Re: People who Piss me off: Free Market Anarchists

Ad hominem attacks aside, YouTuber hawanja’s video on free-market anarchists seems to make the point that people “naturally organize themselves into hierarchies” that require violence to be maintained, so anarchism runs counter to the human condition. It is left unstated why violence is needed or ethically justified to maintain these hierarchies if they were so natural. He further claims that a state is the historically necessary “institution that enforces order through violence.”

The first of hawanja’s misunderstandings has to do with his definition of “state.” A key distinction I and Barack Obama would make is that a state claims a territorial monopoly on its enforcement of order through violence. The insinuation of hawanja’s definition, which ignores the territorial monopoly claim, is that any enforced order necessarily signifies the presence of a state. Throughout the entire video, viewers are presented with this false dichotomy: statism or chaos. Anarchists do not oppose order. The etymological origin of “anarchy” means no ruler (not no rules), similarly how “monarchy” means one ruler. Regardless, statists generally insist on conflating “anarchy” to mean a conflict for rulership that takes place in a failed state. Anarchism recognizes that rulers are not justified in their actions and are counter-productive to a peaceful, productive existence.

Another unfounded assertion is that “this natural hierarchical structure to human beings” is justified in using force to maintain its power. After all, just as a good majority of people naturally like ice cream, I hardly think that would justify “natural hierarchical structures” enforcing the consumption of ice cream.

The Enemy of My Enemy

Another tried and true fallback in defense of the state is the canard that a state is necessary to protect us from corporations, which hawanja rightly pointed out are creatures of plutocratic state protections and subsidies. They are granted limited liability by governments and are under a legal obligation to pursue the interests of shareholders, not employees or the environment or the public. However, should the blame rest with corporations or also with their architects (governments) that created them and shield them from accountability?

He cites laws prohibiting discrimination and child labor and food safety and consumer protections as examples of good government. Of course, governments have historically been used to promote all sorts of racial discrimination, child labor, and made food and consumer protections harder to come by and more expensive. hawanja unintentionally, I presume, confirmed this point when he showed a picture of Rosa Parks, the civil rights heroine arrested for disobeying a segregationist city ordinance that ordered she give up her seat to a white passenger, when he mentioned government laws prohibiting discrimination.

I think it is all well and good that government-enforced slavery and Jim Crow apartheid, the more overt government measures used to uphold discrimination, have been removed. However, that does not do so much to help those past victims of discrimination. All the ways that governments prohibit wealth creation has meant that past victims of government-enforced discrimination continue to suffer at the hands of government-enforced poverty. As Charles Johnson summed up in his “How Government Creates Poverty as We Know It” essay, “The poorer you are, the more you need access to informal and flexible alternatives, and the more you need opportunities to apply some creative hustling. When the state shuts that out, it shuts poor people into ghettoized poverty.”

Governments are not responsible for ending child labor. As a thought experiment, just consider what would happen if child labor was prohibited by law in Nepal. It would have the same effect as enacting California-style building codes in Haiti: absolutely none, because there is no wealth to implement those laws. The credit for the advancement of human civilization rests with the grandest form of human cooperation, the wealth-creating division of labor.

Coincidentally, I would think the issue of discrimination would create another dilemma for supporters of the state. Historically, racism, sexism and slavery would have been considered “natural hierarchical structure[s] to human beings,” just as the state is said to be. Yet, left-liberals, as I suppose hawanja is, do not propose that the enforcement of racism, sexism or slavery was just. Based on what principle though? And how would that principle not equally apply to racism, sexism and slavery?

hawanja also appears to be under the impression that governments were responsible for the abolition (or near abolition) of child labor, neglecting the fact that child labor is still legal in the United States under some circumstances. More to the point, mass child labor was an example of a problem exacerbated by the heavy hand of government. Had it not been for mercantilist and protectionist Robber Baron economic policies of the 19th century, wealth creation for the average family would have been realized much more broadly and quickly so that parents could afford to send their children to school sooner. Many social problems, including institutional discrimination, that governments are credited with fixing were largely already successfully being addressed through direct action before legislative interventions took place.

