Why Socialism (and Communism) Fails and why our society is being destroyed

a) because its a sticky, you can't gravedig stickies

b) because it was locked before, now it is unlocked probably meaning that Sythe might be willing to entertain some more debate on the topic

 

I never claimed the virtuosity of government. Government is going to be a projection of those that rule it. I am just saying that no matter what there is always going to be some sort of governing. It is the nature of humans to form groups that have hierarchies of control. Anarcho-capitalism is for the abolishing of the state in favor of more numerous but smaller governments and free association of individuals. To that end any entity that exhibits signs of hierarchical control is government, and therefore capitalism has governance embedded in it because as a predatory system capitalism is about the control of power and capital.

 

Just as a side note I'm for any type of anarchism as long as its build on voluntary interaction. You sound like you might be coming at it from a different perspective than me, which doesn't particularly matter to me as the end result should be much the same.

I see government as a cancer, there is always the possibility that it will spring back but it should be treated and cut back as frequently as possible. Anarcho-capitalism is for establishing smaller governments, in that you're correct, but it is for establishing governments to the point of each individual governing themselves. I disagree that companies or groups could be considered governments, as they lack the legitimized use of force against others. Of course there is the possibility that they try to extort others with force, but really we're just back to having a government. My only point is that we should not recognize this as legitimate, and not recognize it as necessary or helpful to our well being. People should treat government as a cancer, which I truly believe it to be.

 

I believe we have two different approaches to anarchy as well. There are minute variances on the way our anarchies would function but they're generally the same thing.

In a theoretical anarchy large corporations would have to own some sort of private policing/paramilitary organizations to protect themselves. They'd, again theoretically, have legitimized use of force within their own 'spheres of influence' (term used loosely) to be able to effectively enforce their own codes. Besides wage incentives how would a large business be able to control its workers? My understanding of the minutiae of the post-state capitalistic system isn't the most complete I must admit so I could be completely off base.

 

Agreed.

I'd imagine it'd be more efficient to just have private defense insurance of some kind. While that might sound a bit off putting, consider the alternative of something such as the US military empire.

They would only have as much influence as voluntarily consented to. Any act of aggression toward an employee would of course be considered assault.

Now, free market arbitration is something that I haven't been able to completely wrap my head around yet but I'm sure there must be a better way to handle things. People have written entire books detailing dispute resolution organizations and how they could function.

Jobs are something that people generally desire to obtain. If your worker is breaking your code of conduct, they're simply fired, or they take a pay cut.

Every company has its code of conduct and expectations of its workers, if you fail to meet those you'll obviously lose your job.

 

I just don't see a judicial system for hire as being efficient. I suppose I haven't wrapped my head around the concept of having third party arbitration on concepts such as rights deprivation. I mean what happens when a murder occurs? How is there justice brought about in this system?

Arbitration is a great legal tool that is generally preferred over the judicial system now. It is more efficient than that judicial system in civil matters and is generally binding.

 

Like I said I haven't completely wrapped my head around it either, but I'm sure we can both agree that our current court systems are far from just right now.
If you do some research there are various proposals out there for DRO's and private court systems.

Here is a kind of interesting excerpt that I found though:

"Imagine a society with no government. Individuals purchase law enforcement from private firms. Each such firm faces possible conflicts with other firms. Private policemen working for the enforcement agency that I employ may track down the burglar who stole my property only to discover, when they try to arrest him, that he too employs an enforcement agency.
There are three ways in which such conflicts might be dealt with. The most obvious and least likely is direct violence-a mini-war between my agency, attempting to arrest the burglar, and his agency attempting to defend him from arrest. A somewhat more plausible scenario is negotiation. Since warfare is expensive, agencies might include in the contracts they offer their customers a provision under which they are not obliged to defend customers against legitimate punishment for their actual crimes. When a conflict occurred, it would then be up to the two agencies to determine whether the accused customer of one would or would not be deemed guilty and turned over to the other.

