Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 70

Thread: Anarchy.

  1. #21
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    80
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by eliotitus View Post
    This statement doesn't seem very clear. What do you mean by it? Certainely the case angryhippo has been forwarding (while not necessarily matching your own) is that the prevention of monopolies relies entirely on businesses being afraid of holding one with a discontent market. I.e. afraid of the people.

    But again why should this necessarily become true in an anarchist society? The statement ultimately doesn't mean very much.

    Ultimately I'd like you to elaborate on what you mean and why this is the case, as right now the statement means almost nothing.
    That statement was a joke. In the movie V for vendetta the main charactar says "people should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people". Thats why I included an lol.

    Anyway, in a society where no one is protected by laws, but only by like minded people. Organizations or people who tried to take advantage of the majority would fail. No action would even be necessary against the bread monopoly guy, just stop buying from him and he will go broke. People can always make their own bread easily for a little while, but this is still very unlikely to happen in Anarchy in the first place.

    ---------- Post added at 12:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:35 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    The advantage of law, though, is that it sets into place appropriate action, making it easier (and therefore, more likely) that such action will take place. People vary on what they consider appropriate action and in a society with no laws, no one's opinion could override the other's. Hell, the person who is stealing might think he would be taking "appropriate action" by robbing from the rich and giving to the poor (i.e., himself) while the rich man who he is stealing from would almost certainly consider his robber's action completely inappropriate. It is not easy to differentiate between appropriate and inappropriate action. If it were, an entire branch of philosophy (ethics) would not need to be dedicated to it.
    No universal laws can offer the best punishments in all cases, they are set up as generalities that are usually less relevant more than 50% of the time due to massive area they apply to.

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    Exactly what type of online education are you talking about? If you are talking about online universities such as the University of Phoenix, then you would still need to pay intructors and staff, which would mean people would still have to pay a decent amount of money for enrollment.
    There are also websites that offer free learning materials, all you have to do is google what you need. The point of going to college seems more like proving you're smart then actually learning because everything is easily attainable now.

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    Nor can teachers. I am not quite grasping your point here.
    Why spend everyones money to pay for people who do want to go to school (bullies) to waste time by picking on those who do. Learning has to be a personal desire, and by forcing them to go they are doing nothing but wasting money and distracting other students. In an Anarchist society this would not be a problem in schools. Firstly the amount of people being forced against there will would decrease, and secondly schools would be way more concerned with these situations because there survival as a business of education would depend on it, if they could not handle it, the other (independent) schools will.

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    This certainly does not make anarchy an attractive philosophy. Demanding that a young child take things into their own hands is absolutely absurd. There is no way they could fend for themselves.
    I never said fend for themselves. I said either find a new family or wait until they are capable of paying for their educatrion themselves if their parents do not want to (they would most likely be an adult by now). And if there are still a lot of orphans, those who are willing to take care of them and those who want to donate would solve the problem.

    ---------- Post added at 01:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It's not irrefutable. You are suggesting something that has never been tried. For all you know, 50% of the people in your scenario can't afford the education that we all get as a guarantee.


    What if a good K-12 education costs $50,000 and since there's likewise no law saying that a child must have an education and many parents feel they'd rather have the child working for them? Perhaps most kids won't have an education.
    Thats a doubtful price, competition causes prices to fall not rise, and people can always homeschool.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And with no rules preventing monopolies, monopolies are very likely to happen so it could be that there is only one company performing education services and it can charge whatever it wants.
    A law would not fix anything. If their is a market desire for more schools all somebody has to do is open one for a lower price and start making money.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If the good outnumbered the bad, crime would be rare no matter what kind of system we had.

    The fact is crime happens, people murder people and want to get away with it, people rip off other people, there are often shortages of desired things which can cause conflict. The notion that if we just let it all go everyone will get along seems incredibly naive and unrealistic. If you are going to forward that without laws, murder and theft will dramatically decrease, you will need to support that without something other than what appears to be wishful thinking.
    There is no expectation that everyone is going to get along perfectly. Currently criminals are only afraid of the police, but if everyone had means of self defense and the will to protect themselves, they would quickly dwindle in numbers. However, the use of guns to protect oneself are strictly regulated thanks to our governments.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Let's say Mr. Smith is an incredibly rich and powerful man. He has numerous hired goons that will do whatever he asks because he pays them. So Mr. Smith has these goons kidnap your sister and then Mr. Smith rapes and kills her (and he does this with many other woman on a regular basis). Understandably you want justice. Now, given that Mr. Smith will always have more money and goons than you can muster and lives in a very secure place where you can't physically get to him, how are you going to get justice?

    If you do not respond directly, then clearly the answer is you can't.

    And this answer goes for every single crime where the victim is not as powerful as the criminal.
    I would gather my own forces by asking friends for help and compensating people, and then kill them all. It would be a public service, not only would those criminals be eliminated, but a message would be sent to anyone else who has the desire to be evil that they will be dealt with as well.
    Last edited by Martyr; January 21st, 2010 at 11:06 AM. Reason: typeo
    Resist Delusion!

  2. #22
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,697
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by angryhippo View Post
    Also, if i saw a market i could set up a lemonade stand type thing for bread, i could do it in an anarchy. there would also be other home grown type stores that could compete on the local market.
    Okay. And then The Bread Company (that's what we'll call the monopoly) drops the prices of their bread drastically in your area so you can't financially compete and you go out of business. They can do this as they are a large corporation and can offset the losses they garner putting you out of business with the other stores that have higher prices.

    Or maybe they get their goons (they certainly have enough money to hire goons) to go to your town and burn down your store.

    In an anarchy, there is nothing to stop them from doing either of these things (although both of these practices are completely illegal in our current society).

  3. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    U.S. of A
    Posts
    92
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Okay. And then The Bread Company (that's what we'll call the monopoly) drops the prices of their bread drastically in your area so you can't financially compete and you go out of business. They can do this as they are a large corporation and can offset the losses they garner putting you out of business with the other stores that have higher prices.