Consider consumer protections against price fixing. Historic examples of consumer protection during the Progressive Era were done at the behest of business interests. As noted liberal historical Gabriel Kolko wrote of the implementation of the Federal Trade Commission, in “The Triumph of Conservatism”:

The provisions of the new laws attacking unfair competitors and price discrimination meant that the government would now make it possible for many trade associations to stabilize, for the first time, prices within their industries, and to make effective oligopoly a new phase of the economy.

He called it a triumph of conservatism because federal intervention into the economy was able to secure the existing economic structure, what Kolko called “political capitalism” and what we know today as “crony capitalism” and “corporatism.” In Kolko’s conclusion, he said:

The varieties of rhetoric associated with progressivism were as diverse as its followers, and one form of this rhetoric involved attacks on businessmen—attacks that were often framed in a fashion that has been misunderstood by historians as being radical. But at no point did any major political tendency dealing with the problem of big business in modern society ever try to go beyond the level of high generalization and translate theory into concrete economic programs that would conflict in a fundamental way with business supremacy over the control of wealth. It was not a coincidence that the results of progressivism were precisely what many major business interests desired.

Kolko’s book is something, documenting how nearly every aspect of the Progressive Era legislation — from food inspections, environmental conservation and banking reforms, for example — were used as covers to cement the existing cartelized trusts already in power.

The book does a great job of documenting the problem with hierarchical institutions, that the people who already have the most access to the government are going to have the most influence in shaping what solutions are offered, how they are interpreted and how they would be implemented. Regulators — like all self-interested creatures — are sure to implement solutions that preserve their power and prospects for future employment, since their interests closely align with those of the regulated. If regulators or politicians are corruptible with bribes, the powerful can leverage their influence to a greater degree than they could in a freer market. For just a fraction of the cost, favorable regulations worth millions of dollars can be bought with campaign contributions. On a free market, it would be more costly to bribe someone who did not have the luxury of using taxes, as government regulators can, to pay for the enforcement of regulatory or legislative cronyism.

Making More Trouble

Next, the video documents social problems that libertarians typically attribute to government. In the past, I might have been guilty of short-changing why those problems are a consequence of government intervention, so I will take the time below to make the points clear.

  1. Food prices — Yes, governments subsidize cattle and meat production at the expense of healthier, more natural forms of food, and place restrictions on the importation of those products. It is not a market phenomenon that it costs more to purchase a salad than a hamburger. All the resources devoted to feeding cows and other animals and creating bio-fuels like corn-based ethanol could have been used to produce food for organic diets. In addition, the federal government has sealed off arable land that could be used to farm, and city ordinances often place restrictions on mixed-use property, some of which could be used for home or community gardens on abandoned property.
  2. Low wages — The ways in which labor organizing is discriminated against is too long to list. Just to list some examples, I would point to the ’35 Wagner Act, which was championed by business interests and conservative unions to clip the more wildcat unions like the anarchist International Workers of the World. Typical demands, like collective bargaining and calling for limited strikes, that unions are legally permitted to make today are pretty meek by comparison. Before the era of having to get government recognition, when most of the historic gains of the labor movement were actually realized, unions could call for general strikes and indirect boycotts, opened union hiring halls, signed closed-door contracts or demanded worker management of the firm. Other government interventions are through occupational licensing laws, use-restricted zoning regulations, legal tender laws, capitalization requirements and capital-favored taxation policies that mean more people have to work for wage labor in the first place.
  3. College expensesIt is not a coincidence that college tuition expenses increase at the same time that governments actively encourage people to go into debt by providing low-interest loans and restricting the establishment of new higher education options. The government and the corporate credentialism fetish is also partly to blame. One major expense of college is the cost of textbooks, which are artificially marked up do to the enforcement of artificial intellectual property claims.
  4. Environmental conservation — It is also no secret that common law environmental tort protections were removed from courts in the 1900s, which is how pollution problems were handled until environmental legislation that legalized greater environmental damage took power out of the hands of property owners. That is not to mention that the largest polluter in the entire world is the United States federal government.
  5. Drug safety — Yes, illicit drugs are more dangerous because of government. They cannot be made under true laboratory conditions; there is no possibility of any legal redress for fraud; and every year millions of people acting consensually are terrorized by government agents and hundreds if not thousands are killed by those government agents. The crime and escalated costs associated with drugs are a consequence of prohibition.
  6. Terrorism — See “Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire” by Chalmers Johnson.

