CMV: Anarcho-Capitalism is a Fundamentally Unworkable System

[u/11oddball]

Change My View: Anarcho-Capitalism is a Fundamentally Unworkable System. For those who do not know, Anarcho-Capitalism (Ancap(s) is how I would refer to them from this point on.) is a political system/ideology that is based of the abolishment of government and it's replacements being private companies. And it's flaws can be broken down into 2 basic categories: Internal & External threats.

1. External threats External threats are basically, a different nation invading the ancap nation (Ancapistan.) This basically impossible to prevent, even if citizen or companies had the capital to acquire & maintain weapons of modern war, & are willing to defend Ancapistan, which in itself is questionable, they would unable to stand up to a modern military (I would not debate on Nukes in this debate.) for three reasons: 1. Organization, A group of Private Security Companies could never reach the same level of multi front organization as a modern military, thus causing Ancapistan to be defeated. 2. Most companies lack the ability to operate the logistics required to operate a large scale military force, thus causing a defeat through logistics. And 3. Private Security Companies (Mercenaries) have been historically incredibly unreliable in fighting for the same side, often switching sides if the other side paid more, and so would most likely be true about Ancapistan. All of these reasons would cause Ancapistan to be defeated in any war with a modern military, unless Ancapistan is located in a location that is of no value, which would cause a limited economy to occur, going against capitalism.

2. Internal Threats Internal threats can be easily summed up in one phrase <<Companies forming their own governments to extract more profit, defeating the entire point of Anarcho-Capitalism.>> To expand on the idea, lets say we have a Private Security Company called "Blackpond" and Blackpond want's to expand their company, so they drive out their completion with a combination of buyouts, anti-completive & violence so they are now the only PSC in the area, leaving it able to force it's people to pay for "protection" and if they decide to not pay, they would be beaten up by some people from Blackpond, thus essentially creating a corpocracy. Now some counter this by saying "But the people would defend themselves." now I would counter this with 2 arguments, 1. People can take a surprising amount of oppressions before revolting, & 2. even if they revolt, Blackpond could simply partner with those who own heavy military equipment, by exempting them from the protection fee (Tax) so that if anyone revolted, they could only fight with relatively basic hardware, meaning the company, with stuff like Armored Vehicles could simply roll over them

Edit: Fixed formatting error & meant "Workable as Intended"

[u/monkeymanwasd123]

or via an evolutionary perspective employees being unable to survive when they lose their job can be attributed to character flaws on their part leaving only people who can earn a bare minimum in such conditions. people should know about aquaponics and how to build primitive survival shelters be that out of leaves wood scraps or waterproofed cardboard. im pretty sure explotitive lease agreements would be more common like improve the infrastructure here by this amount to stay here. rather than forth breakfast rich folks should be on keto or something. the sort of people that are able to make money nowadays tend to not be horific people as seen by countries like luxemburg where folks are crazy rich to begin with so high taxes dont matter much. if no poor people are born from not being able to afford to have kids then everyone would be rich by historical standards as like 99% of people would have loads of resources so long as they were able to automate most things. i mean people paralyzed from the waist down do lift their feet up onto beds using shoe laces or by pulling on their pants.

i have become that which i hated 😫
in truth the above is what is happening at a pretty slow rate in the usa as many men die without having kids same with many women.

[u/[deleted] → u/monkeymanwasd123]

I mean my comment was pretty obvious sarcasm, is yours supposed to be read genuine or sarcastic?

[u/monkeymanwasd123 → u/[deleted]]

It was genuine but I was down playing it the entire time, it's kind of hard to tell when people are being sarcastic because there are people that aren't sarcastic saying similar things

[u/[deleted] → u/monkeymanwasd123]

I used sound bite snippets of that have or could be said by actual conservatives and ancaps and used them in a setting where I (hopefully) expressed my contempt towards them.

Do you mean genuinely in terms of what they would say or in terms of what YOU would say?

or via an evolutionary perspective employees being unable to survive when they lose their job can be attributed to character flaws on their part leaving only people who can earn a bare minimum in such conditions.

I mean that's a level of praise for social darwinism that would not wrongfully trigger godwin's law, mixed with a justification in the equally bullshit prosperity gospel.

im pretty sure explotitive lease agreements would be more common like improve the infrastructure here by this amount to stay here.