    Or maybe they get their goons (they certainly have enough money to hire goons) to go to your town and burn down your store.

    In an anarchy, there is nothing to stop them from doing either of these things (although both of these practices are completely illegal in our current society).

    If they lower the bread prices, then ill be happy. As for the bread stand, being a baker was never my passion.
    I am Hippo

  4. #24
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,697
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by angryhippo View Post
    If they lower the bread prices, then ill be happy.
    Yeah, but they lower for just long enough to put your bread store out of business and then they raise them back to their normal price, which would be higher than if there was competition that could stand up to them.

  5. #25
    ODN Administrator

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rural Southern Indiana
    Posts
    5,285
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Yeah, but they lower for just long enough to put your bread store out of business and then they raise them back to their normal price, which would be higher than if there was competition that could stand up to them.
    At which point there'll be a market for cheaper bread...
    "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped." ~ Monty Python


  6. #26
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,697
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    At which point there'll be a market for cheaper bread...
    But no outlet for cheaper bread once The Bread Company (monopoly) forces the local bread company to shut down by undercutting their prices. Or if The Bread Company (monopoly) can figure out a way to make really cheap (but bad since they will have to use cheaper products to make a profit off cheap bread) then they'll get cheap, bad bread.

    But as long as there's a monopoly, if the monopoly chooses to not provide inexpensive good bread, then none will be available (since there will be no competition to get them to lower their prices).

  7. #27
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    80
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But no outlet for cheaper bread once The Bread Company (monopoly) forces the local bread company to shut down by undercutting their prices. Or if The Bread Company (monopoly) can figure out a way to make really cheap (but bad since they will have to use cheaper products to make a profit off cheap bread) then they'll get cheap, bad bread.

    But as long as there's a monopoly, if the monopoly chooses to not provide inexpensive good bread, then none will be available (since there will be no competition to get them to lower their prices).
    Why are you concerned with bread when the government has monopolies on education, law enforcement, and the military?
    Resist Delusion!

  8. #28
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    Why are you concerned with bread when the government has monopolies on education, law enforcement, and the military?
    The government is an elected body and has mechanisms specifically designed for the discontent majority to alter it without starting a blood war. The same is not true of a private corporation.
    -=]Eliotitus[=-
    "Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future"- Oscar Wilde

  9. #29
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,697
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    Why are you concerned with bread when the government has monopolies on education, law enforcement, and the military?
    I'm using bread as an example. What goes for bread goes for everything else.

    And since there are private schools, the government currently does not have a monopoly on education. You can likewise hire private detectives and private security guards so the government does not have a monopoly on those either.

    But remove the laws banning monopolies, then probably everything (bread is only one example) will be monopolized.

    Without laws saying you can't have a monopoly, what's to stop the biggest security company from buying out all competitors or removing them by other means? And if there's only one security company and I have more money than you, then I can pretty much do bad things to you and there's nothing you can do about. It will truly be a system where those with the most have carte blanch over those who have the least. There will be no laws against murder so I could hire the sole security company to kill people in your family and since you can't hire the security company against me (since I'm a bigger client since I have more money than you), there's really nothing you can do about it.

  10. #30
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    80
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by eliotitus View Post
    The government is an elected body and has mechanisms specifically designed for the discontent majority to alter it without starting a blood war. The same is not true of a private corporation.
    Support or retract. All you have to do is stop buying from corporations if you don't like them, and there are always other choices, but with governments you have but one. Electing people is a long and annoying process, and you usually end up with people who go against their word since they are politicians, so altering of the system is extremely difficult.

    There are a thousand different companies you can buy groceries from, but only one for education, so why would a blood war be required if you don't like one of the grocery stores?

    ---------- Post added at 01:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:20 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm using bread as an example. What goes for bread goes for everything else.

    And since there are private schools, the government currently does not have a monopoly on education. You can likewise hire private detectives and private security guards so the government does not have a monopoly on those either.
    Hardly anyone can afford to pay for their kids to go to private school and public school through taxes, it is unjust. They poscess the only school that you have to pay for anyway, so it is still a monopoly, same goes for the police.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But remove the laws banning monopolies, then probably everything (bread is only one example) will be monopolized.

    Without laws saying you can't have a monopoly, what's to stop the biggest security company from buying out all competitors or removing them by other means? And if there's only one security company and I have more money than you, then I can pretty much do bad things to you and there's nothing you can do about. It will truly be a system where those with the most have carte blanch over those who have the least. There will be no laws against murder so I could hire the sole security company to kill people in your family and since you can't hire the security company against me (since I'm a bigger client since I have more money than you), there's really nothing you can do about it.
    You have forgotten one of the most important aspects of business: public relations. Any company that does the sort of thing you are talking about is going to lose all of its business because people are going to be afraid of them. If they charge too much or provide bad services, other competing companies will rise up without fail, and if they dare to use evil methods they themselves will be dealt with or lose all of their business from angry customers.
    Last edited by Martyr; January 22nd, 2010 at 11:28 AM. Reason: Further explanation.
    Resist Delusion!

  11. #31
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,697
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    Support or retract. All you have to do is stop buying from corporations if you don't like them, and there are always other choices, but with governments you have but one.
    I see no reason to conclude that under anarchy it will be guaranteed that you will have have other choices.

    I was using one particular product, bread, to demonstrate this. Below you mentioned groceries, so let's change the example to groceries instead of bread. Now tell me how, tell me how, under anarchy, it's guaranteed that The Grocery Company (the hypothetical monopoly AKA TGC) cannot prevent competition.

    If you open your own grocery store in your town, The Grocery Company can lower its prices (in your area only - in others it will keep its high prices so it can handle the temporary loss from your area) so you can't financially compete and you go out of business (then it raises its prices to normal). Or TGC can even send goons to burn your store down and kill you. Or maybe they'll offer you a nice sum of money (with the threat of sending their goons if you refuse) to turn your store into a Grocery Store franchise (incorporating their prices of course) and if you refuse the goons burn your store down and kill you.