At the beginning of the video, hawanja criticized the favoritism that governments grant corporations, only later to praise the cronyism of farm subsidies for multimillion dollar farm conglomerates. He said that government protection has led to stable food prices in the United States, which is not so true of late. However, the relative stability has only come because Americans already pay much higher prices for foods like sugar than do residents of developing nations. In terms of dollars, the average American family transfers an additional $146 to large agribusinesses every year because of these policies, which do not include the approximate $300 per family given directly to mostly multimillionaires through the federal budget. The costs of milk, butter and meat products would be deflated if trade restrictions on international markets were abolished, helping to reduce poverty overseas.

Looking at the unintended consequences of those subsidies, the abundance of corn, some of which is used to sweeten sodas, has been linked to increased obesity in Americans. There is also the problem that developing nations wanting to compete in farm production are constantly being underpriced by subsidized farmers, leading developing nations to become dependent on subsidized farmers for food. That is something developed nations hold over developing nations as part of “Open Door Imperialism,” but it is not a fact I would cheer. Without government protectionism, land use could become more environmentally friendly, as well. A Reason magazine article said:

The distortions and perverse incentives of U.S. agricultural policies have encouraged practices that damage the environment. Trade barriers and subsidies stimulate production on marginal land, leading to overuse of pesticides, fertilizers, and other effluents. A central if unstated purpose of American farm policy is to promote production of commodities that would not be economical under competitive, free market conditions. This often means emphasizing crops better grown elsewhere, requiring more chemical assistance.

The conclusion of the video makes a laundry list of mandates that hawanja thinks the free market could not provide, like affordable housing and health care, public transportation, environmental and consumer protections, expanded broadband internet coverage, protection for the homeless, protection of endangered species, food and medical safety and national security. He said that the free market cannot do these things; “we do these things because we need them to survive.” His unstated argument is that these are public goods that markets cannot provide for.

I have argued in the past that with a little creativity, public goods can be provided, assuming there is public support for those goods, which would also have to be the case in a democratic government. To quote Kevin Carson, “As always, it’s not a question of what we’ll do when the state stops solving the problem. It’s a question of how to stop the state from creating the problem.”

The problem becomes that regardless of the possibility of providing those public goods on an open market, those goods become harder to achieve with a government in place, which creates an entirely new set of obstacles for achieving those original public goods governments were purportedly created to solve in the first place. Public goods, like security and safety, are not impossible for governments to provide, just costlier and more difficult than they would be on a free market. The first new public good created by the presence of a democratic government would be an informed electorate. It is not in the average person’s economic interest to know much about the issues at hand or the candidates running for office. That is because a single individual’s vote has almost no significance in the outcome of an election, and even if a single vote could turn an election, a voter has no method of holding a politician to his or her campaign pledges. It gets worse. A single politician in Washington, D.C., is one of 535 votes in the legislature. The idea that a citizen’s vote would make any noticeable difference to the his or her life is almost inconceivable.

The second public good that must be provided for in order to solve the original public goods problems is the creation of just laws. When thinking about it, there are thousands and thousands of pages of legislation and regulation under discussion. It would be next to impossible and meaningless to read every line of every bill introduced or regulation proposed in order to find out if some special benefit is being given to this or that special interest lobbyists. Even if we could decipher what the legislation or proposed regulation meant and its impact in the future, which would be difficult enough, contacting a congressman or regulator is going to have a negligible impact on influencing policy. Even if we could change the policy, it most likely only means a savings of a few dollars or cents per voter. Special interests who stand to gain millions or billions are always going to have the time and money to devote to gaining special favors.