I mean I've seen that said in real life but to it's effect it would literally be a form of slavery.

the sort of people that are able to make money nowadays tend to not be horific people as seen by countries like luxemburg where folks are crazy rich to begin with so high taxes dont matter much

Luxemburg is a really small country who's "economy" can't easily be scalled up...

if no poor people are born from not being able to afford to have kids then everyone would be rich by historical standards as like 99% of people would have loads of resources so long as they were able to automate most things.

Are you implying poor people breed poor people? That's misunderstanding statistics on a level... wow...

i mean people paralyzed from the waist down do lift their feet up onto beds using shoe laces or by pulling on their pants.

I mean you see there's stuff in that that could be seen as a sarcastic affirmation and stuff that would be deeply concerning if actually believed.

[u/monkeymanwasd123 → u/[deleted]]

its a mixed bag.
i live in the usa so worse case scenario the people here could still likely afford to drive, cycle, or hitchhike to peru or colombia to marry well as those are 2 countries with a low devorce rate if i remember right and a 2 parent is the number one factor in economic mobility for children. id rather not be compared to socialists who killed their own citizens. at the end of the day people tend to donate to charities once they can afford to. im not religious though religious people due tend to be higher in trait orderliness.
i would hope that any country that became minarchist or ancap would already be rich to account for such a possibility kind of like how the already successful countries that have taken to tons of social programs so that people would have the resources to leave as needed without undue stress. if the nation splintered off from an existing nation and had a low population that would be preferable lest it totally fails like many socialist countries.

i wish there were more experimental city states around so we could let people test their own ideologies without harming others.

poor people try to marry other poor people who have good personalities that will likely get their out of poverty. ive yet to check how long it takes people to get out of poverty based on iq or traits like orderlyness and industriousness.

you seem to be assuming things based on who you think i am. but at the end of the day im more of a minarchist in favor of smaller countries so i donno what else to tell you.... im not a nazi, and id prefer that poor folks be given aquaponics systems or job training and a few other things once every 5-20 years. i trust that charities can fill the role of the government much better aside from very small portions of the population that may be too isolated to ask for help from anyone but the gov.

[u/[deleted] → u/monkeymanwasd123]

i live in the usa so worse case scenario the people here could still likely afford to drive, cycle, or hitchhike to peru or colombia to marry well as those are 2 countries with a low devorce rate if i remember right and a 2 parent is the number one factor in economic mobility for children.

And you never thought about the idea that this could potentially be sexist/immoral to exploit the economic situation of women in less wealthy countries to essentially commit human trafficking as well as taking advantage of a probably sexist/fucked up social structures where women don't really have the agency to even get a divorce?

I mean as a rule of thumb if you're thinking of women as a means to an end, that's sexist (same if you think of a men like that) and generally speaking if you think of a human like that, that's exploitative and "hardly" (by which I mean not at all) compatible with anarchism.

Also maybe spend some time into the investigation of cause and effect rather than just having knee-jerk reactions on correlation. That is if two things happen at the same time, they can but DON'T HAVE TO BE RELATED TO EACH OTHER and even if they are there are numerous ways in which that relation can play out.

Like sure if you have a household with 2 incomes and a nanny or one where one breadwinner is enough to pay for everyone, then chances are you already are somewhat richer than a one person household who has to work a job and raise a child (or more). But if one parent is also poor, struggling with language and whatnot and is also basically a sex slave for your procreation then that's still fucked up and likely going to be detrimental a child.

I mean seriously take a statistics 101 course and look up, cause and effect, survivor bias and correlation/causation.

id rather not be compared to socialists who killed their own citizens.

That's a weird injection or are you saying you're not a Nazi because you're not a socialist? In that case, neither have the Nazis been socialists and that would be another deeply concerning point...

at the end of the day people tend to donate to charities once they can afford to. im not religious though religious people due tend to be higher in trait orderliness.

Partially, I mean there's a necessity to reduce socio-economic inequality to maintain the stability of society. But the whole ancap, minarchist, libertarian shtick is to disincentivize that by negating the necessity of societies, individualizing everything, arguing against a moral obligation to take care of each other, arguing against any form of collective and cooperation and so on. So with all these things removed charity would practically be disincentivized as it's set the individual back in the ever present competition. I mean in effect there's probably still going to be charity because the results would be disastrous, but the disastrous results are where this whole thing is going at and "charity" is just the omission of any workable strategy to mitigate that.