    What's to stop this from happening in an Anarchy? There certain will be no enforceable rules preventing this from happening (like there are in our current society).



    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    There are a thousand different companies you can buy groceries from, but only one for education, so why would a blood war be required if you don't like one of the grocery stores?
    There are thousands of different companies in our current non-anarchist society that has rules against monopolies. Remove those rules and then there are no rules preventing monopolies and one company can buy out all of the others (or use even more vicious means to get rid of them) until there is only one company.

    When talking about Anarchy, you are tossing out more than the government and leaving all of the other good things about having a rule of law. Under anarchy, the rule of law is tossed as well so there are no laws against monopolies nor laws against these monopolies using murder to maintain their monopolies.

    (And really, under anarchy, you have to remove money from the equation for a currency has to be backed by something to effectively be currency - under anarchy, our dollars will be green paper and their worth would be for burning for heat or toilet paper, but I prefer to debate the above issue, so I'll let this issue slide and we'll say that money and commerce is still possible in an anarchy. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong about this, but I really doubt it)

    ---------- Post added at 02:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:47 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    Hardly anyone can afford to pay for their kids to go to private school and public school through taxes, it is unjust.
    And without public schools, if you can't afford to pay for private school (and they will all be private), then your child gets no education whatsoever.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    They poscess the only school that you have to pay for anyway, so it is still a monopoly, same goes for the police.
    Who's "they"?

    And again, if you want a crime solved, you can hire a private detective.

    And it's a good thing that there's a monopoly on justice. If men with guns were a private thing under the capitalist principle, then what incentive is there for the police to work on behalf of the people as a whole? I mean if they're just doing it for the money, then why should they solve a murder if no one (like the victim's family) is paying them to solve it or if the murderer pays them even more to not solve it? For that matter, why shouldn't they accept payment to arrest and lock someone up who's committed no crime if the pay is good enough? Or what about payment to shoot someone and doing it only because they are being paid to do it (the guilt or innocence of the person they shoot is completely irrelevant and therefore they are in no way serving justice, just making money)?

    I prefer a police force that is paid by public funds and therefore are beholden to work on behalf of everyone and only concern themselves with whether a law was broken, not if the person who broke the law can pay them to not arrest him (which would be a significant factor in a for-profit police department).


    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    You have forgotten one of the most important aspects of business: public relations. Any company that does the sort of thing you are talking about is going to lose all of its business because people are going to be afraid of them. If they charge too much or provide bad services, other competing companies will rise up without fail, and if they dare to use evil methods they themselves will be dealt with or lose all of their business from angry customers.
    Until you can show that monopolies will not exist in an anarchy, a company doesn't necessarily need to good will of the people. If The Grocery Store is the only store that sells groceries, then if you want groceries, you're going there.

    I mean there's probably a limit to how crappy The Grocery Company can be even if it's a monopoly for if it raised prices so high that no one could afford to eat and everyone was starving, there would probably be a mass revolt, but it certainly does not have to be as good as the stores we have nowadays that do need to compete with each other because the law will not allow monopolies.
    Last edited by mican333; January 22nd, 2010 at 01:09 PM.

  12. #32
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    Support or retract. All you have to do is stop buying from corporations if you don't like them
    Successful companies destroy rival companies and attain a stronger hold on the resource they market. Monopolies will be the best case scenario for a business and they will be allowed to use whatever means no matter how nefarious they please to achieve this. As it is with legal bodies in place consumers fail to boycott unethical companies because the average person who buys things doesn't research the background of a company. Your business being lost because you think they're unethical will ultimately hit you far harder than it does them.

    If your theories on mass boycotts of unethical companies don't work in a regulated system how on earth are they going to be successful in an unregulated one?

    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    and there are always other choices, but with governments you have but one. Electing people is a long and annoying process, and you usually end up with people who go against their word since they are politicians, so altering of the system is extremely difficult.
    Politicians do not by definition go against their word. If you have such a massive problem with politics as it is you are fortunate in that you are completely free to run for office or join a political party and attempt to make that change yourself. Indeed if people in a broader society had the responsibility you seem to claim they are capable of in introducing an anarchist society at the moment they should be rising up against this monopoly of government as it is right now. They are not. What leads you to believe they will be willing and capable of doing so against a private monopoly which they have no say in the running of?

    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    There are a thousand different companies you can buy groceries from
    And when new ones start up they are helped by the government to be in a position where they can keep up with mass chains due to laws against monopolies. They are not smashed to pieces by thugs sent by rival would be monopolists. There are thousands because government fosters competition that cannot attain a monopoly. Remove the cap of monopoly and minor business will not be capable of competing and starting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    but only one for education
    Ignoring private schools... Furthermore people are only capable of higher education because of how heavily it's subsidised by the government. Higher education, especially in the sciences cost 10s of thousands. The segregation of classes would become greater than ever

    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    so why would a blood war be required if you don't like one of the grocery stores?
    Because the competition only exists because it is fostered by the government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    Hardly anyone can afford to pay for their kids to go to private school and public school through taxes, it is unjust.
    And this would change because?

    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    You have forgotten one of the most important aspects of business: public relations. Any company that does the sort of thing you are talking about is going to lose all of its business because people are going to be afraid of them. If they charge too much or provide bad services, other competing companies will rise up without fail, and if they dare to use evil methods they themselves will be dealt with or lose all of their business from angry customers.
    Right:

    Because the general public are so good at discovering unethical tendencies in companies...
    -=]Eliotitus[=-
    "Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future"- Oscar Wilde

  13. #33
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    1,961
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    No universal laws can offer the best punishments in all cases, they are set up as generalities that are usually less relevant more than 50% of the time due to massive area they apply to.
    Universal law can certainly not offer the best punishments in all cases. I will concede to you there, though that is an unfair judgement to put on anything considering nothing works perfectly in all cases. I am also going to have to ask that you defend your statement about them being irrelevant fifty percent of the time.

    Established laws, however, do provide us with a standard of right and wrong which can successfully end disputes. Anarchist "law" cannot.