A still more attractive and more likely solution is advance contracting between the agencies. Under this scenario, any two agencies that faced a significant probability of such clashes would agree on an arbitration agency to settle them-a private court. Implicit or explicit in their agreement would be the legal rules under which such disputes were to be settled.

Under these circumstances, both law enforcement and law are private goods produced on a private market. Law enforcement is produced by enforcement agencies and sold directly to their customers. Law is produced by arbitration agencies and sold to the enforcement agencies, who resell it to their customers as one characteristic of the bundle of services they provide."
- David Friedman, Law as a Private Good"

 

Honestly though that sounds like more red tape than our current system though. I don't really like the sound of that. I am not sure how well privatized justice would work. If you look at the old west of the US they had agencies and ideas very similar to what your quote suggests and those were phased out due to a lot of corruption and inefficiencies.

 

*shrugs*

There are plenty of variations of DRO like systems, coming from different perspectives and operating differently. While I'm not sure exactly how the end result will function, I'm fairly confident that a free society solution can work just as well as our clusterfuck of a court system, (definitely filled with corruption and inefficiencies) if not better.

Honestly it is one of the most confusing things to me as well, but I suppose the same could be said about the US legal system just as easily.

What we have right now isn't justice, and I personally think its time to start looking for alternatives.

 

Being socialism/communism so evidently unfair when opposed to libertarianism.
Do you have any idea why every single country in the world seems to have a socialist government while absolutely none are completely libertarian? (Even though many qualities of many governments are. But luck of wrondoing doesn't make a good quality.)

Additionally, how come almost every single person appears to naturalize socialist structures instead of recognizing them as the necessary evil that it is?
It's as if instead of crying every time we kill an animal because we need to feed to live, we all rejoice and throw a bbq... wait.

My explanation is that even though it is unfair, it is the most effective and pragmatic system so far, and since it works, it has been adopted. And people don't see anything wrong with the system because they grew with it, it's just natural to them.

My proposal for change is not the radical changes you propose. First, start changing people's perspective to realize that every time you force someone to do something in order for the society to work, it is not a good thing, it may be necessary, but it's not a good thing. For example, forcing someone to pay for police officer's salary, is not something to be happy about, you need them to live and not get raped. So forcing someone who doesn't want policemen in his country is a fucked up thing, but there's no alternative (so far), so we take the lesser of both evils.
After you do that, you can start with change, but starting from the effective goverment systems that we have now. Maybe libraries were effective for example, but the evil of "people who now have to pay for books" is lesser than the evil of forcing people to pay for libraries. So you can try to change that.

With this system you can start changing the government from a socialist government to a smaller socialist government, in the end you would be left with the smallest socialist government possible, and the day some fucktard decides that we should stop forcing people to pay for policemen, we can see the consequences and say " OK, here is when we fucked up, when we took away defense funding, let's just CTRL+ Z and go back to the last state where everything worked fine"


Cheers.

P.S: It was a relief finding some people that don't naturalize socialism.

 

Sorry, but this is absolute nonsense. Socialism/communism is neither ethical nor practical.


Libertarianism is both. The core principles are voluntary interaction between consenting adults and non-aggression against peaceful individuals unless in the case of self-defense.


Every “service” that the government provides can be provided without the use of coercive force. In a voluntary, more practical, and more efficient manner. You mentioned police specifically, it’s laughable to suggest that the state is the only institution capable of providing security services. Not only do they rely on theft/extortion to exist in the first place, but they often do a terrible job. They aren’t there to protect people, and they have no legal requirement to do so. They’re there to enforce the decrees of the state. If there is a need to provide any service, having a monopoly backed by force has to be one of the WORST ways to provide it.


Now the first thing you mentioned about countries being mainly socialist isn’t an especially useful point. Murder exists in every country, but you can still strongly advocate against it. The same goes for any number of evil things.


