Anarcho Capitalism

John K Clark (
Sat, 18 Apr 1998 10:12:02 -0700 (PDT)


On Sat, 18 Apr 98 (Tony Hollick) Wrote:

>I was remembering Acton's dictum about all power tending to corrupt;
>and absolute power tending to corrupt absolutely.

Then why do you support by far the largest concentration of power, the state.

>the Nazis thought of themselves as heroes

True, and they thought of themselves as members of a nation. You may not like
Microsoft, but it never put millions of people into ovens, only nations do

>If you fondly imagine that the USA's economic system rewards hard

Hard word is irrelevant, it's not rewarded nor should it be. It's hard work
to play the piano with your feet but I wouldn't give you a nickel for it.
It's smart work that's rewarded.

>ask yourself why, in the US, there is a near-perfect _inverse ratio
>between how arduous and unpleasant the work is, and how much you get
>paid for doing it.

I don't believe there is such a ratio. An off shore oil worker, a boxer,
an ironworker, a bridge rigger, even a coal miner are all very dangerous jobs,
many think they're unpleasant too, yet they're well paid.

>nearly every anarcho-capitalist I've ever met, almost none of whom
>have any money

If you define an anarcho capitalist as somebody who engages in anarcho
capitalistic actions then that particular creature is as mythical as a
unicorn, states do not allow people to be anarcho capitalists, yet.
Just having such opinions does not seem to be detrimental to ones economic
health, I have a dollar or two.

>Randians would advise talented people to make as _little_ as
>possible, so as to withold resources from the looter State.

I'm not a Randian. I finely got around to reading "Atlas Shrugged" about
2 months ago so. It was nice.

>there is a near-perfect inverse correlation between family income
>and and infant mortality rates.

And your point being...? Some group has to have the highest infant mortality
rate, it's no surprise it's the poorest and most ignorant. What other group
do you suppose would have that distinction?

>it is within our power to save the lives of children in Ethiopia


>we simply choose _not to_,

Yes. Except for about a dollar a day (the Unibomber lived on less) you could
send your entire paycheck and savings to Ethiopia, you could live on powered
milk and soybeans and sleep on a bench at the airport or buss terminal.
If you did that you would save lives, no doubt about it. I'm not going to do
that, or anything close to it, I very much doubt you are either. The human
species is only capable of a finite amount of altruism, that's why communism
didn't work and that's why the leaders of states are so dangerous. Instead of
whining about something you're never going to change, try finding a system
that can turn the selfishness that everybody has into a virtue.

>preferring luxury ice-cream, and jewelled collars for our dogs.

I make no apology for the fact that I like some dogs better than most people,
hell I don't even know most people. I'm no different in that regard than any
other pet owner in the world, otherwise we wouldn't spend billions of
dollars on them.

>Think about that while spooning down the Haagen-Dazs...

That doesn't ruin my appetite, thinking about the fat does.

>It's blatant bullshit for anarcho-capitalism, where half a dozen
>rich people of moderate cleverness

If Bill Gates is only moderately clever and you're more than that then
outsmart him in the marketplace and send 50 billion dollars to Ethiopia.

>can control the entire society by owning key resources.

Is it better for one leader to controls everything? Somebody please explain
to me how nations are soon going to start making people more altruistic, even
though they've never done that in the past. After that explain how
politicians who lead these nations will stay in power by making friends with
the weak and the powerless.

Tony, near as I can tell your main complaint against Anarcho Capitalism is
that it's not as good as a nation state where the leaders always do exactly
what Tony Hollick wants, perhaps so, but that's not really the choice we face
now is it.

>There is a real problem with ingesting living organisms (or their
>body parts) -- do they not also enjoy degrees of self-ownership?

I've given up eating living organisms, they objected so strongly that dinner
became quite a struggle, besides I found they taste better when well done.

John K Clark

Version: 2.6.i