    There are also websites that offer free learning materials, all you have to do is google what you need. The point of going to college seems more like proving you're smart then actually learning because everything is easily attainable now.
    You ar correct. The purpose of a college diploma is to prove one's intelligence, but this is certainly valuable for a functioning society. From the standpoint of an employer, college is very valuable in that it provides some proof that the employee is capable of understanding the material relevant to his/her job.

    It is also valuable from the standpoint of the customer. Imagine you are going into surgery. Wouldn't you want some proof your surgeon is knowledgeable enough to perform surgery on you without killing you or causing you extreme, long term, physical problems? Wouldn't you also want to make sure your anesthesiologist understood enough about anesthesia to prevent you from waking up in the middle of being cut open? I certainly would, and I think it is safe to say most people would, too. What better way of providing at least some probability that these individuals are qualified to do what they are doing than a diploma from a reputable university?

    Why spend everyones money to pay for people who do want to go to school (bullies) to waste time by picking on those who do.
    To reiterate, I agree with you. Bullies who cause a lot of problems in school should be taken out.

    In an Anarchist society this would not be a problem in schools. Firstly the amount of people being forced against there will would decrease,
    You have no proof of this. Parents are going to want their children to have an education whether their children like it or not.

    and secondly schools would be way more concerned with these situations because there survival as a business of education would depend on it, if they could not handle it, the other (independent) schools will.
    Schools for profit might actually have the opposite effect. Take this scenario for instance; we have five children going to a private school. Each one of them is paying five hundred dollars per semester. They enjoy picking on this poor little weakling of a kid. What exactly do you think this private school of yours is going to do? Kick these five kids ($2500) out of school to protect this one student ($500)?

    Public education, on the other hand, would not put a dollar sign on our children like that. It would not have to decide on the most profitable course of action vs. the best thing to do for the student. It would simply deal with these children.

    I never said fend for themselves. I said either find a new family or wait until they are capable of paying for their educatrion themselves if their parents do not want to (they would most likely be an adult by now).
    And while they are waiting for a new family or capable of paying for their education themselves?

    And if there are still a lot of orphans, those who are willing to take care of them and those who want to donate would solve the problem.
    This does not seem like a very secure bet. What makes you think there are enough people to donate and solve this problem in the first place. Certainly if there were now, we would not have problems with orphaned children.

  14. #34
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    80
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I see no reason to conclude that under anarchy it will be guaranteed that you will have have other choices.

    I was using one particular product, bread, to demonstrate this. Below you mentioned groceries, so let's change the example to groceries instead of bread. Now tell me how, tell me how, under anarchy, it's guaranteed that The Grocery Company (the hypothetical monopoly AKA TGC) cannot prevent competition.

    If you open your own grocery store in your town, The Grocery Company can lower its prices (in your area only - in others it will keep its high prices so it can handle the temporary loss from your area) so you can't financially compete and you go out of business (then it raises its prices to normal). Or TGC can even send goons to burn your store down and kill you. Or maybe they'll offer you a nice sum of money (with the threat of sending their goons if you refuse) to turn your store into a Grocery Store franchise (incorporating their prices of course) and if you refuse the goons burn your store down and kill you.

    What's to stop this from happening in an Anarchy? There certain will be no enforceable rules preventing this from happening (like there are in our current society).

    There are thousands of different companies in our current non-anarchist society that has rules against monopolies. Remove those rules and then there are no rules preventing monopolies and one company can buy out all of the others (or use even more vicious means to get rid of them) until there is only one company.

    When talking about Anarchy, you are tossing out more than the government and leaving all of the other good things about having a rule of law. Under anarchy, the rule of law is tossed as well so there are no laws against monopolies nor laws against these monopolies using murder to maintain their monopolies.
    If TGC raises prices in one area, it will leave an opening for competing grocery stores to service customers at a reasonable price. If TGC then decides to lower its prices to drive the competition out of business it will only be a temporary solution, it will just revert back if they raise their prices again. If TGC decides to use muscle to drive the competition out, it will be futile in Anarchy because everyone will be thoroughly armed and trained in self-defense. Not only will TGC fail to eliminate the competition, but they will also gain a horrible repuation for price manipulation and or other means which will result in them losing sales and most likely going out of business unless they change their ways.

    These laws make it easier for monopolies to form. Their are so many rules and regulations that it is nearly impossible for new businesses to spring up and compete with long standing ones. The possibility of mistakes resulting in fines for new business are tremendous - they are inexsperienced and lack the funding to hire lawyers to protect there company from the system. And I'm afraid it gets even worse, thanks to patenting laws small mom and pop farms are being drived out of business by being sued. http://www.hulu.com/watch/67878/the-future-of-food In a nutshell: The big seed company is "finding" their seeds (which is almost all seeds since they got them patented) in local farms and then suing them for everything they have.

    ---------- Post added at 02:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:47 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And it's a good thing that there's a monopoly on justice. If men with guns were a private thing under the capitalist principle, then what incentive is there for the police to work on behalf of the people as a whole? I mean if they're just doing it for the money, then why should they solve a murder if no one (like the victim's family) is paying them to solve it or if the murderer pays them even more to not solve it? For that matter, why shouldn't they accept payment to arrest and lock someone up who's committed no crime if the pay is good enough? Or what about payment to shoot someone and doing it only because they are being paid to do it (the guilt or innocence of the person they shoot is completely irrelevant and therefore they are in no way serving justice, just making money)?

    I prefer a police force that is paid by public funds and therefore are beholden to work on behalf of everyone and only concern themselves with whether a law was broken, not if the person who broke the law can pay them to not arrest him (which would be a significant factor in a for-profit police department).
    Most likely the community would all pay for protection and investigations in there neighborhood. They would be able to choose which companies to use based on there effectiveness and prices which would make it way more accomdating for communites with different amounts of money, or they could just do it themselves.

