What Is A Political Belief You Hold?
in Politics

Mac · June 2019

Politics, in its purest form, is the regard for all things pertaining to living entities. What is a political belief you adhere to?

MayCaesar · June 2019

I recently finally pinpointed my political beliefs to a labeled ideology: anarcho-capitalism. For years I was trying to reconcile my utmost respect for individual freedoms with the notion that a state is required to guarantee them, and I always saw a contradiction in this notion, in that the state by its very existence already violates people's individual freedoms. Recently I finally realised that the state not only is not required for individual rights and freedoms to be guaranteed, but, in fact, its absence is what is required for it.

On the traditional political compass depicting capitalism vs socialism and authoritarianism vs liberalism, you could say that anarcho-capitalism is a point exactly at the bottom-right corner of the diagram, although most anarcho-capitalists agree that the compass in the first place is a bad space to project political views on.

There is not too many of us in the world, although our rows are growing rapidly. A very solid "ancap" movement is rising in Brasil where people are becoming disillusioned by the government constantly failing them in every regard, and it is possible that Brasil will end up being the first modern country to try basing its political system on anarcho-capitalism. It would be very exciting to see where it leads!

Mac · June 2019

@MayCaesar ;

I see. It is true that the very existence of governing order does innately violate certain exercises of autonomy. However, wouldn’t you say some individual freedoms should be prohibited, such as the freedom to rape, freedom to murder, freedom to rob, so on and so forth? If so, do you view then that governance is necessary to then find and enforce a harmony between what people should and shouldn’t be allowed to do so as to produce stable human interactions?

Mac · June 2019

@MayCaesar Are you going to respond to my inquiry?

MayCaesar · June 2019

@Mac

In the anarcho-capitalist system these issues are naturally addressed by the free market. For example, there is a strong demand to be protected from being murdered. As such, people will pay private security companies, private crime investigation companies and private courts to protect them from criminals - it can be organised similarly to how private insurance companies are organised, where the customers pay monthly fees, and the company takes care of them when needed.

The key here is that every demand humans can possibly have, be it the demand for justice, the demand for security, the demand for food or any other demand, can be matched with supply by the market. The difference from the supply being provided by the government is that a) you only pay for the supply of those goods that you really need, and b) you can choose from multiple providers, as opposed to being stuck with having to deal with the state monopoly.

It is not all fine and dandy, of course, and any system has issues, including anarcho-capitalism. But the more you think about the system, the more you realise just how resourceful the market can be and how seeming contradictions are naturally resolved on it. A lot of people upon hearing about a stateless free market-oriented society immediately think, "What if someone just starts buying everything up?", or "What if a warlord takes over and starts conquering everything?" But this actually cannot happen in such a system, for a variety of reasons, namely that no one wants such an outcome, and the market will provide mechanisms stopping the forces attempting to dismantle it from taking over.

AlofRI · June 2019

@MayCaesar: I have to disagree with at least part of what you say. You only have to look at Russia to see that a "warlord" can take over a capitalistic state and turn it into an oligarchy. Money is power. We have the Koch Bros. here, with billions of dollars that BUY control of the government and even invent their own "party" with the hopes of taking it over. They just may do that, eventually.

The insanely wealthy work to change the country to fit their own desires. They move to take over education (At universities and corporate financed schools with a "controlled curriculum"), AND the thinking of those that will soon be working for them. Capitalism MUST be regulated BY the people, FOR the people, otherwise it develops the "warlords" that gradually "have their way with us" …. as in Russia. Cross the warlord, and "have an accident".

Therefore, the political belief I hold:
It's called "democracy". Government OF, BY and FOR the people. An old concept actually, started by the Greeks as "demokratia", or direct rule by the people in 507 BC. Long live democracy.

Mac · June 2019

@MayCaesar ;

Wouldn’t you say that market legal apparatuses would be flimsy and impractical since they’d follow means to make profit as opposed to objective reality?

Also, where is the justice for people who may not be able to buy into such legal markets?

ZeusAres42 · June 2019

I see advantages and disadvantages in both right-wing and left-wing politics. If it came down to it I would have to say that I am slightly left of center.

MayCaesar · June 2019

@AlofRI

If you genuinely think that the government is on your side, then you have not been paying attention. Look at literally any regulation and its consequences, such as who benefited from it and who lost - and you will start understanding: those people are not your friends. There is no "government for the people", although obviously the government will beg to differ.

Lincoln, who coined the famous phrase, as one of his first acts, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, essentially allowing judges to throw people in jail without due process. Not the individual I would quote.

@Mac ;

That is the key of the market system: everyone seeks personal profit, hence the outcome benefits everyone. The legal apparatuses are not likely to be flimsy when they face harsh competition and have to be at the top of the game to stay in business.
I have been currently waiting for over 2 months for IRS to let me know how much I owe them; they are still digging through the documents. If, on the other hand, IRS had 20 competitors, then such response time would bankrupt them pretty quickly.

Justice leads to stability, which is vital for high market performance. As such, everyone is interested in people having justice served, even those people who cannot pay for it. I expect a lot of charity to be done in this regard, both on the individual and the corporate part.

Mac · June 2019

@MayCaesar

Actually, why would defendants have to participate at all? There's no universal law across the land since there are only markets so couldn't an accused person just opt out of the privatized process? Private entities and markets are voluntary, after all. [I edited this comment for purposes of brevity.]

Mac · June 2019

@MayCaesar Also, why and how would there be private IRS's?

MayCaesar · June 2019

@Mac

The accused person does not have to participate in the process, but not doing so would strongly damage his/her public image and restrict his/her economical opportunities - which in a free market society is very damaging. And if the person really committed something horrible, such as murder, then they would still be taken into custody by a private correction system. Anarcho-capitalism does not mean everyone is immune from the consequences of their actions, it simply means that the consequences are not enforced by the state.
Everything is voluntary and consensual, but when one person violates someone else's consent, the response violating that person's consent can be warranted. The famous "Don't tread on me" flag depicts this message perfectly: respect other people's consent, and your consent will be respected; act against other people's consent, and the action will be taken to prevent you from continuously doing so.

As for IRS, obviously there would be no private IRS, since there would be no taxes - but I just used it to illustrate how incredibly inefficient the state is. And it cannot be any other way around: what incentive is there for the state to improve its mechanisms? People have to interact with IRS no matter their preferences, and even if IRS still used stone tablets for keeping records, people would have to interact with them.

AlofRI · June 2019

@MayCaesar: Literally any regulation has consequences, I can agree with that. MY government, that I have been paying attention to since America WAS great, make regulations to keep people safe, (Osha regulations, for example), to keep capitalists from cheating people (as in false advertising and shoddy products), to keep banks from stealing our money (Or swindling us as happened in 2005-06), to keep foreign countries from showering us with unsafe products and toxins, to keep our water and air "Crystal clear" (as Trump, the deregulator, lied yesterday), to keep unscrupulous food and drug capitalists from putting dangerous drugs and food with dangerous pesticides on the market, to prevent unsafe cars and toys, etc.

If you think a government that does that is NOT on your side, you haven't been paying attention.

In the last 3 years, those "nasty regulations" that protected our air and water, beaches and fisheries, National Parks …. and many people … have been discontinued, scrapped, squashed.

Holy crap! You're right … THIS DE-regulating government DOESN'T care about U.S. (Or anyone but themselves, the anti-regulation capitalists)!

Mac · June 2019

@MayCaesar

If the accused person doesn’t have to participate in the private process, what would enforce them to go to a private correction system? If all institutions and entities are private, nothing can truly enforce obedience by an accused person, unless you want to advocate for private entities being able to forcibly acquire people. If that’s the case, what is to stop private entities from doing this without an objective warrant? Couldn’t all private entities forge mercenary states and then forcibly acquire people as slaves and thus contradict, to the highest degree, what you strive for?

Mac · June 2019

@ZeusAres42
What, in specific terminology, does being 'left of center' mean for you?

Mac · June 2019

@MayCaesar To go on another point as well, where would the means to generate and maintain a universal currency value arise in this stateless society? If these would be private institutions, couldn't then they generate different currency types or values and thus render the general economy unstable and inconsistent? How would they get their necessary funding?

Mac · June 2019

@MayCaesar
Are you going to continue this discussion?

Mac · June 2019

@MayCaesar
I hope this isn't the end of the conversation as we were starting to get into some core aspects that are vital to your ideology.

George_Horse · July 2019

I adhere to conservatism.

MayCaesar · July 2019

@AlofRI You are incredibly naive if you think that your safety is a big concern for someone getting hefty paychecks for sitting in the Congress daily. You are not looking at what those laws actually do to you, you only look at their intentions. The attempts to tame evil "drug capitalists" led to some medications costing dozens thousands dollars, because the government made sure that only several monopolies are allowed to approve and distribute drugs. Even more so, many drugs are simply unavailable, because the FDA takes decades to approve them - even though private companies have researched them in enough depth for everyone to know that they are safe and effective.

If this kind of "safety" is appealing to you, then you can celebrate the achievements of our great rulers of the last century, I guess.

@Mac Private entities function based on the principle of voluntarism. If someone violates this principle, then the private entities will respond in kind. A criminal might refuse to participate in the private process, but the criminal will still be liable for the damage they have caused, and them not being able to defend themselves in the private court will simply make the job of the accusers easier - and the verdict will still be enforced.

I do not really operate in the "left-right" terms, so that question is better addressed to someone else.

Universal currency is not needed for a society to function, and multiple different currencies is how naturally the economy should operate. Obviously the currencies will be, to some extent, convertible into each other, at the rates defined by the market forces. I do not think they will make the economy unstable and inconsistent; if anything, they will make it incredibly resistant to crises, as the downfall of one currency does not have to affect other currencies. "Bank runs" in a multi-currency system are unlikely to deal much damage to the economy, for example.

Zombieguy1987 · July 2019

i follow Libertarianism

TKDB · July 2019

I'm pro unborn baby.

Pro father's rights.

Pro mother's rights.

Pro law abiding.

Pro U.S. citizens.

And pro kids, children, and family.

IE, I'm an independent.

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Trump trial set to continue with second day of jury selection in New York

In this Debate

What Is A Political Belief You Hold?
in Politics

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Trump trial set to continue with second day of jury selection in New York

In this Debate

What Is A Political Belief You Hold?in Politics

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

What Is A Political Belief You Hold?
in Politics