Since human beings are not perfect or all-knowing, market failure is possible, but as David Friedman notes, “In the political system, market failure is the norm. If you think of the political system as a marketplace, we cannot expect individual rationality to produce group-rational results.” So the idea that government would work if we could only get the right people in charge is a failed strategy in practice and beyond naïve in theory.

When a government does try to address public goods that allegedly cannot be provided by the market, policies are going to serve the powerful and wealthy. Seeing how I would actually like to see those public goods provided to people, I cannot support a government, because a government makes those products less attainable for the people who most desperately need them.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Re: People who Piss me off: Free Market Anarchists”

    1. This next bullshit about “government preventing wealth creation,” just what does that mean exactly?

      I called it “government-enforced poverty”; I do not know what government force poverty is. I think I made a pretty straightforward case that governments limit the economic opportunities of working-class people.

      Yeah I guess the Fair Labor Standards act didn’t really do much. One may argue that child labor was already on the way out by 1938, which is true. …

      Governments actively promoted child labor by making economic conditions more grueling on families. In Europe, it was even more dramatic; it is evident that poor people had little choice but to send their children to work in factories because of government policies that abolished traditional land tenure rights and greatly enclosed the commons. So I am not going to credit the government for slightly alleviating a problem it exacerbated to an even greater degree.

      Nowhere do I maintain that racism and discrimination is “natural,” and nor do I imply in the video at all that a hierarchical structure should use violence to enforce it even if it was.

      I presented the issues of racism and discrimination, which are arguably older than the state, because I was curious what principle, if any, you thought should be used to differentiate between “natural hierarchical structure[s] to human beings” that should be enforced and those that should not. I still have not gotten an answer to that question.

      The “Free Market” didn’t end Jim crow, people did.

      I must have a more robust understanding of what the free market is. Certainly, it as a metaphor for the consensually regulated exchange of goods and services, but it also includes the whole sphere of consensual interpersonal interaction. This includes the use of protests too. The Woolworth lunch counters were desegregated by sit-ins and boycotts in 1960. The civil rights movements were able to hold racists accountable both economically and socially well before legislation in Washington. Politicians co-opted the movement when they saw the political tides turning, but the people ended Jim Crow, as you said.

      The next five or six paragraphs has something to do with some dude who wrote a book that reinforces some shit that Justin thinks is true, blah blah blah, yeah maybe one day I’ll read it but not likely.

      Actually, Gabriel Kolko is a well-known liberal historian.

      He however does not address the fact that government subsidies are a highly successful policy and consistently lead to higher yields and surpluses to export, but instead chooses to engage in a little Ad hominem attacking of his own.

      I hardly called them successful, unless you include the average taxpayer paying more overall for food and poor, developing nations being undermined for political purposes. And exactly what ad-hominem did I use?

      So sorry, your big evil government conspiracy to drive down wages actually increased them.

      I would argue that their wages would be even higher if it were not for the fact that conservative unions, which have the most political pull, are the ones being recognized by the federal government. The wages of non-union members are also driven down as a result of their decreased bargaining power. Their purchasing power is also devalued through the creation of fiat currency, which hurts to the poorest the most.

      First off why exactly is it the governments fault for providing the loans, but not the college’s fault for jacking up prices?

      Some fault does rest with colleges. They place artificial, government-backed restrictions on which colleges are deemed “accredited.” It works the same as any licensing scheme, to limit competition.

      So how come you people never blame Bank of America or Citibank for runaway college tuition?

      Good point. That is another way they benefit from cronyism. But those loans are only profitable because they are backed by the government, which I am sure banks helped lobby for.

      I’m not really sure how relevant environmental regulations in the 19th century are to the discussion today, as most of what we have couldn’t be handled in such a fashion.

      It is another example of how pollution problems were handled much more efficiently and stringently than under the current paradigm.

      A local town outlaws a company from dumping toxic waste in their river, so said company just moves upstream and makes a deal with another town to legally dump it in their portion of the river. Would be nice except there is no court system – don’t forget, you people got rid of the government.