    ---------- Post added at 12:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:08 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eliotitus View Post
    Successful companies destroy rival companies and attain a stronger hold on the resource they market. Monopolies will be the best case scenario for a business and they will be allowed to use whatever means no matter how nefarious they please to achieve this. As it is with legal bodies in place consumers fail to boycott unethical companies because the average person who buys things doesn't research the background of a company. Your business being lost because you think they're unethical will ultimately hit you far harder than it does them.

    If your theories on mass boycotts of unethical companies don't work in a regulated system how on earth are they going to be successful in an unregulated one?
    You are correct when you say the average person does not research anything about a store, but that is not the only reason they would stop buying from them. Price manipulation would drive them to other stores because there would be no reliability for a good deal, and fear of them using muscle if word gets out would also reduce sales. Look at how the biggest company in the world has succeeded. By offering what the market wants, low prices and moderate quality -WalMart. They have no need to hire muscle to eliminate the competition nor to raise prices in specific areas, in fact, that would result in their repuation as a low cost store going down and them losing money.

    Quote Originally Posted by eliotitus View Post
    Politicians do not by definition go against their word. If you have such a massive problem with politics as it is you are fortunate in that you are completely free to run for office or join a political party and attempt to make that change yourself. Indeed if people in a broader society had the responsibility you seem to claim they are capable of in introducing an anarchist society at the moment they should be rising up against this monopoly of government as it is right now. They are not. What leads you to believe they will be willing and capable of doing so against a private monopoly which they have no say in the running of?
    Just wait for disgust ratings to reach an all time high, and the people will go mad.

    Quote Originally Posted by eliotitus View Post
    And when new ones start up they are helped by the government to be in a position where they can keep up with mass chains due to laws against monopolies. They are not smashed to pieces by thugs sent by rival would be monopolists. There are thousands because government fosters competition that cannot attain a monopoly. Remove the cap of monopoly and minor business will not be capable of competing and starting.
    They arent helping small businesses when they make it easy for big ones to sue them for infringement, nor when they make so many regulations that it is hard to not accidently break some of them and then be fined by "the helping hand".

    Quote Originally Posted by eliotitus View Post
    Right:

    Because the general public are so good at discovering unethical tendencies in companies...
    You have forgotten the only alternative that is available to that child. He can either endure hard labor or strave to death, so do you want to regulate that evil company that is allowing him to live through work instead of crime?

    ---------- Post added at 12:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    Universal law can certainly not offer the best punishments in all cases. I will concede to you there, though that is an unfair judgement to put on anything considering nothing works perfectly in all cases. I am also going to have to ask that you defend your statement about them being irrelevant fifty percent of the time.

    Established laws, however, do provide us with a standard of right and wrong which can successfully end disputes. Anarchist "law" cannot.
    They may provide the standard, but they fail to uphold it. I have no way of proving, nor should I have to, how corrupt the justice system is. The system has so many loopholes and mistakes that anyone with enough influence can get away with crimes continuously.


    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    It is also valuable from the standpoint of the customer. Imagine you are going into surgery. Wouldn't you want some proof your surgeon is knowledgeable enough to perform surgery on you without killing you or causing you extreme, long term, physical problems? Wouldn't you also want to make sure your anesthesiologist understood enough about anesthesia to prevent you from waking up in the middle of being cut open? I certainly would, and I think it is safe to say most people would, too. What better way of providing at least some probability that these individuals are qualified to do what they are doing than a diploma from a reputable university?
    I agree, and the demand for this would favor reputable colleges that are able to compete without government aid, which also results in cheaper tuition costs. Why bother to strive for excellence if the government will support you either way?

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    You have no proof of this. Parents are going to want their children to have an education whether their children like it or not.
    Thats right, a lot of parents will try to force their children to learn, but good schools will refuse service to students who harm the school's learning environment. Failure to do so will most likely result in reduced sales, which will force students to either not pick on others or pick a lesser school that allows this.

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    Schools for profit might actually have the opposite effect. Take this scenario for instance; we have five children going to a private school. Each one of them is paying five hundred dollars per semester. They enjoy picking on this poor little weakling of a kid. What exactly do you think this private school of yours is going to do? Kick these five kids ($2500) out of school to protect this one student ($500)?
    They already do. If they don't, they will lose reputation which will result in more than the reduced sales from kicking the bullies out. They would however, try to change the bullies before kicking them out unless they have a zero tolerance rule.

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    Public education, on the other hand, would not put a dollar sign on our children like that. It would not have to decide on the most profitable course of action vs. the best thing to do for the student. It would simply deal with these children.
    Public education has failed miserably to deal with these bullies. They have no reason to try and be better because the government will always be their to save them when they fail. Walk into any school in a bad neighborhood and you will see the same - students who pick on other students and teachers who try not to notice.


    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    This does not seem like a very secure bet. What makes you think there are enough people to donate and solve this problem in the first place. Certainly if there were now, we would not have problems with orphaned children.
    In Anarchy people would not be taxed to death, so the mean amount of money everyone owns would be higher. This would make donating not seem like such a burden, and people who like these type of societies have a tendency to be very involved with their community. In the old days, orphans were very rare because mothers who decided to abandom them would be treated as black sheep for making such an inmoral decision. Anarchy would be like the old days with new technology.
    Resist Delusion!

  15. #35
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,697
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    If TGC raises prices in one area, it will leave an opening for competing grocery stores to service customers at a reasonable price. If TGC then decides to lower its prices to drive the competition out of business it will only be a temporary solution, it will just revert back if they raise their prices again.
    How can a company that's out of business "revert back"? A company that's out of business no longer exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    If TGC decides to use muscle to drive the competition out, it will be futile in Anarchy because everyone will be thoroughly armed and trained in self-defense.
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that everyone, in an anarchistic society, would be thoroughly armed and trained in self-defense. I mean if I don't own a gun now (even though I can legally own one) and am not proficient in using firearms, why would it be different if I were living in an anarchy. I mean can't I still choose to live without a gun if that's my choice (and it has to be assumed that people are free to make any choice they want in anarchy)?

    And amongst those who do have guns, there is no guarantee that they will be trained in self-defense and/or willing to risk their lives to save someone else' grocery store.