I don’t really find the back and forth essay format on the internet very productive. There isn’t really an audience and if you think socialism is practical, effective, and fair I might be better off spending time playing with my toes. But if you’re curious or want to debate/ask questions/discuss this feel free to add my skype and we can talk in real time.

 

I agree with most of what Sythe said, however it is an impossibility without educating the population of these facts. The media and the small elite groups are forcing their agenda on the population. So many people are adamant about their Governments taking care of them. I just don't think they would ever let go of that "security."

One of my favorite things ever said was by Benjamin Franklin, a pioneer in true freedom: "Those that would relinquish their freedoms for a measure of security will lose both and deserve neither." <-- Paraphrased

I've spoken with hundreds and I've decided the only people with like-minded ideas such as these are the people in the Western States USA, IE: Arizona, Utah, Nevada, California. All the Eastern states would gladly sacrifice their freedoms to be told what to do.

It's because of the mentality the world is in! They are afraid! No one even knows what freedoms are anymore. People think that they are free, but they aren't and what little freedoms remain to us are slowly being stolen by the votes of these idiots and the ones brainwashing them.

Anyway, my two cents. fun fact: I'm a direct decedent of John Locke, another great man My last name would be Locke if my Grandma had been a man.

 

That's what I do. I have a blog, and a growing podcast. I practice civil disobedience and other direct political activism. I'm moving to New Hampshire to join the free state project. I'm associated with various projects and organizations, etc.

I'll leave you with a quote as well that I think you'll enjoy. . "A truly free society can not exist when we have been so thoroughly propagandized as to define freedom in terms of a government grated privilege rather than a universal moral principle."

 

That's great. The only way to create a true and lasting change is to open eachothers' eyes and teach the next generation that this isn't how it's supposed to be.

I'm glad there are people out there actively trying to instigate change, unlike my lazy ass. I've mostly lost hope for the general population, especially my generation. My current philosophy is a selfish one. That I'll just beat the system(get ahead) and then refuse to participate in this hamster wheel they've got us running.

You are right, I love that quote, plays right into my earlier suggestion that education is the first step. Also definition is a important thing to maintain. Most of my arguments with people come down to people defining words in warped ways. As a role model of mine, Lawrence Krauss, puts it, a "word salad." I can't have these kind of discussions and debates with people before they start defending themselves with what I like to call the "word salad fallacy." They just start spouting words they don't even comprehend well enough to use.

Anyway, congratulations on standing up for liberty and freedom. I hope to someday as well, in my own way.

 

Let's start by the easiest ones to prove practical, law and order.
Go outside one day and try to bully some people into giving you their money, you will last maybe a couple of minutes before the police takes you into custody. In that narrow sense it works. Now try to rape people, same thing wil happen. Try to enter into someone's home, same thing will happen. Try to drive your car in a sidewalk, same thing will happen. Security works in a huge amount of cases. There is a very limited amount of private security systems, namely in very poor war ridden south african countries. And there was private security at many points in the past. Not in a single case I would rather live in that time/place than right now in USA. If you would, you would sacrifice a lot of priviliges just so you can have some freedoms.

Same thing with law, law works very effectively in the USA, it's not perfect, as you may know, and it's elaborately intricated. But it actually works. Try enslaving someone and you'll see it working right in front of your eyes.

To try and change the hardest parts of the state without changing the simplest parts first. Is a pursuit destined to fail.

 

I’m simply suggesting that a monopoly on security funded through extortion isn’t the best way to go about it. Having a single service with no legal or contractual obligation to protect you simply isn’t the best idea.
The same goes for Law. You can have dispute resolution organizations that have a market incentive to provide fair, simple, and transparent rulings.
I’m all for finding practical ways to change the system, if that means start by winning the small fights so be it. But I’m not going to defend institutions that are neither ethical nor practical, they aren’t necessary evils. You can have the same services provided in ways that don’t require the initiation of force against peaceful individuals. Taking a monopoly away from the state and letting competing groups struggle to provide the service cheaper and more efficiently is a better way to go.