      Again, the false dichotomy that it is the state or nothing. That is a plain example of someone’s homesteaded right to the river water being violated. Objections such as these have been covered by countless supporters of stateless dispute resolution. Google “pollution stateless society” or “free market environmentalism” to see for yourself.

      You know what would make it even safer? If it were regulated by the FDA as to purity, potency, and usage. That would make it a lot safer then just letting any random yahoo sell the shit on the streets.

      By delaying life-saving drugs and making drugs approval more expensive, the FDA has arguably been responsible for more deaths than have ever been saved. As the approval process has become more time-consuming, drug companies have turned to patenting their drugs, which was usually not the case prior to the growth of the FDA, which has made drugs less affordable to people who need them.

      What I am saying though is that Free Market Anarchists tend to forget that there is no such thing as a free market.

      There is some truth to that for some market anarchists.

      All markets are manipulated in some way, always have been and always will be.

      There will always be murder, so some murder is acceptable so long as it is controlled democratically, right?

      The idea that all these problems will go away if we just get rid of governments is, to be frank, fucking idiotic.

      A strawman. I said that government intervention makes solving problems, like providing for public goods, more difficult.

      I offered a detailed analysis why government has, and always will be, the “executive committee of the ruling class,” as Marx called, and how the creation of a government creates two additional public goods. Those points have been left unaddressed.

    2. I called it “government-enforced poverty”; I do not know what government force poverty is. I think I made a pretty straightforward case that governments limit the economic opportunities of working-class people.

      That’s funny, I didn’t called it “Government force poverty” either. I said “Government [i]forced[/i] poverty.” So I mean, if you’re gonna argue semantics then get the shit right please. I like how you didn’t speak to anything about all the illegal activities I mentioned. I’m sure you explained it, but for my benefit please explain it again. Are you talking about activities such as those which we currently consider illegal when you speak of “creative hustling enterprises?” Or do you mean something else? I mean, if it’s legal, then why would the big evil government prevent poor people from creating this wealth? Help me to understand this please.

      Governments actively promoted child labor by making economic conditions more grueling on families. In Europe, it was even more dramatic; it is evident that poor people had little choice but to send their children to work in factories because of government policies that abolished traditional land tenure rights and greatly enclosed the commons. So I am not going to credit the government for slightly alleviating a problem it exacerbated to an even greater degree.

      This point I answewred several times in my response, that a government is just a tool, and this is an example of that tool being used against the public good. When Child labor was outlawed it’s an example of that tool being used for the public good. Without a government to enforce the law [b]no one[/b] would be in a position to stop child labor. That is, unless we live in some dumbshit farcical free market bullshit land where corporations actually listen to thier customers and stop engaging in unethical behavior becasue it makes them look bad.

      I presented the issues of racism and discrimination, which are arguably older than the state, because I was curious what principle, if any, you thought should be used to differentiate between “natural hierarchical structure[s] to human beings” that should be enforced and those that should not. I still have not gotten an answer to that question.

      Who said there has to be a principal? That’s the problem with you people, you think your philosophy must explain everything ever or it’s not valid. Sexisim and Racisim is wrong becasue [b]we say it’s wrong,[/b] not becasue of some philosophical law of the universe.

      I must have a more robust understanding of what the free market is. Certainly, it as a metaphor for the consensually regulated exchange of goods and services, but it also includes the whole sphere of consensual interpersonal interaction. This includes the use of protests too. The Woolworth lunch counters were desegregated by sit-ins and boycotts in 1960. The civil rights movements were able to hold racists accountable both economically and socially well before legislation in Washington. Politicians co-opted the movement when they saw the political tides turning, but the people ended Jim Crow, as you said.

      I disagree, the “fee market” does not easily apply to social movements or cultural attitudes. After Jim Crow was abolished and the Civil rights bill passed the same racist assholes still held thier bigoted views. Private and instutional racisim lingers on to this very day. People don’t suddenly just change such learned behaviors becasue it’s less economical to do so.


    3. I hardly called them successful, unless you include the average taxpayer paying more overall for food and poor, developing nations being undermined for political purposes. And exactly what ad-hominem did I use?

      Do food subsidies keep food prices stable and produce a consistently high yeild for consumption and export, or don’t they? Yes or no? And when you started badmouthing subsidies by saying it was ineffcient and not organic, that is Ad hominem. You are trying to degrade the arguement by bringing up points which, even though they may be true, are irrelevant. Doesn’t matter if somehow the free market could grow corn for ethanol organically, that is irrelevant to government subsidies being successful or not.

      I would argue that their wages would be even higher…

      Yeah well I would argue the wages would be lower, becasue they’d be goin on strike every five seconds. Of course we’ll never know so the whole thing’s fucking irrelevant. You know if you’re going to argue something it helps to provide examples of where it’s actually happened in history. Is there an example of what you’re saying actually happening? Becasue if there is then I concede.

      Some fault does rest with colleges. They place artificial, government-backed restrictions on which colleges are deemed “accredited.” It works the same as any licensing scheme, to limit competition.

      That is a licensing scheme the majority of people happen to agree with. There has to be some kind of impartial standard to keep out the scams and deploma mills.

      Good point. That is another way they benefit from cronyism. But those loans are only profitable because they are backed by the government, which I am sure banks helped lobby for.

      Once again, you’re blaming the government and not the people who are actually causing the problem. That’s something you people never seem to understand. How exactly would financing for college loans work, without government intervention? They’re not very profitable loans in the first place, so the “Free market” ain’t gonna help anybody.

      It is another example of how pollution problems were handled much more efficiently and stringently than under the current paradigm.

      Nah, it’s an example of how it could be handeled if we still lived in the 1800’s. How would common law tort protections have prevented the BP gulf oil spill? You know what would have happened? BP would simply leave, and no one would be able to sue anyone. Plus you know, you need to have a government to have a court system anyway so the whole damn point is irrelevant in the first place.

      Again, the false dichotomy that it is the state or nothing. That is a plain example of someone’s homesteaded right to the river water being violated. Objections such as these have been covered by countless supporters of stateless dispute resolution. Google “pollution stateless society” or “free market environmentalism” to see for yourself.

      Well then explain how, [b]exactly,[/b] any court can enforce it’s ruling without an executive branch? So what if the court fines them, how exactly is it going to collect this money? Hey there’s no cops to go arrest the people, no state department to put on political pressure, no senate to declare war on them. So please explain to me how exactly your small town using a powerless court system against a gigantic wealthy multinational would do anything, whatsoever?

      By delaying life-saving drugs and making drugs approval more expensive, the FDA has arguably been responsible for more deaths than have ever been saved. As the approval process has become more time-consuming, drug companies have turned to patenting their drugs, which was usually not the case prior to the growth of the FDA, which has made drugs less affordable to people who need them.

      It is worth it to ensure those same drugs are not in fact toxic. Tell you what, when you get sick you can take all the non-approved experimental shit you want. I will stick with medicines that have been proven not to kill you.

      And no, drug companies do not patent drugs becasue it takes too long to get them approved. That’s fucking idiotic. They do it becasue it stops competing companies from manufacturing generic versions of them.

      There will always be murder, so some murder is acceptable so long as it is controlled democratically, right?

      Once again, not saying anything is just, acceptable, or right, just making observations about things really are.

      A strawman. I said that government intervention makes solving problems, like providing for public goods, more difficult.

      Well you have no problem blaming child labor, drug abuse, terrorism, runaway college tuition, low wages, price fixing, sexisim, racisim, and poverty on the government, so maybe you need to rethink your political philosophy. It doesn’t seem to have all the answers.

    4. I mean, if it's legal, then why would the big evil government prevent poor people from creating this wealth

      It benefits privileged special interests groups that lobby the government to make certain activities illegal or more burdensome in order to create a scarcity for the particular good or service that the privileged special interest group provides. This is done through a series of restriction on mixed-use property for operating home-based businesses, occupational licensing laws, enforcement of intellectual property and other false forms of property, eminent domain seizures, legal tender laws, capitalization requirements and other regulatory barriers to entry and discriminatory tax policies.

      It serves the desires of regulators as well, as they can use their status to receive employment opportunities in the markets they had regulated. And since they tend to share the same bureaucratic culture, it also serves the regulators and regulated to preserve the existing cartelized models of production and choke off whatever possible competing models emerge.

      Who said there has to be a principal? That's the problem with you people, you think your philosophy must explain everything ever or it's not valid. Sexisim and Racisim is wrong becasue [b]we say it's wrong,[/b] not becasue of some philosophical law of the universe.

      So you believe that racism and sexism are wrong only if a majority of people believed they are wrong. Interesting.

      People don't suddenly just change such learned behaviors becasue it's less economical to do so.

      We agree. That is why I mentioned that direct action campaigns were successful in holding racists accountable through both economic and cultural means.

      Do food subsidies keep food prices stable and produce a consistently high yeild for consumption and export, or don't they?

      Who cares if the prices are stable if the food is more expensive. It would be better if their prices were falling so that poor people would be able to more easily afford them.

      And when you started badmouthing subsidies by saying it was ineffcient and not organic, that is Ad hominem.

      I would suggest you research what an ad hominem is before making unwarranted accusations. An ad hominem is when you say someone's argument or premise is invalid because of some alleged character flaw of the person making the argument or premise.

      Frankly, the rest of your comments are either misrepresentation of my position or have been addressed previously, so I'll let my comments stand as they are.

    5. First point – about "Creative Hustling,"

      You still haven't told us exactly what these activities are, which the government makes illegal to force people into poverty. What activities are these, exactly? Prostitution? Illegal movie downloading? Money counterfeiting? Organ harvesting? Just what exactly are you talking about?

      See I can't think of very many things which the big evil government makes illegal solely so the rich people who buy politicians can have a monopoly. Not unless you're implying that it's illegal if I go start my own oil company or something.

      So please, expand on this point, because it sounds like an excuse to me. What service, exactly, is illegal for poor people to provide, but not illegal for rich people to provide?

      – Racism and sexism – My personal belief is no, I believe they are wrong because I believe it is wrong to treat people unfairly based on genetic factors which are out of the individual's control. Now if we're talking about the human race as a whole, then absolutely yes. People tend to judge what's right and wrong on based on cultural norms and practices. 100 years ago racism and sexism were not "wrong," just as they are not considered wrong in most parts of the world today. Take a trip to Japan and see how they treat women and black people. 100 years from now the attitude of western society may change yet again.

      Food subsidies – Who cares? You should, because stability in the market is more important than cheap prices. When a market is not stable prices tend to fluctuate if you haven't noticed, and lead to shortages and crashes. And I take issue with the assumption that subsidies make food more expensive. Like I said in the video, the reason why that hamburger is $3 instead of $13 is because your tax dollars make it that way.

      Ad Hominem – I stand corrected, you did not engage in an ad hominem attack. You simply tried to reduce the argument by bringing up irrelevant bullshit.

      For the rest of my points, hey if you can't answer them… I think the point about a court being powerless when it has no enforcement mechanism is a rather good point. So if you want to ignore the rest of the shit then fine, but answer that one. How does a court in a small town enforce it's ruling on a borderless multinational without any type of executive branch?

    6. So please, expand on this point, because it sounds like an excuse to me. What service, exactly, is illegal for poor people to provide, but not illegal for rich people to provide?

      It is not a matter of making certain business activities illegal for poor people. The government simply prices them out of business, though artificial capitalization requirements, prohibitions on mixed-use property, licensing laws, discriminatory tax practices, regulatory fees and the like.

      How does a court in a small town enforce it's ruling on a borderless multinational without any type of executive branch?

      I would prefer just about anything besides granting a single organization the responsibility resolving disputes, particularly when the dispute resolution monopoly is subject to being bribed by that borderless multinational. I am not interested in providing it to you, but I would suggest searching for something like "dispute resolution stateless society," if you care to know.

    7. First point – Bullshit, you didn't say "the government prices them out of business," You said "It benefits privileged special interests groups that lobby the government to make certain activities illegal or more burdensome in order to create a scarcity for the particular good or service that the privileged special interest group provides."

      I am asking where the "illegal" part comes in, because that sounds like a load of horseshit. What activities are illegal for poor people to engage in, but not illegal for rich people?

      Second point: So you don't have an answer, is what you're saying.

      That's ok. None of the other arachno-capitalist fruitcakes I've poised that question to have an answer either.

    8. I am asking where the "illegal" part comes in, because that sounds like a load of horseshit. What activities are illegal for poor people to engage in, but not illegal for rich people?

      As I have already said, governments prohibit (as in make illegal) the use of mixed-use property, so that property can only be used either for residential or commercial purposes, but not both. That is one of the many, many ways that governments help protect the privilege of wealthy people, by limiting competition and creating artificial scarcities for goods and services. There is also the enforcement of false property claims, such as intellectual property and abandoned property.

      Want an example of a way in which a government limits competition for the protection of wealthier interests? Watch

      .

      As a reminder of the submission policy of the site, verbally abusive language such as calling people "fruitcakes," a known slur against gay men, is not acceptable. Furthermore, I have no interest in interacting with someone of your obstinate demeanor any longer. You can have the last word, if you must.

    9. Wrong, properties can be used for both commercial and private use. People do it all the time, work from home, have clients at home, run a hostel or bed & breakfast from home, etc. There are cases in which it is unlawful to use a residential property (retail stores, storing hazardous chemicals, etc.)

      But really, this is the best you can come up with? Poor people are at a disadvantage because in order to go into business they have to rent out a retail space or office? That example is weaksauce.

      Second, how exactly is it that you consider intellectual property to be "false property?" What exactly do you mean by that?

      You know that link, it's an example of the exact opposite of what you're talking about. You said the government prevents poor people from starting businesses (actually, you said "government enforced poverty" and that the government makes certain activities "illegal." ) Yet here is a guy who wasn't rich and who started his own business. So how come the poverty police didn't show up and take all his money?

      Seriously, how did this guy, who according to you should have been beaten down by the cops the instant he even attempted to make money, start a successful business? Apparently those big evil government regulations weren't enough to enforce poverty on this guy, were they?

      And no, when I say "fruitcake" it has nothing to do with gay people. What is this, the 1930s? Yeah you have no interest in interacting with someone who knows how to counter your bullshit arguments, I understand.

      Hey man, I just made a video, you're the one who can't handle it. Not my problem your bullshit arguements are so easy to tear down.

  1. Fantastic job Justin.

    To anyone with any intellectual honesty, Hawanja just spent several posts making his position look completely untenable.

    I love how these brainwashed stunted political intellectuals are reduced to spitting out crass language and foaming at the mouth when it is pointed out that the premise of their argument actually agrees with your point and does not disprove it, as long as you remove all the exceptionalism they assign to the state.

    It still amazes me that someone still thinks that governments are any different then any other protection racket or strong arm mafia.

    How about this Hawanja, "courts" existed before established government monopolies in many cultures. They still do in stateless societies such as in Somalia. Stick that reality in your pipe and smoke it, along with the same junk you smoked that makes anything morally reprehensible okay as long as it happened in the past and was considered a cultural norm at the time.

    Also, who the f#)!@$%!*% told you that government is impartial in anything? the fact that you cited government as an impartial player in any market makes you look like a total poo flinging monkey. Only the most unintellectual boob would even put fourth such a premise.

    Also, social interactions are a market, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Otherwise there would be no dating services, or divorce lawyers you total boob.

    See, the thing is with reality, is that it rarely lines up with the belief system of an egoist such as yourself, and it just keep going on whether you BELIEVE it or not.

  2. That guy was insufferably obtuse, willfully ignorant, and utterly incapable of recognizing or even acknowledging when you had refuted his arguments, let alone even partially comprehending how you had done so. "Poo flinging monkey" is an accurate description of his behavior. He (obviously quite unwittingly) embarrassed himself. Excellent debating skills, this is a textbook example of how to argue with an idiot for the benefit of your audience.

Comments are closed.