    And of course TGC can burn the store down when no one's looking (sneaky arsonists) so self-defense isn't an option to save the store.

    Or TGC can estimate how much armed defense there would be if they attacked to store (let's say, through spies, they estimate that the owner will muster ten armed citizens to defend the store if it's attacked) and make sure to bring twice as many (twenty) goons to attack it (and the goons will likely be better trained than average folk since it's their job to fight and they work for a powerful corporation who can afford to train them well). In that realistic scenario (under anarchy) the mom-and-pop grocery store doesn't stand a chance. The owner will be killed and it'd be extremely doubtful that anyone else in that town will have the guts to open another local store.


    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    These laws make it easier for monopolies to form. Their are so many rules and regulations that it is nearly impossible for new businesses to spring up and compete with long standing ones. The possibility of mistakes resulting in fines for new business are tremendous - they are inexsperienced and lack the funding to hire lawyers to protect there company from the system. And I'm afraid it gets even worse, thanks to patenting laws small mom and pop farms are being drived out of business by being sued. http://www.hulu.com/watch/67878/the-future-of-food In a nutshell: The big seed company is "finding" their seeds (which is almost all seeds since they got them patented) in local farms and then suing them for everything they have.
    And in an anarchy big business doesn't use patent laws to get rid of smaller companies - they use violence. It's even more effective than trying to use the law because the law might rule against them. Company goons, on the other hand, are guaranteed to see it their way and do what they want.

    And regardless, the fact is most businesses and services in the US are not monopolized and this is because there is a rule in the US that there can be no monopolies so your statement that the laws make it easier for there to be monopolies is clearly wrong. I think things are getting more and more monopolized (especially in the media) because these laws are systematically being weakened. BUT remove the laws altogether (anarchy) and pace towards monopolies will speed up drastically. It's just a natural business process for the largest company to buy out the smaller ones and it's only the rules that say "no monopolies" that stop it from going all of the way. The phone company used to be a monopoly and the government broke it up. Without that, the phone company would still be a monopoly and the thing is the people tolerated it so the notion that the people will rise up en masse to overthrow monopolies just because they are monopolies (like The Grocery Company) is without evidence.

    As I said earlier, The Grocery Company has to generally provide a tolerable level of service or else it may very well face a mass revolt. But it certainly does not have to do as well as companies that do compete against each other have to do. So with a Grocery monopoly, you should still be able to get your food at a price you can afford, but it won't be as good as if competition still existed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    Most likely the community would all pay for protection and investigations in there neighborhood. They would be able to choose which companies to use based on there effectiveness and prices which would make it way more accomdating for communites with different amounts of money, or they could just do it themselves.
    Just as there could very well be just one Grocery Company, there is nothing stopping one security company from monopolizing all security business and removing all competitors (and since the company specializes in violence, this is even more likely).

    And who will the The Security Company represent when it comes down to a conflict between A and B? Whoever pays them the best, of course - who's right and who's wrong is completely irrelevant. If you want TSC to kill your neighbor because he killed your daughter, TSC may take care of it if you pay them but that's not because they care about justice - it's because you payed them to kill him. So for that matter, you can hire TSC to kill your neighbor because you want to steal his wife and you can't do that while her husband is still alive. And of course if your neighbor will pay TSC more than you can, then TSC will not kill him even if justice demands that he be punished for killing your daughter.

    In other words, there will be no justice anymore.

    Right and wrong is no matter what counts in who ends up getting killed (or otherwise harmed) by the security monopoly. It's who has the most money that calls the shots. And since power corrupts, it's not likely going to be good people pulling the strings.
    Last edited by mican333; January 23rd, 2010 at 04:23 PM.

  16. #36
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    80
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    How can a company that's out of business "revert back"? A company that's out of business no longer exists.
    Just because it is out of business does not mean it cannot come back or another company can take its place.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that everyone, in an anarchistic society, would be thoroughly armed and trained in self-defense. I mean if I don't own a gun now (even though I can legally own one) and am not proficient in using firearms, why would it be different if I were living in an anarchy. I mean can't I still choose to live without a gun if that's my choice (and it has to be assumed that people are free to make any choice they want in anarchy)?
    For a society to become an Anarchist one permanently: a majority of its members have to agree with its philosophy and Anarchists believe in taking matters into their own hands, so if there was crime, the people would prepare for it by training and arming themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And amongst those who do have guns, there is no guarantee that they will be trained in self-defense and/or willing to risk their lives to save someone else' grocery store.
    All Anarchist share in common their disgust for criminals, so they most likely would be willing to aid another in their plight against them.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And of course TGC can burn the store down when no one's looking (sneaky arsonists) so self-defense isn't an option to save the store.
    They still have a good chance of being caught. Cameras, Security Guads, or bistanders may see and identify them. They may get away with it for awhile, but they will be caught red handed eventually, and then dealt with.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Or TGC can estimate how much armed defense there would be if they attacked to store (let's say, through spies, they estimate that the owner will muster ten armed citizens to defend the store if it's attacked) and make sure to bring twice as many (twenty) goons to attack it (and the goons will likely be better trained than average folk since it's their job to fight and they work for a powerful corporation who can afford to train them well). In that realistic scenario (under anarchy) the mom-and-pop grocery store doesn't stand a chance. The owner will be killed and it'd be extremely doubtful that anyone else in that town will have the guts to open another local store.
    It is highly unlikely that TGC will ever get this powererful or corrupt, and being a criminal would be one of the worst jobs imaginable in an Anarchist society because Anarchist take matters into there own hands. Assuming that this very rare event occured: the company would get so much bad PR that they would go out of business from lack of sales or other means.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And in an anarchy big business doesn't use patent laws to get rid of smaller companies - they use violence. It's even more effective than trying to use the law because the law might rule against them. Company goons, on the other hand, are guaranteed to see it their way and do what they want.
    Anarchy gives power to the individual, so things like this are rare to happen because the common people hate it tremendously.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And regardless, the fact is most businesses and services in the US are not monopolized and this is because there is a rule in the US that there can be no monopolies so your statement that the laws make it easier for there to be monopolies is clearly wrong. I think things are getting more and more monopolized (especially in the media) because these laws are systematically being weakened. BUT remove the laws altogether (anarchy) and pace towards monopolies will speed up drastically. It's just a natural business process for the largest company to buy out the smaller ones and it's only the rules that say "no monopolies" that stop it from going all of the way. The phone company used to be a monopoly and the government broke it up. Without that, the phone company would still be a monopoly and the thing is the people tolerated it so the notion that the people will rise up en masse to overthrow monopolies just because they are monopolies (like The Grocery Company) is without evidence.
    Their is no reason to rise up to throw down a company that provides bad services. In time, competing companies will spring up because the market will have a demand for them. The people will prevent evil, so the big company will find it incredibly difficult to do anything beyond price manipulation to its competitors. Not all monopolies are bad ones. Companies that continue to provide better service than everyone else will and should become bigger. that's what the market is telling them and that is the natural order of things, but the day that they stop providing good service will mark the beginning of their company's demise.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    As I said earlier, The Grocery Company has to generally provide a tolerable level of service or else it may very well face a mass revolt. But it certainly does not have to do as well as companies that do compete against each other have to do. So with a Grocery monopoly, you should still be able to get your food at a price you can afford, but it won't be as good as if competition still existed.
    Only providing OK services will leave an opening for other people to provide great services, so you are incorrect in your assumption that they can slack off without suffering a loss in sales.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Just as there could very well be just one Grocery Company, there is nothing stopping one security company from monopolizing all security business and removing all competitors (and since the company specializes in violence, this is even more likely).