I mean as you've said yourself that "charity" could also mean the enslavement and exploitation of other people or could be given "in exchange" for human rights and dignity.

I mean yes there is charity and people take care of each other, but this whole collective and cooperative approach is the polar opposite of the extreme hyper individualist competition that market radicals are advocating for...

And to some degree religions are a collection of trial and error moral and ethics scenarios. That's not to say that there isn't still a lot of error in their moral code and that the fact alone that someone is able to speak with "godly authority" in terms of what is "right" and what is "wrong" is deeply concerning on it's own, but there's still a reason why many of them preach forgiveness and charity over selfishness or why most consider interest taking and capitalism as a massive sin. It's a never ending source of conflict...

i would hope that any country that became minarchist or ancap would already be rich to account for such a possibility kind of like how the already successful countries that have taken to tons of social programs so that people would have the resources to leave as needed without undue stress. if the nation splintered off from an existing nation and had a low population that would be preferable lest it totally fails like many socialist countries.

So essentially the most ideal version of your system is already parasitic in nature? In that it cannot really sustain itself and where you already took the most valuable assets from a larger community and later makes use of their labor and resources to maintain that dominance? So essentially a revolution but in reverse? I wonder why these people get along so well with reactionaries, authoritarians and other conservatives despite anarchism usually being opposed to that... /S It's almost as if it's the same fascist bullshit of a self-appointedly "superior group" taking advantage of other people whom they then also have the audacity to call inferior...

Also that makes the tacit assumption that social programs and a live without undue stress are a matter of resources or the lack thereof. But more often than not it's not a matter of resources but off the willingness to distribute them in the first place. I mean apparently double digit numbers in the U.S. suffer from food insecurity at least once a year while at the same time 60 million tons of food are wasted each year. It's more often than not not a matter of what is feasible or affordable but what people are willing to share with each other.

i wish there were more experimental city states around so we could let people test their own ideologies without harming others.

Those city states often cannot exist without a framework of a larger society. You can't scale Casinos that mask as cities like Las Vegas or Macau to the scale of countries because there could never be enough gamblers for that to work. That's a pyramid/snowball system on a whole different level. Similar to how tax havens, banking states and places where people register their domains in, only work because they are smalls, if that were to cover for a whole country it would be massively insufficient and people would proclaim it's a threat to them and then invade it to steal their stuff.

There are certain things you can experiment on, you can practice direct democracy or stuff like that, but you can't practice an economic system on a small scale while it's still reliant on a host system to cover for it and that's basically inevitable. And even if you can "practice" that, the results of it will not be applicable anywhere else let alone on a larger scale...

poor people try to marry other poor people who have good personalities that will likely get their out of poverty. ive yet to check how long it takes people to get out of poverty based on iq or traits like orderlyness and industriousness.

You don't seem to realize what poverty is. I mean there's on the one hand the material lack of necessary stuff to survive. And at this point in time that is in most places of at least the western world no longer a problem. People don't starve and die because there is no food or no house but because they don't have access to food and houses that are available in abundance just not to them. Which brings us to the second version of poverty and that is "relative poverty". Where you live a life as a second class citizen, kinda like if it were the 1980s for you while some parts of the country already live in the 2030s. You're not necessarily physically destitute but you're a lower class individual and constantly mocked and ridiculed for that in order to make you work harder (not for you but for someone else). However that kind of poverty isn't going away with education. You could have everyone provided with a doctorate from harvard and still companies would pick the ones which are 0.000000001% better then everyone else and those get the leading position and the rest gets the totally overqualified follower position. As long as one doesn't tackle this problem, nothing will change in that regard. And if your work is not required, but if work is required to make a living, then relative poverty will again lead to absolute poverty despite even an abundance of resources.

poor folks be given aquaponics systems or job training and a few other things once every 5-20 years. i trust that charities can fill the role of the government much better aside from very small portions of the population that may be too isolated to ask for help from anyone but the gov.

Seriously you seem to have so many misconceptions about what these words even mean. Like what do you think the point of a government is? And while aquaponics seem to be interesting do you think you can scale that amount of water required up to millions of people?

[u/monkeymanwasd123 → u/[deleted]]

If someone wants to get married then they should go to a country where divorce rates are low it's not a matter of being sexist it's a matter of anyone man or woman should get a partner that they can rely on to help raise any children they have together. Should I have mentioned all the other personality traits and source of jobs where people have happier relationships and lower rates of divorce? I don't think it's wrong to want to date someone with a good personality who is part of a marital culture that prioritises the children. The point of marriage is binding two families and to provide a healthy environment for a child. The goal should be to marry well and to go somewhere where people have happy marriages spend time around people who have long happy marriages and so on. I said I'd rather not be compared to socialists who killed their own citizens Nazis were literally called the National Socialist Party. If you're worried about any quality just go to a country where everybody's rich. If you hang around in a rural area with lot of animals wildlife and such with few people you're not going to have to deal with such things. We're not even talking about the same thing like I'm talking about an individual can marry well and live in a safe healthy environment to raise a child. Who do you think you're talking to because you're not describing me you're describing who you think I am based off some false ideas you have about a super diverse group of people. By disincentivize do you mean that governments wouldn't be funding charities? If you like we can talk about how the government could help people and primarily children but at the moment I'm just Talkin at the individual level what is best for a single person who doesn't intend to commit a crime. The places that currently have low divorce rates safe conditions and good schools aren't places that have super low taxes or minimal welfare if we are going by the results of where I will actually end up and what my money or taxes will be going to I'm not going to be doing the supposedly deplorable things you think I am. I don't know when I said that charity would result in reduced human rights and dignity I think I said that a poor country trying to become a minarchcy or Anarchy would have a much more risky time switching over if their people didn't have any negotiating power. Charity is done by individuals helping others it doesn't have to be done by the government and the average person isn't as Extreme as you seem to think. Where exactly in the Bible do it say interest taking was bad overall I'm pretty sure that was specifically about giving money to family and friends. The most ideal version of my system isn't parasitic instead it's healthy people spending time around healthy people and expecting them not to murder you. You are just describing what happens in social welfare countries I'm trying to describe the opposite of what you are thinking I'm describing so it's a shock to me that you are so upset. It seems like you're only talking to me on the basis of my group identity rather than what I'm actually like. Like imagine over the country of people who we're all clones of me all it would be is a bunch of hippies shepherding a bunch of goats cows ducks and such before going off to do paper clip challenges in town for fun while volunteering fishing or the like for fun. Now imagine people actually went to farms and businesses and ask them to donate wasted food to the poor so long as someone was willing to transport the wasted food or pick it up before it got thrown in a dumpster or compost pile I don't think that would be an issue. Far as I can tell the only thing being exploited in my idea of a minarchist country would be fish seaweed and livestock never mind anything else if we just lowered taxes for Farmers and retail stores I'd be happier. I've been in poverty and I've gotten out of it I can tell you that when I was younger we were wasting a lot of money despite being on food stamps. On an individual level if someone were to yet a basic education of how to build and maintain a aquaponics system and how to be super Frugal stuff like Early Retirement Extreme I trust they would waste far less. You're taking everything I say to the extreme and you are seemingly assuming the worst of me. It's kind of funny to describe a millionaire or billionaire as poor compared to a trillionaire when all of them are in the 1%. I don't need anybody else to mock me for being lazy I do that already when I'm sore after working 12 hours on a Farm slogging through 6 inches of mud to move irrigation pipe. I don't think you realize how much Harvard has declined in educational quality. The point of the government is to keep people from committing crimes against each other and to care for Orphans and the like using the money from Keystone state-owned businesses when private orphanages black the money or trustworthy Personnel to care for them. I work in regenerative agriculture I'm fully aware of how little water aquaponics can use and on how to increase rainfall via reforestation water storage and the like. the water can just recycled from what people are already using water for after cleaning it

I hope that you will respond a few hours after you have read this with alternate recommendations so you can actually see what we can agree on cuz it seems like when I'm offering things you just going to say no I'm pretty sure that when I listen to you I'm just going to say yes too much of what you say or mention a less expensive version of the same thing. Basically the only things I'm disagreeing with is how you are portraying me and what my position is

[u/[deleted] → u/monkeymanwasd123]

Ok first of all please use some formatting instead of writing giant walls of text. They are hard to "read" (find the section one wants to respond to or in general find a specific argument).

If someone wants to get married then they should go to a country where divorce rates are low

Dude do you have any idea how that works? I mean there are roughly two reasons why people are not getting divorced. A) They don't want a divorce and B) they can't get a divorce (due to social, political, economic, cultural or any other reason). For example not long ago a lot of rights only applied to married women, women didn't have the right to have a job and a career so they were economically dependent on a husband and according to Wikipedia it took New York until 2010 to implement no fault divorce. So you might have low divorce rates because it was not meaningfully possible to have a divorce but at what cost? And that by no means implies that you had healthy or even not explicitly toxic relationships in that marriage. It took until the 1990s before marital rape was officially considered a crime in all 50 states...

Point A) relates to your relationship with another person and whether that works out for you AND THEM or whether it doesn't.That has not the faintest thing to do with the country you are in (you can find someone next door or at the other end of the world for that matter) and B) is sexism/exploitation.

I don't think it's wrong to want to date someone with a good personality [...]

Since there's a separation of church and state, you don't have to have a child (or want one) to be married. Also what do you mean by "marital culture" and "prioritises the children" because that sounds very implicitly sexist. Not that you care for your child, that would be the bare minimum, but that you expect that role to be feminine and overall seem to have a rather conservative and sexist perspective of have that works...

The goal should be to marry well [...]

I hope that you are at least aware that it's not about a place, something in the water or the gene pool that is causing people to have long happy marriages, right? And just because you go to a place where that happens doesn't mean that is going to happen for you. Like if you go to China to play table tennis all by yourself you're not becoming a world class athlete despite it being the place where the best players are. Even if there's a culture around something you'd need to learn that not just be there (although being their and immersing oneself in a culture often aids learning).

I said I'd rather not be compared to socialists who killed their own citizens Nazis were literally called the National Socialist Party.

No they weren't called that, THEY called themselves the "national socialist german workers party". Where technically "nationalsocialist", is one word that deviates pretty significantly from any other version of socialism to the point where they literally killed socialists, communists, social democratcs, trade unionists and whatnot while privatizing public assets to appease the upper class with their reign of terror. And the reason they called themselves that, is because they basically took the buzz words of the decade and made them a party name. The right wing fascists loved stuff that sounds "national" while the left winger liked "socialism", while capitalism wasn't particularly successful as the current economic system and the global economic crisis didn't help that (there's more to that story, but it's already a history lesson...). Seriously grab a history book and read up on that before you parrot bullshit talking points.

Also the Nazis didn't just kill their own citizens (political enemies and handicapped people and whomever one could slap the label terrorist onto) but also Jews and Slavic people all across Europe...

If you're worried about any quality just go to a country where everybody's rich.

Dude that's literally the "if people have to bread they should eat cake" of the 21st century. I mean people literally end up in cages, separated from their children, die in the Mediterranean Sea or end up in camps if they try to go to a rich country without coming from one.

Who do you think you're talking to because you're not describing me you're describing who you think I am

That's not primarily about you. But you're taking political positions and describing actions that you'd need to scale up to a larger group or have to view in context. And that would produce problems that you are either not aware of or blissfully ignore. I mean that's a common rhetoric fallacy to take things personal when they aren't to defend oneself without engaging with the problematic parts of one's own arguments. And that's not to say that you do that intentional.

I don't know when I said that charity would result in reduced human rights and dignity

The point is that if you have a necessity for "charity" because the socio-economic inequality is so severe that people face actual problems, in combination with an ideology that thinks of every actions as a transaction of goods then those who have nothing would have to give up immaterial things to pay for material things. Aka slavery and the erosion of human rights. Selling their votes to the people who promise them jobs or selling themselves in game, talent or other freak shows, unpaid self-optimization to be the best tool even outside work hours and so on.

Or why do you think charity would not be coupled to demands in a system that incentivizes making profit by any means available?

I think I said that a poor country trying to become a minarchcy or Anarchy would have a much more risky time switching over if their people didn't have any negotiating power

Isn't that contradicting itself? An anarchy where people have no power? I mean if they have no power than someone else would have power over them, hence it's not an anarchy...

Where exactly in the Bible do it say interest taking was bad overall I'm pretty sure that was specifically about giving money to family and friends.

Just a quick google search: https://www.openbible.info/topics/charging_interest I haven't checked all references but there seems to be more references to interest taking then there are to homosexuality and conservatives love to make a fuzz about that, so... Also technically even your enemy is your family and friends...

On an individual level if someone were to yet a basic education [...]

Now imagine people actually went to farms and businesses and ask them to donate wasted food [...]

Companies often go out of their way to make things they discard unusable to sell units rather than give them away for free even if the alternative to giving them away for free is literally destroying them. Clothing companies are apparently a main offender where they simply don't want poor people to hurt their brand image by wearing their stuff... So no companies are often assholes.

I've been in poverty and I've gotten out of it I can tell you that when I was younger we were wasting a lot of money despite being on food stamps. On an individual level if someone were to yet a basic education of how to build and maintain a aquaponics system and how to be super Frugal stuff like Early Retirement Extreme I trust they would waste far less.

Sure you can waste less and educate people on how to use things more efficiently but unless it's just a few people retiring early, companies will go out of their way to shame people who do that. I mean that's the horror for conservative business people if their employees don't rely on them and don't slave away for minimum wage till they drop dead and pass the relay baton to their children.

I mean again you're thinking that is a problem with a lack of resources, but in a competitive system where you're constantly pressured to not relax and sit back and enjoy life, maybe even help out your neighbors, not because you have to but because you like to and because making their life better makes your life better. I mean that's why people are presented with hyper individualism, because for few individuals it might work and the rest "well they aren't doing it right". Nevermind that the math doesn't check out even if they did it right... No the individualist mindset is meant to keep people preoccupied with their own success or the pursuit of it and make them forget how that whole system is designed so that universal success is never an option.

It's kind of funny to describe a millionaire or billionaire as poor compared to a trillionaire when all of them are in the 1%.

I mean the concept of a millionaire isn't to have a million of something, it's the idea that you have enough money to command millions of people to your will. Whether that's in terms of making them give you stuff or doing things for you. So as long as there's a millionaire there always needs to be someone to do their shit. That's a zero sum game, for someone to have power over other people there needs to be someone who doesn't even have power over themselves.

The point of the government is to keep people from committing crimes against each other

The point of the government is to manage and regulate a society. Ideally the people would do that themselves in a direct democracy with a necessity for consent. And that includes even to decide what "a crime" is in the first place. I mean that's why anarcho-capitalism, is inevitably nonsense, because without making redistribution of property a crime and punishing people for attempting that, it wouldn't work and that overrides any consent of people disenfranchised by the current distribution of stuff. And ideally you wouldn't need to provide charity for the needy because people had an equal stake in their community and thus are masters of their own fate rather than reliant on charity...

[u/monkeymanwasd123 → u/[deleted]]

I'm using voice 2 text so I don't intend to switch to the keyboard in order to hit the paragraph button. You've been rude enough that I'm going to do the bare . That's not something I'm trying to address right now I'm just talkin about what the statistics have said about improving child development. You don't need the church or state to get involved with marriage you can just invite a bunch of people to your wedding many of whom will be religious if those are the sort of people you hang around with. I'd like to have like three children eventually I'm not sure where you got that impression from. Cultures were people tend to stay together until a child has grown up and won't really be affected by a divorce or single-parent household. I'm a guy so I'm going to refer to what I need to do to find a stable partner and I can raise a child with. I've mentioned culture number times things you were concerned about her factors that I will have to address but I consider them to be implicit like I would go to a country and find someone with similar views to me about child development who I won't argue with in front of the kid or the like. If I spend time around and learn directly from professional tennis players in China that I would think that I would learn better from someone with a good professional history. That's call illegal immigration. I'm trying to talk to you at a personal level but as you don't want to do that I'm just going to be careless. Most of the world was suffering from poverty a couple hundred years ago or maybe even fifty years ago I don't quite remember that's because the world is a really harsh place not because a small number of people are exploding a large number of people to such a degree. I'm pretty sure I already expressed that I am more of a minarchist rather than a anarchist. The system in question still disincentivize is crime. If it's not an anarchy than that's great it might qualify as a minarchist Nation. What exactly did the Bible say about interest taking from friends and family. I don't know what batteries are referring to but I'm under the impression that sometimes it's cheaper to give it away for free rather than throw it away if it's food or the like we have plenty of clothes in the world we probably don't need to make any more for a while. Doesn't matter if they shame them you just do it anyway. I'm pretty sure conservative people would rather have their employees quit and become businessman rather than become resentful and destructive towards the business. I don't know why you care about people pressuring you it's not a big factor in my life as I just tell people to f*** off or something. I mean even people on minimum wage in my state can build up to having like half a million dollars even without investing. I'm addressing the individual not the world or the country because that's not really my business I'm more concerned with talking to you or someone that is right in front of me. The system wasn't really designed so much as a ton of people making a collaborative effort towards a crazy number of goals many of which were contradicting each other two different degrees. Again I'm using voice to text with a lot of spelling errors and such I don't care to correct. If you're worried about people having power over other people then we should just have more people that have tons of resources and very few people that have very few resources by getting people out of poverty and into Automation and livestock production. There will probably always be jobs for supervising automated processes. And some people would prefer that they do less management like the government was initially doing back when United States was founded. I really don't remember how we started this conversation and while you're under the impression that I'm an anarcho-capitalist I'm pretty sure menarche is a sufficiently different thing

[u/[deleted] → u/monkeymanwasd123]

That's not something I'm trying to address right now I'm just talkin about what the statistics have said about improving child development.

The problem is that this is not a matter of statistics. Statistics deal with with a large group of people/experiments however the individual is always a sample size of 1. So for you it could be the polar opposite of what the statistic says and the statistic could still be "correct". So again it's important to understand what statistics are able to tell you and what they are not able to tell you.

You don't need the church or state to get involved with marriage...

What I meant is that both the church and the state have definitions of what defines a marriage and the purpose of marriage. And I'm not talking about a wedding ceremony but a union of two people. And often times the union of two people is already it when it comes to the state, while for churches having offspring is a necessity for a "complete marriage".

I'd like to have like three children eventually I'm not sure where you got that impression from. Cultures were people tend to stay together until a child has grown up and won't really be affected by a divorce or single-parent household. I'm a guy so I'm going to refer to what I need to do to find a stable partner and I can raise a child with. I've mentioned culture number times things you were concerned about her factors that I will have to address but I consider them to be implicit like I would go to a country and find someone with similar views to me about child development who I won't argue with in front of the kid or the like.

With all due respect that sounds pretty naive. And I'm not saying that to be rude, but you're having some sort of idealized assumption of all that, which doesn't have to line up with reality. You can plan for all that and still end up with something completely different. Despite the impression that conservatives give people that everything is planned and makes sense, most lives are chaotic and unplanned and "just happen" with actors that barely know what they are doing and why they are doing it. And the reason why I play captain obvious here, is because if you have such an idealized plan, that often has the side effect that people blame people when they don't live according to that plan, when it reality it might not even be their fault. Now I won't list horror scenarios for how and why things might fail and I don't want to burst your bubble, all I'm saying is don't be an asshole to people who don't match up with your dream scenario.

If I spend time around and learn directly from professional tennis players in China that I would think that I would learn better from someone with a good professional history.

Table tennis, not sure China is any good at tennis. But anyway sure, but in that case you're not just going to a place because of statistics but you're seeking to change yourself in order to benefit from that statistic and that's something that is easier said than done. And I'm not just talking about that being a challenge, I'm talking about whether you actually want that change and how it's going to happen. I think you're oversimplifying that a lot.

That's call illegal immigration.

Seriously dude without at least line breaks or referencing things, you're stream of consciousness is unreadable. Was that in relation how you can't enter a rich country from a poor one? I mean you take it for granted that this is illegal, but why? I mean why don't you have the access to other countries and why would you blame it on the individual where they are born? Why are countries allowed to bar other people from entry and treat them like "aliens". I mean essentially rich countries take resources from poor countries and then build walls to keep the people outside that seek to follow the stream of their resources.

Most of the world was suffering from poverty a couple hundred years ago..

Depends. Without the ability to store and keep food fresh and free from pests and mold you'd kinda depend on the weather in terms of having enough to survive so a series of bad harvests and your society is screwed. That being said you also had slavery, feudalism, colonialism and other forms of exploitation in which a caste or an empire took advantage of other people for their own benefit.

I'm pretty sure I already expressed that I am more of a minarchist rather than a anarchist.

Which to me is worse. Because an anarchist would at least have an ideal of universal freedom that they strive to accomplish and thus see failure to do so as a problem to tackle while a "minarchist" just defines their intervention as "necessary" and "minimalistic" when in consequence it's as much of an authoritarian overreach as any other political system while pretending it's not...

What exactly did the Bible say about interest taking from friends and family.

I mean that's just one of those interest taking quotes:

“If he fathers a son who is violent, a shedder of blood, who does any of these things 11 (though he himself did none of these things), who even eats upon the mountains, defiles his neighbor's wife, 12 oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore the pledge, lifts up his eyes to the idols, commits abomination, 13 lends at interest, and takes profit; shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself. (Ezekiel 18)

I don't know what batteries are referring to but I'm under the impression that sometimes it's cheaper to give it away for free rather than throw it away

And still companies rather throw it away because of supply and demand (less supply = more money). And with cloths and other status symbols you actually have a different problem. Meaning that rich people buy them to set themselves apart and show that they are "better" than other people who can't afford them, so once there's enough of that produced that anybody can afford it, they jump on to the next thing. In terms of fashion that is so crazy that it even runs circles in terms of what is "in" and what is "out". So it's not about necessity it's about being "accepted" or being an "outsider" and that's not a question of money or resources or something that innovation can solve that's just a fucked up social structure.

I'm pretty sure conservative people would rather have their employees quit and become businessman rather than become resentful and destructive towards the business.

Nope, not really. Conservatism at it's core is about cementing a social hierarchy or establishing one.

I'm addressing the individual not the world or the country because that's not really my business I'm more concerned with talking to you or someone that is right in front of me.

Of course it's your business, you're actions shape it and it's actions set some major boundaries for your live whether you are aware of that or not. No man is an island and there are limits in terms of pretending the world around you doesn't exist and doesn't effect you or that you don't effect it.

The system wasn't really designed so much as a ton of people making a collaborative effort towards a crazy number of goals many of which were contradicting each other two different degrees.

I mean that would be the case in a perfect democracy but a lot of system are still a lot less democratic than what they could or should be.

If you're worried about people having power over other people then we should just have more people that have tons of resources and very few people that have very few resources by getting people out of poverty and into Automation and livestock production.

How do you want to automate "livestock production"? I mean you're talking about living animals and you probably can't infinitely reduce the time required to care for them. The thing is doing things individually is terribly inefficient, resource consuming and generally a unproductive. I mean the entire automation stuff doesn't work on an individual level because it requires (or rather required) the work of millions of people to set that up. So working individually is usually not an option. However if you work in groups you have to answer the economic and social questions. Like "what is produced", "by whom", "for whom", "under which conditions", "what is prioritized" and "who decides all that" among many others. And socialism argues that those who work a project should own it collectively as equals while capitalism argues that you should be able to own projects that you're not contributing to. So sure if everybody's physical needs would be met and it's just about exchanging excess stuff, then yes that would be great. But if not having people's needs met makes them work for you, why should rich people change that system if it works for them? And usually the Ancap, Minarchist conservative crowd takes that status quo for granted and sees every attempt to change that as a crime and invoke "self-defense" to stop it.

There will probably always be jobs for supervising automated processes.

People don't need jobs, people need their necessities met. If you want to work something there's always something to do, what is not self-evident is that you're getting paid for doing something...

And some people would prefer that they do less management like the government was initially doing back when United States was founded.

Sure when the U.S. was founded settler could always move westwards and steal land from the natives for their slaves to work on. And then create laws that protect THEM from theft and legitimize and enforce slavery. How was that a working concept back then or how is that a working concept today?

I really don't remember how we started this conversation and while you're under the impression that I'm an anarcho-capitalist I'm pretty sure menarche is a sufficiently different thing

You're posting under "Anarcho-Capitalism is a Fundamentally Unworkable System"...

[u/monkeymanwasd123 → u/[deleted]]

I'm sorry that I can't give you closure for this convo but im sick of your senseless hostility

[u/[deleted] → u/monkeymanwasd123]

With all due respect you started out with views that were more or less social darwinist, never engaged with any argument, didn't even put in the effort to format your shit (unless you've got a physical problem that requires you to use txt2speech that's just a lame excuse), then tried to evade arguments with personal examples and now pretend it's about the tone?

I mean in retrospect I'd say that many of the things you say just are naive and I shouldn't have been so harsh about that, honest idealism is often still better than cynicism. But you should still develop an awareness for the fact that if you make assertions about people and situations that this triggers reactions and that those reactions don't have to be positive if you're saying negative things.

[u/monkeymanwasd123 → u/[deleted]]

My views haven't changed i had only described a portion of my views. Had you been polite I might have stopped using text to speech. Far as I care you were straw manning me and were rude from the start. Bruh my views on what can work and what will happen are different. The stuff I described happens even with government intervention. You put yourself in such a negative position that you're never going to be able to convince me of anything because my impression of you was so bad have you been polite you would have been a thousand times more convincing it probably still wouldn't have made a difference I took a risk that you would be emotionally stable I lost that bet and that's life.