Anarcho-capitalism

>>
>> one argument against anarchy is that the police would be let
>> loose on society without any safeguards, not that they have
>> many these days.
>
>Anarcho-capitalists argue that there would be more safeguards,
>since the police would no longer have a monopoly. That is,
>when in trouble, you could call your favorite private police
>service, which market forces would make reliable.
>
>I think this argument is better suited to schools, though.
>Deadly force is something that naturally tends toward
>monopoly, I think. In some ways it is better to have no
>disagreement over such matters ("Cops-R-Us wouldn't have
>shot her!").
>
>-Carl
>

Since it's obvious that capitalism, even when tightly controlled, still
tends to focus more and more wealth and power over time in fewer and fewer
hands, (for example, note the destruction (one might call it
"abolishment") of family businesses across the country in exchange for Wal
Mart, Applebees, Taco Bell, Staples, etc.) then it follows that
anarcho-capitalism, the process would happen even faster.

Such a world is a nightmare that would quickly destroy itself--just like
every other dictatorship.

Allow me to rant:

Applebees sucks.
Bennigans sucks.
McD's sucks.
Denny's sucks.
LongHorn sucks.
Friday's sucks.
Friendly's sucks.
Olive Garden sucks.
Taco Bell sucks.
They all suck suck suck suck #@$%@#$%@#$ @#$%@#$% @#$%@#$%@#$%.

Oh sad sad world.

suckers 'em all.
----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher Bailey
To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 03 Kas�m 2005 Per�embe 15:01
Subject: [metatuning] Anarcho-capitalism

>>
>> one argument against anarchy is that the police would be let
>> loose on society without any safeguards, not that they have
>> many these days.
>
>Anarcho-capitalists argue that there would be more safeguards,
>since the police would no longer have a monopoly. That is,
>when in trouble, you could call your favorite private police
>service, which market forces would make reliable.
>
>I think this argument is better suited to schools, though.
>Deadly force is something that naturally tends toward
>monopoly, I think. In some ways it is better to have no
>disagreement over such matters ("Cops-R-Us wouldn't have
>shot her!").
>
>-Carl
>

Since it's obvious that capitalism, even when tightly controlled, still
tends to focus more and more wealth and power over time in fewer and fewer
hands, (for example, note the destruction (one might call it
"abolishment") of family businesses across the country in exchange for Wal
Mart, Applebees, Taco Bell, Staples, etc.) then it follows that
anarcho-capitalism, the process would happen even faster.

Such a world is a nightmare that would quickly destroy itself--just like
every other dictatorship.

Allow me to rant:

Applebees sucks.
Bennigans sucks.
McD's sucks.
Denny's sucks.
LongHorn sucks.
Friday's sucks.
Friendly's sucks.
Olive Garden sucks.
Taco Bell sucks.
They all suck suck suck suck #@$%@#$%@#$ @#$%@#$% @#$%@#$%@#$%.

Oh sad sad world.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hot & Crusty does do a nice cinnamon babka though (evidence of such being
consumed as i type)

>Allow me to rant:
>
>Applebees sucks.
>Bennigans sucks.
>McD's sucks.
>Denny's sucks.
>LongHorn sucks.
>Friday's sucks.
>Friendly's sucks.
>Olive Garden sucks.
>Taco Bell sucks.
>They all suck suck suck suck #@$%@#$%@#$ @#$%@#$% @#$%@#$%@#$%.
>
>Oh sad sad world.

The chain restaurants suck, yes, but because their food sucks, not because
they want to make a buck.

On Thursday 03 November 2005 7:01 am, Christopher Bailey wrote:
> >> one argument against anarchy is that the police would be let
> >> loose on society without any safeguards, not that they have
> >> many these days.
> >
> >Anarcho-capitalists argue that there would be more safeguards,
> >since the police would no longer have a monopoly. That is,
> >when in trouble, you could call your favorite private police
> >service, which market forces would make reliable.
> >
> >I think this argument is better suited to schools, though.
> >Deadly force is something that naturally tends toward
> >monopoly, I think. In some ways it is better to have no
> >disagreement over such matters ("Cops-R-Us wouldn't have
> >shot her!").
> >
> >-Carl
>
> Since it's obvious that capitalism, even when tightly controlled, still
> tends to focus more and more wealth and power over time in fewer and fewer
> hands, (for example, note the destruction (one might call it
> "abolishment") of family businesses across the country in exchange for Wal
> Mart, Applebees, Taco Bell, Staples, etc.) then it follows that
> anarcho-capitalism, the process would happen even faster.
>
> Such a world is a nightmare that would quickly destroy itself--just like
> every other dictatorship.
>
>
>
>
> Allow me to rant:
>
> Applebees sucks.
> Bennigans sucks.
> McD's sucks.
> Denny's sucks.
> LongHorn sucks.
> Friday's sucks.
> Friendly's sucks.
> Olive Garden sucks.
> Taco Bell sucks.
> They all suck suck suck suck #@$%@#$%@#$ @#$%@#$% @#$%@#$%@#$%.
>
> Oh sad sad world.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

On Thursday 03 November 2005 7:01 am, Christopher Bailey wrote:

> Since it's obvious that capitalism, even when tightly controlled, still
> tends to focus more and more wealth and power over time in fewer and fewer
> hands, (for example, note the destruction (one might call it
> "abolishment") of family businesses across the country in exchange for Wal
> Mart, Applebees, Taco Bell, Staples, etc.) then it follows that
> anarcho-capitalism, the process would happen even faster.

This reasoning is flawed. For one thing, family businesses still exist and
compete when they offer better products and services. My neighborhood here in
Chicago is filled with successful, popular, and well-attended family
businesses like arts and crafts shops, cafes, delis, etc. Even Starbucks
(which happens to have decent coffee, and in a sense, raised the bar on
quality coffee in the U.S.) hasn't wiped out the mom and pop cafes.

Secondly, capitalism itself is not responsible for the success of the chains,
it's the fact that people with poor taste like them. That's slowly changing.
Look at how popular organic food items are now---the organic food meme has
successfully invaded the public's psyche, and now stores like Wild Oats and
Whole Foods are popping up all over. As a result, even McDonald's has started
offering healthier items on its menu. It's all supply and demand, and it
works, provided the public demands certian things, like responsible corporate
practices (llike ecological sustainablility). Just look at how the big oil
companies are scrambling to clean up their image by advertising that they are
doing R&D to look for alternative sources of energy, etc.

You could put your blinders on to all this evidence, but it's overwheming that
capitalism evolves through consumer education. Consumer under-education is
the enemy (I will say under-education in general is, as well)--not capitalism
itself, which is the system most capable of evolving along with human will
and ethics.

Thirdly, innovative service like NetFlix deserve their success. NetFlix is
friggin' brilliant---get any movie in print you want in the mail for a
membership fee.....incredibly great idea.

> Such a world is a nightmare that would quickly destroy itself--just like
> every other dictatorship.

Thomas Friedman points to the 180 degree vision from this...and I think he is
right. He makes the point that no 2 countries that have a McDonalds have made
war with each other.

The answer for world peace would appear be to *increase* the reach and
capacity of mega-corporations, and the general trend of globalism and global
trade. Thomas Barnett also brillintly illustrates this in his book.

BTW, this can be done in a way that has nothing to do with the evil ways of
Bush (fighting questionable wars, etc.)

-Aaron.

> >Anarcho-capitalists argue that there would be more safeguards,
> >since the police would no longer have a monopoly. That is,
> >when in trouble, you could call your favorite private police
> >service, which market forces would make reliable.
> >
> >I think this argument is better suited to schools, though.
> >Deadly force is something that naturally tends toward
> >monopoly, I think. In some ways it is better to have no
> >disagreement over such matters ("Cops-R-Us wouldn't have
> >shot her!").
>
> Since it's obvious that capitalism, even when tightly
> controlled, still tends to focus more and more wealth and
> power over time in fewer and fewer hands,

That's the opposite of obvious. Capitalism created (if
this sort of causality that you seem to be using is valid)
the middle class.

> then it follows that anarcho-capitalism, the process
> would happen even faster.

That doesn't follow. Anarcho-capitalists blame controls
for many of the problems with the current system.

> Such a world is a nightmare that would quickly destroy
> itself--just like every other dictatorship.

How is anarcho-capitalism a dictatorship?

> Allow me to rant:
>
> Applebees sucks.
> Bennigans sucks.
> McD's sucks.
> Denny's sucks.
> LongHorn sucks.
> Friday's sucks.
> Friendly's sucks.
> Olive Garden sucks.
> Taco Bell sucks.
> They all suck suck suck suck #@$%@#$%@#$ @#$%@#$% @#$%@#$%@#$%.

I've never been to Bennigans or LongHorn, and I've only
eaten at Applebees, Olive Garden, and Taco Bell *once* each.
Looks like I got you beat.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
>
> > Such a world is a nightmare that would quickly destroy
> > itself--just like every other dictatorship.
>
> How is anarcho-capitalism a dictatorship?
>
Carl,

Sorry, it's a little slow out here in the provinces...hee!

It's a "dictatorship" in the Marxist sense that it posits the pseudo-
scientific "inevitability" of its theoretical outcomes. Maybe it's
just antithetical, but I see the resemblance.

P