    And who will the The Security Company represent when it comes down to a conflict between A and B? Whoever pays them the best, of course - who's right and who's wrong is completely irrelevant. If you want TSC to kill your neighbor because he killed your daughter, TSC may take care of it if you pay them but that's not because they care about justice - it's because you payed them to kill him. So for that matter, you can hire TSC to kill your neighbor because you want to steal his wife and you can't do that while her husband is still alive. And of course if your neighbor will pay TSC more than you can, then TSC will not kill him even if justice demands that he be punished for killing your daughter.

    In other words, there will be no justice anymore.

    Right and wrong is no matter what counts in who ends up getting killed (or otherwise harmed) by the security monopoly. It's who has the most money that calls the shots. And since power corrupts, it's not likely going to be good people pulling the strings.
    It is true that the security company will provide better service to whoever pays them more, but they will NOT become mercenaries of evil. Anarchist's believe in justice, morality, and individualism so much that they are willing to uphold it, so unless this is not an Anarchist society, companies like that will never exist.
    Resist Delusion!

  17. #37
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,697
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    Just because it is out of business does not mean it cannot come back or another company can take its place.
    Yeah, and it doesn't mean that it will happen either. And after you've lost your business once and it's clear that you will lose it again if you re-open, do you think the banks will give you a business loan to pay for the re-opening? Of course not!


    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    For a society to become an Anarchist one permanently: a majority of its members have to agree with its philosophy and Anarchists believe in taking matters into their own hands, so if there was crime, the people would prepare for it by training and arming themselves.
    But I'm arguing that anarchy will not work with the human race as it is now, so a hypothetical group of people who happen to be able to effectively live in an anarchy is completely irrelevant. We're talking about the real world and whether an anarchy will work in the real world./


    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    All Anarchist share in common their disgust for criminals, so they most likely would be willing to aid another in their plight against them.
    First off, support that Anarchists are more likely to band together to fight criminals than any other person. You seem to be saying that Anarchists are more naturally inclined to organize to fight crime than the common person. Again, support or retract that this is so.

    And regardless, we are talking about whether Anarchy works better than what we have now and therefore that factors is people as they are now. So no, even if you are correct about anarchists effectively banding together to fight crime, it doesn't matter because most people are not anarchists and therefore you argument does not apply to most people.


    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    They still have a good chance of being caught. Cameras, Security Guads, or bistanders may see and identify them. They may get away with it for awhile, but they will be caught red handed eventually, and then dealt with.
    So what? The store was burnt down regardless. And even if you catch the arsonists, there's nothing stopping TGC from hiring another group of arsonists for future store burnings.


    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    It is highly unlikely that TGC will ever get this powererful or corrupt, and being a criminal would be one of the worst jobs imaginable in an Anarchist society because Anarchist take matters into there own hands.
    If there are no laws then there are no criminals. And I see no reason to accept your argument about how likely it is that TCG would not get too powerful.

    I mean what limit for growth is there for a company in a completely unregulated environment? It seems that monopolies are practically guaranteed without rules forbidding it. And it doesn't take dirty tricks like arson. The biggest companies just buy the smaller companies and if TGC offers it's competitor enough money, why wouldn't the competitor sell?

    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    Assuming that this very rare event occured: the company would get so much bad PR that they would go out of business from lack of sales or other means.
    IF TGC is a monopoly (which means there are no competitors) and people need to eat, how are they going to not buy what TGC sells?


    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    Anarchy gives power to the individual, so things like this are rare to happen because the common people hate it tremendously.
    All that Anarchy means is that there are no laws. PERIOD.

    It does not mean that people are any more likely to band together to fight what they don't like than they are now.

    In today's society, organized crime syndicates hold power over people who are often too afraid to go the police for fear of violence from The Mob (I'll use that term for organized crime). Without rules, I see it seems reasonable to assume that The Mob will hold even stronger rule over many people. And if you're saying The People will suddenly get up and fight The Mob, I will need to see some evidence that this is likely because all evidence I see right now shows that this definitely will not happen.

    And I am talking about how well anarchy will work with people as they are, not in some fantasy where the people suddenly become more brave and naturally organized and righteous so they no longer need rules and will solve all of their problems with people power.



    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    It is true that the security company will provide better service to whoever pays them more, but they will NOT become mercenaries of evil. Anarchist's believe in justice, morality, and individualism so much that they are willing to uphold it, so unless this is not an Anarchist society, companies like that will never exist.
    First off, I see no evidence that anarchists believe in justice or morality more than anyone else so before you say this again, SUPPORT OR RETRACT that it is so.

    And even if you can support that, I am arguing that anarchism will not work with people as they are. By arguing about some (unrealistically) idealized version of anarchists, you are basically admitting that anarchy will not work with real people. So either concede that anarchy will not work with real people or throw out your arguments about the nature of anarchists and start arguing that it will work with real people.

    And of course it won't work with real people. I mean realistically, if tomorrow the rule of law completely disappeared, one of the first things most people will want to to is reestablish rule of law. And of course anarchy cannot prevent this for if someone tried to prevent people from establishing rule of law then they are imposing their will on people and therefore not respecting their freedom to do what they want and therefore betraying the principles of anarchy (which I assume is allowing people to do what they want).
    Last edited by mican333; January 26th, 2010 at 09:01 AM.

  18. #38
    ODN Administrator

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rural Southern Indiana
    Posts
    5,285
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But no outlet for cheaper bread once The Bread Company (monopoly) forces the local bread company to shut down by undercutting their prices. Or if The Bread Company (monopoly) can figure out a way to make really cheap (but bad since they will have to use cheaper products to make a profit off cheap bread) then they'll get cheap, bad bread.

    But as long as there's a monopoly, if the monopoly chooses to not provide inexpensive good bread, then none will be available (since there will be no competition to get them to lower their prices).
    How are you able to assume that there's a market for bread in the first place? Or that people must buy bread, perhaps? In a stateless society, there would be no "mandatory" (read "coercive") purchasing of anything (as punishable by aggression). Even if you are the only company offering a good, if you're unreasonable, no one will buy your product. How long could you stay in business with no customers?
    "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped." ~ Monty Python


  19. #39
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    You are correct when you say the average person does not research anything about a store, but that is not the only reason they would stop buying from them. Price manipulation would drive them to other stores because there would be no reliability for a good deal
    So you expect people to en mass forcast that a company has simply lowered its prices to eliminate competition in the short term and use that short term competition, despite higher prices, in order to harm TGC? Forgive me if I'm somewhat more pessimistic about people's foresight until you substantiate that people en mass are capable of this to such a degree that they can hold the proverbial gun to a multi-million pound corporation's head.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    and fear of them using muscle if word gets out would also reduce sales.
    I'd like to reiterate my people do not research stores well enough to discover ethical issues with them en mass claim. A claim you yourself conceeded just the sentance before:

    You are correct when you say the average person does not research anything about a store
    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    Look at how the biggest company in the world has succeeded. By offering what the market wants, low prices and moderate quality -WalMart. They have no need to hire muscle to eliminate the competition nor to raise prices in specific areas, in fact, that would result in their repuation as a low cost store going down and them losing money.
    A company which succeeded in a regulated system. On what grounds do you assume that this company would survive or even use these methods in an unregulated one. All you've done is prove that a regulated system fosters large companies that offer low prices and good deals. Well done. Now assume WalMart attains a monopoly by using muscle. What's to stop them raising prices to increase profit margins. Alternatives are non-existant and easily eliminated, people either go without or go for higher prices.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    Just wait for disgust ratings to reach an all time high, and the people will go mad.
    So we have to wait for this every single time a monopoly comes along in your anarchist society? When was the last one of those in America? Ah yes I remember now, the American revolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    They arent helping small businesses when they make it easy for big ones to sue them for infringement, nor when they make so many regulations that it is hard to not accidently break some of them and then be fined by "the helping hand".
    Because if they allow people to break these rules then companies find it far easier to obliterate one another and attain a total monopoly, not just becoming dominant in a market.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    You have forgotten the only alternative that is available to that child. He can either endure hard labor or strave to death, so do you want to regulate that evil company that is allowing him to live through work instead of crime
    Irrelevant (I disagree as well bet don't want to get bogged down by it. My point pertained to what people interpreted as immoral actions in companies. Child labour is a prime example, go out in the street and ask people if they agree child labour should be allowed and they will answer no, not realising that numerous multi-national corporations exploit this.

    Again since you did not answer either point from my previous post I'm going to ask you two questions.

    1. Why do you believe mass boycots are going to be capable of being effected in an unregulated society to ensure fair prices and ethical practice when ethical practice is not even ensured by the threat of mass boycots in a regulated system.

    2. How do you intend to prevent the educated (particularly in extremely expensive courses such as the sciences in higher education) from becoming an eletist niche group of only the richest people in society? How is Mr. and Mrs. John and Doe Smith going to afford an education costing thousands and thousands of pounds in the sciences for their child?
    -=]Eliotitus[=-
    "Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future"- Oscar Wilde

  20. #40
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,697
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    How are you able to assume that there's a market for bread in the first place? Or that people must buy bread, perhaps? In a stateless society, there would be no "mandatory" (read "coercive") purchasing of anything (as punishable by aggression). Even if you are the only company offering a good, if you're unreasonable, no one will buy your product. How long could you stay in business with no customers?
    Well, I'm using bread as an example. You can substitute anything else you want as "an example" and my point is the same.

    And I see no reason to believe that no matter what, no one will buy bread. If you jack the price up high enough, I could see most people not buying bread but then there will be people rich enough to afford it so bread goes from being a staple to a luxury.

    And would you consider that a preferable society to what we have now? A society where bread goes from being one of the most common foods there is (and for our cultural history it's a consistent staple) to a luxury that only the elite consume?

 

 
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Anarchy today in the USA!
    By Prime Zombie in forum Hypothetical Debates
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: January 4th, 2010, 07:11 PM
  2. Impermissible Anarchy!
    By Elutherian in forum Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 22nd, 2009, 05:01 PM
  3. Anarchy
    By Skitzofrenia in forum Hypothetical Debates
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: November 29th, 2008, 04:21 PM
  4. Anarchy Online
    By Turtleflipper in forum Entertainment
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: June 30th, 2006, 09:14 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •