deficit Hawks Are Wrong
The debt is explained here

He seemed to forget the link and never posted it.

Me: Explained were? I would love to read about you confirming your bias. I’m not a republican either. I’m an anarchist.

Me: The debt is how much money the nation currently is in the red as an aggregate. Deficit is only how much you are in the red during that particular year. So whoopty-frickin-doo, the deficit is smaller. There is still 18 trillion to pay off, good luck with that, especially with all of your costly socialist programs you are all so fond off.

Me: And before you talk about taxation, understand that taxation is theft. Just because you voted for a politician to steal from your neighbor doesn’t mean it all of a sudden becomes moral. If you truly want to help people, abolish the federal reserve and fiat currency. The Fed playing with interest rates is what causes the boom-bust cycle as well as raises the cost of living.

Daniel Delgado: Obviously you get the difference between debt and deficit but do you understand that you can’t address the debt until the deficit is a surplus? Saying the deficit doesn’t mean anything is truly moronic. The debt is wholly dependant on the deficit.
Also, you can take your anarchist bullshit and shove it. When you forfeit everything you enjoy at the expense of taxpayers then you can come back and talk shit. Of course it might be a little harder without access to communications since they’re all subsidized at some level. Retard.

Me: The deficit doesn’t mean anything because the debt is so large. Over 18 trillion. That will never be paid off and we are living today at the expense of our children and grand children. Inter generational child abuse I say.

And I love your illogical “argument” that is nothing more than an ad hominem (and I’m surprised a PC loving liberal such as yourself would use the word “retard” as an insult). Do you honestly think all of these amenities we have today would cease to exist with out government? Like roads no doubt. Do you think that roads are something that is so advanced you need the state to create them?

Not only that but you accuse me of saying I enjoy products I am forced to use because the government exercises a monopoly? Because the government enforces their monopoly and will actively shut down any competitive service or product? What kind of logic is that? Seriously. It’s like saying “Don’t talk bad about the mafia and their protection!” while the mafia forces their services on you at the threat of violence.

Let me ask you, is it wrong to lie, cheat, steal and kill? Why then do you allow it to occur in a collective? If it is wrong for the individual, why is it ok for a collection of individuals to do it. I’m at least consistent in my ideology. You on the other hand have this chasm in your morality. You have your personal everyday morality and then your deplorable morality you exercise in the collective where instituted plunder is virtue.

Me: Everything the government “offers” could be offered in a anarcho-capitalist society. And before you turn your nose at the term “capitalism” or free market, know that capitalism and a freemarket is only a voluntary exchange. I exchange money for a product or service because I feel I would be better off with the service or product than my money. You exchange your services or product because you think you are better off with my money. We walk away from the exchange both as winners. That is all it is. The system we have today is cronyism and corporatism. That’s where the system of profit and loss is made null and void for those in bed with government.
This is basic economics really.

Daniel Delgado: The difference in your model of free market vs. the government is that no single entity is going to take on infrastructure as a whole in this country so we end up with a lot of smaller, localized, entities trying to work together to create and maintain the system without regulation. When services and products are offered strictly for profit with no regulation conformity, quality, and safety will always take a back seat to the dollar. If you’ve ever been to Arkansas and seen the stark contrast between state highways that are hugely underfunded vs. federally funded interstates you’d know exactly what we’d be in for. Their roads are passable but far from good. What do you propose? Everyone paves the section of road running to their house or business at their own cost? Small groups getting together to pave their own neighborhoods and access to the next one? Anarchy is great until you start talking logistics. Chaos always dissolves into order and the “haves” always end up in power over the “have nots”. What’s the difference between what anarchy evolves into and totalitarianism? Not a damn thing. All you do is create a de facto Government of corporations… Kinda like we have now and are trying to abolish.

Me: You miss the point. In a true market economy you cannot abuse your customer with a shoddy product. Otherwise a competitor will underbid you and take your clients. Business and land owners would build their own toll roads (perhaps they could be subscription based as well). You confuse the crooked government ran system we have now for “capitalism”. It’s not like that as I already stated. Firms can rip off clients because government intervention and regulations (which are costly and keep smaller start ups with less capital from entering the market) gain larger market shares due to the costly nature of starting a competing business. This means consumers have no choice but to buy from the “greedy corporations” who only have this power thanks to government.
In a truly free market, if you produce a crappy product or service, expect crappy returns as far as profit. Only producers that best meet the needs of the consumer remain in business. So in an anarcho-capitalist society, Only producers that best meet the demands of the consumer stay in business, those that have predicted consumer wants wrong leave the market.

The current system of bail outs and government granted monopolies in everything from services to quality control creates perverse incentives and lead to the situations we have now. This is basic economics and common sense, I don’t understand what is so difficult to understand about it.

Me: Also Anarchy is voluntary interaction and exchange (unlike the current system of coercion with a government monopoly on the initiation of violence). Sure it may become a government some where down the line, but does that mean we give up? No. If your house is on fire, do you not put out the fire just because it does not guarantee that your house will catch fire again in the future?

Me: You vote with your dollars in an An-Cap Society rather than pointing the guns of government at the other 49% that may disagree with you like we have now.

Daniel Delgado: Your “basic economics” leaves out the glaring reality that no matter how you cut it the ones with money will be in power from the word go. Your utopia is a fantasy. Business is cut throat and left unchecked monopolies will happen even faster than they do now. You say that businesses can charge for access on their roads but fail to see that there would be zero motivation for any business to maintain interstates between geographic areas of the country. Sure they need them for shipping but every single business is going to try and minimize their share of responsibility. So then what? Who determines who pays what for infrastructure? Does some giant corporation come in and buy the freeway system and make it all toll based? What stops them from price gouging? Who’s going to come in and build a second freeway to offer competition. Who is going to build a second power grid, water distribution system, sewer system? The way your “anarchy” sounds is more akin to communism than anarchy. Co-op markets to provide for the populace? Get real. Business is not going to magically become altruistic when all the rules are lifted.

Jacob Stumph (The only other rational person in the conversation): Wake up Daniel, the ones in power are the banks. They own us in 18 trillion ways. Our government screwed us and is continuing to screw us.

Me: Daniel, I’m not living the fantasy, you are. You think that prosperity can be had by through violence and coercion being used by just the right people in just the right amounts and in just the right way. Who is the one living the fantasy? Me, the one saying leave people and their stuff alone? Or you, advocating that violence against peaceful people that may disagree with you is what it takes to keep society afloat? A government that relies on “the right people in power” is a terrible and abusive system just waiting to be taken advantage of.
“You say that businesses can charge for access on their roads but fail to see that there would be zero motivation for any business to maintain interstates between geographic areas of the country.”

You have no concept of economics. Would increased clients and customer bases be a reason to create roads? Probably Daniel. I hope to God you never try to run your own business, you’ll run it into the ground.

So then what? Who determines who pays what for infrastructure? Does some giant corporation come in and buy the freeway system and make it all toll based? What stops them from price gouging?

What stops another firm from creating their own road and underbids the price gouger? I don’t think you understand how monopolies work. Monopolies can only price gouge and keep people coming back to them for abuse if they are protected by government regulations. If there are no regulations and hoops to jump through to start a business, the moment a firm begins “price gouging” is the moment competition sneaks in a the price gouging firm loses it’s market share. Again this is basic economics. I really want you to divorce your mind from the idea that the heavily regulated system we have now is “capitalism”. It is not, it is corporatism. This kind of economy can only come about when a central authority, government, exists. Are we clear on this yet?

“Who is going to build a second power grid, water distribution system, sewer system? The way your “anarchy” sounds is more akin to communism than anarchy. Co-op markets to provide for the populace? Get real. Business is not going to magically become altruistic when all the rules are lifted.”

I love it when you statist expect anarchists to have the answer to everything. One has to first ask if the status quo is sufficient. I live in California where there are government granted monopolies on all of these services. It sucks. It’s mismanaged and their is no real market price on any of these resources due to government granted monopolies. With no real market prices, shortages occur. Thus we have a water crisis here in California and power shortages. So the current system is woefully incapable of providing the very things you say anarchy cannot. Your government offers only promises, not solutions. So don’t pretend like your statist system has the answer. It actually doesn’t.

“Get real. Business is not going to magically become altruistic when all the rules are lifted.”

I’m not banking on altruism. I saying that business owners want to make money. They make money by having repeat business and satisfying consumer demands as best they can. Without the protection government regulations that keep the little guy out, or easy credit from the Federal Reserve that will just bail them out for being reckless, business have to serve consumer demands or fail.

Me: You only hear that which you want to hear. You also fall into a lot of fallacies. First of which are monopolies. You assume that “natural monopolies” can occur. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a natural monopoly. As I pointed out (and you keep ignoring) government regulations are what raise the cost of doing business thus keeping marginal producers and competition with less capital from entering the market. Thus only the “Walmarts” are capable of paying the cost these regulations place. So the first thing is that roads would be particularly hard to monopolize, because, like any other commodity or service, you need government coercion to unnaturally drive out competition. This seems to be a fact you refuse to address and refuse to acknowledge. And, per usual, you assume that the corrupted system we have now (because of government) is what the freemarket would be.
You also assume that people are incapable or working together to achieve similar ends without government force and coercion. I think it comes down to a fundamental difference as to how you and I view people. I view people as individuals with hopes and dreams. People with ambition and drive. People who’s property and dreams are to be respected. You view people as clay. Clay that can be formed into their ideal form because people are clearly too stupid to realize their true potential without first being formed in the image deemed “perfect” by their “benevolent” rulers.

You work with other people all the time to achieve common and individual goals. You do this at your job, at your church, in your family and in your circle of friends. Clearly, people are capable of organizing themselves to achieve the ends they see fit. It happens on varying scales all the time. So your idea that no one is going to work together without government there to point guns at them is fundamentally false and disturbing to boot.

You also make the claim that when everything is privatized and for profit, everything is expensive. You clearly do not understand how prices come about or what actually causes prices to rise. Prices come about by producers trying to maximize profits and consumers desiring to save money. You have heard of price equilibrium right? If a producer charges too much for a product and refuses to lower their price to consumer demands in a truly free market, there is only one option. Close shop. Again you assume that the market system now is “pure capitalism”, again you are dead wrong about that. And I have shown how you are wrong. Free markets are, fundamentally, voluntary exchanges without coercion. Government regulation uses FORCE to deny or force certain exchanges. This is not FREE. I don’t know how much more clearly I can explain that for you.

You just seem mad that you are stuck in a hard place philosophically. You understand that initiating violence outside of defense of ones self and property is morally wrong. And here I am, the “dumb” anarchist pointing out that the only way government accomplishes anything is by pointing guns at people and violating this moral principle that you hold true to (I hope) in your everyday life.

And it’s true, government doesn’t have an answer for every social ill, why should I? I’m one person. I’m not going to have an answer for everything. The thing about anarchism as opposed to your statism is that problems are solved better without violence and pointing guns at people. That’s it.

Also, I’d like to point out that anarchic societies have existed through out history:…/

So lets recap:

The current system is not a product of the freemarket, stop saying and assuming it is. It’s a product of people like you demanding more government.

Capitalism is about voluntary exchange without coercion.

Government is a monopoly on the initiation of violence. That is how it accomplishes anything.

You say people are incapable of working together without government forcing them to. Reality proves otherwise.

Again, I’m not the one that believes in a system that requires the right people in power, that’s you. The guy who believes we need a monopoly on coercion and violence now so that a monopoly on coercion and violence can’t come about. Great logic.

Me: Also, use some friggin’ paragraphs.

Me: Oh and another fact about roads. YOu seem to assume that roads are it. They are the pinnacle of transportation. Have you ever heard of economic substitutes? Should an impossible monopoly arise (because again, monopolies need government, they do not occur naturally), a competing form of transportation would undoubtedly come through. That’s what markets do, innovate.

This is where the debate is at now. I would love to have some feedback or ideas or pointers for anything I may have missed. Or even anything within Austrian Economics that I got wrong.

Update: 10/17/2015

Joe (From here at Logical Anarchy): I guess babysitting is really dangerous, its unregulated and for profit. What we need is regulated baby sitting that will be safer and of higher quality. How can we trust these helpless people to make their own arrangements for someone to watch their children.
So there will be all these homes, businesses and there will be no way to get between them? Well government didn’t build roads, I’ll just throw my hands up and stand here.

I sure hope the first boats that ran trade routes where regulated by some government. How could they have built them faster and lighter without it?! I mean profit cannot produce that kind of innovation?! Not evil profit.

Daniel Delgado you need to look at how the railroads in this country were built. James J Hill’s Great Northern Railway was completed without federal subsidies. Many thought without government it could not be done(sound familiar?) Now contrast that with the waste and delayed construction of the subsidized lines. Please though go ahead and worship your pothole ridden government roads.

Update 10/17/2015

This guy just likes to repeat points already refuted… Will statists ever learn?

Daniel Delgado: It’s obvious that you have no clue how business is conducted or initiated in the real world. You seem to think that all these large corporations only come about by way of the government. That’s rich. Your assumption that the only thing holding Joe Public back is government regulation is laughable at best. Really? Regulations can be a pain in the ass but are far from the only, or even the biggest, hurdle to being successful.
The biggest glaring issue with all of your rambling nonsense is that, while there MIGHT be a chance for your system to work temporarily while developing a new society, there is no way it would even have a chance at implementation in America unless there was an apocalyptic event to destroy the system. Maybe you think we’ll just overthrow the government. Good luck with that. Are you then going to go around robbing the rich at gunpoint? How do you suppose you’re going to curtail all of their power? Oh right, you’re going to compete with them. Again, good luck. And when every other world power decides that we’re easy pickings since there is no cohesion how do you suppose we ward off conquest? Privatized military? Ok, who pays them?

It’s all moot anyway since you believe private industry is just this great benevolent thing that will serve the people. I’ll just wash my hands of you since it’s been proven that you can’t fix stupid.

Joe: So in your version of the world is government this great benevolent thing that will serve the people? Protect us from private industry? Let’s dig a little deeper. Do you have a choice where you’d like to spend your money? Do you have a choice when money is taken from your check(by the government)? We have pictures of Presidents on the walls of our schools, we pledge allegiance to our nation. No you are right its private industry we must fear and it must be regulated! Ya we are the stupid ones. How dare we question this utopian system we currently have, its the only way we know therefore it’s the only possible way.

Me: Yeah the little guy will compete Daniel. Regulations suck as well. They can be costly to implement. Some regulations are in the millions to and billions to become compliant in. If there was no “entrance fee” to join the market. Joe public could compete.
Again with the monopoly Bs man. Seriously? Show a monopoly where there was no government involvement. Do it. Look it up. Somewhere down the line a few politicians were involved, I guarantee it. That clearly pissed you off so your only recourse us to ignore it and pretend like it is not an issue for your ideology. Also, notice I how I pick apart specific things you say?

You only speak in ad hominems and broad strokes, only attacking certain aspects and then strutting around like you won. Debating some one like you on economics, who has no basic understanding of economic theory, is like playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon knocks over pieces, shits on the board, and then struts around like it won. It doesn’t matter how good you are at chess then. The pigeon is you Daniel.

Actually refute something. Refute joes example of trade ships and railways (that had the same nay sayers that sound like you). Refute price equalibrium. You claim that everything will be expensive in a free market. I give you equilibration, and then you never bring up the subject again. Explain how government is not a monopoly on the initiation for force and violence. Explain away your logic that you need such a monopoly (since you hate monopolies so much, you talk about them all the friggin’ time) in order to keep a monopoly on violence and force from coming about.

Explain away the idea that economics is human action. The idea that individuals seek to better their condition and ease perceived uneasiness through exchange. Thus it is the individual that acts, not collectives that use violence and force. Daniel Delgado, I’d love to see you refute everything said. But you cant. You just call us stupid. So you are right, you can’t fix stupid. Unfortunately we are not the ones needing fixing…

As far as how anarchy would come about. It could come about peacefully through education rather than violence. I think your preference for violence proves that it is not the anarchist that is violent but you. You allow insults to flow so easily from your mouth it is very telling. Your refusal to engage appropriately in debate and conversation shows that you view the state as sacred. It’s your God.

As for going around at gunpoint and stealing from the rich, that’s you Daniel. Not me. I’m not the statist that supports instituted plunder remember? You are the one that votes for politicians and the bootlickers to steal from others to go towards what you see fit as “good” for society. So tyrannical of you. You complain about the power of corporations but refuse to look at the root of the problem, your precious government that has all the power. That has the actual monopoly. So get off your high horse. Like I said, you don’t care about people, they are clay to you. Their dreams and goals mean nothing to you if it does not fit perfectly into the plan your benevolent rulers have. You would rather see someone torn down and reformed into the image you see fit than to have them happy with the ability to pursue their goals.

Me: The non aggression principle is the idea that using violence outside of defense of one’s self and property is immoral. Do you disagree with that? Probably not. Now tell me how government does not break this moral axiom. If it’s true for the individual shouldn’t it be true for a collection of individuals? I mean, that’s all government is. It’s a collection of individuals. You have two options. Say that it’s ok to kill and steal. Or say that if you have enough people behind you it all of a sudden becomes ok. Both positions are abhorrent so good luck with that. The only other option is to understand that government violates this moral principle therefore it is a criminal organization that must be abolished. That is the only moral and philosophically consistent position to take.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *