Nothing would happen or has ever happened without government capital investment. Ergo, everything else is a fairy tale. Doesn't work, does it?

Anyway, in this thread I haven't really talked about anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism, though I'm happy to talk about it, and have simply advocated buying gold as the philosopher kinds really have no idea what they are doing. I think this is a somewhat more defensible view, a form of political atheism as it were.

As far as bonds go, I'm not really ready to argue about that and not sure I'm going to take the time. I don't know enough really. But, just for thought. What are the maturity dates of bonds which are neither issued by nor insured by entities which do not have the power to levy taxes? And, some government investments aren't 5 or 10 or 20 years, but 40, 50, 100 year investments. Are there 100 year private bonds?

Well, you haven't described how that fallacy is present in the main point mentioned.

Governments are designed intentionally to persist for posterity.

I'm not allergic to a mixed economy. And it's neither true that nothing has happened without government investment nor that nothing has happened without private capital.

If people wanted them, then they would have them. The market isn't adverse to bonds. There's no way to guarantee anything for 100 years if history means anything, so I don't know what price you'd fetch.

At a base form, governing takes at-least two and coexistence is not a fairy tale. Funnily transnational investing also takes at least two. A fairy tale is coexistence doesn't exist because I am here and you are there.

I do not think governments are intelligently designed. The first governments weren't. The ancient Egyptian government conflated the Pharo with God. Modern governments are arbitrated over who has what force, and ideological might. The founders had a free hand because they showed that they could persist without the British, and were extremely popular to the colonists. But no, government is not intelligently designed.

Governing takes two in a mutually beneficial relationship. Government is fundamentally different from governing. I have nothing against laws. Just government laws. So there's the law of supply and demand, which are laws generated from the free market. And they will still be true as long as this flirt with government-deism persists for the next couple hundred years at least.

Doesn't seem the laws are all that intelligent to me.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/traceyg...nder-reported/

Housing and bank bailouts, lol. Still not enough to rebuke supply and demand.

Our rulers are supremely stupid, narcissistic, and elitist, etc, etc. and it's as plain as day, worth discussing even more than anarcho-capitalism, perhaps. These are people that should never touch money, and be thrown in an insane asylum for what they've done.

Well, I think a significant part of modern society has been facilitated if not absolutely dependent on some very long term investments. Perhaps they were bad risks. Something on a slightly shorter time scale like the public educating a child may not be profitable, especially if they study something impractical.

Here's a problem with capitalism in general, anarcho or not: A system may be efficient and fair according to some principles at first, but if it doesn't work out well for even a moderately large percentage of people, those people are going to eventually kill the people for whom it worked out. Aside from a few Buddhist ascetics practicing Sokushinbutsu, no one starves themselves out of principle. But, that is definitely a tangent.

Whoa, whoa, veering wild towards fairly tales. I only accept intelligent descriptions of stupid, and I already know about intelligent approaches to already existent government systems. And I distinguish between government systems and government regimes. Were I to start a supposition that government is not intelligently designed, I would have to stop to correct myself with what i already know.

I also want to state that I'm not talking about what is good or bad for most of this. I don't presume technological advancement is necessarily always good.

When an anarcho-capitalist is asked "who will build the roads?" I'm not sure I like the answer that private companies will build them on people's roofs better than "there will a lot fewer roads."

I'll be back in like a week or so. This is just eating too much time. I can't logically justify it.

Modern industrial, crony capitalism absolutely requires corruption and pollution in order to thrive. (Some would even include laundered drug money in that equation.)

This is 100% the reason cons prefer to eviscerate government oversight. Keeping prying eyes away is absolutely vital to maintaining the great Ponzi/Pyramid scheme, and making waste cleanup someone else's problem. It has very little to do with "burdensome regulations" and everything to do with "burdensome" fines (well-earned) for violating workers rights and destroying the biosphere.

In the US the giant government is so captured by industry that it participates in environmental destruction, but it's also the protection against environmental destruction. It's like Homer said about beer, the cause of and the cure for all of life's problems.

In Rojava, a society dedicated to curtailing the accumulation of either a central government or commercial power they have this as the second sentence of the preamble of their constitution:

Have mercy, wait until leavesofliberty finds out Santa Claus ain't real.

"Oh hey, I totally don't believe in government and I feel government's only role should be enforcing property rights. Which is 98% of everything btw. Did you hear that rabbits lay eggs in the springtime? I am a ****ing child."

Cool.... soooo, you trust the average entrepreneur or corporate executive to always do the right thing if their utopia of zero oversight comes to fruition, huh? Thousands of years of history tends to puke all over that assumption.

"Rational actors." It's the same error in free market assumption ... the human condition does not act rationally.

I don't think that's anything like what I said and certainly far from what I meant.

Irrational and more than simply rational. Potentially reasonable and potentially only appears reasonable. On a planet that's mostly ocean (on it's 'surface') because facts.

Have you ever heard of the internet? I think you're using it right now.

The Anarchy thread already dealt with this kind of crap. When the ACists ask what things exist/are better because of government, the position they're looking to retreat to is one where they smugly proclaim that that could have been accomplished without it. And they may well be right, but who gives a ****?

It's relevant if the argument that government isn't necessary for the advances that have been achieved under governments. I get it would be better for the ACist to just state that governments do decent stuff but that markets would do it more efficiently in the absence of government.

Those of us who are opposed to capitalism have the same problem, capitalism has contributed to the betterment of various societies at various times but my view is that capitalism isn't necessary to deliver those advances and a more co-operative socialised distribution could have made similar or greater contributions. Problem is how the **** do I know if some hypothetical structure of society actually delivers greater gains than the actual structure.

A little capitalism is fine in moderation but, like, you know, if you don't eat your meat you can't have any pudding and so forth.

The reason I don't care about the answer to his question is because it's backwards. The ACist is asking me to demonstrate that something is impossible without government. I'm not interesting in chasing that loose end because what the ACists job should be is to demonstrate that it would've been better without government. Even showing it's possible at all is his job, not mine.

Not all opposition to capitalist workings needs to be purely hypothetical in nature. That only occurs when we want rapid revolution over evolution. We have the benefit of empiricism when it comes to concepts like increasing social spending, providing education, healthcare, basic standards of living. And heading even further in that direction does not necessitate some entirely new way of life under "anarchy" as the ACist considers it.

When the ACists asks to move to a situation in which no government exists to provide public education he is not arguing from the same platform as some leftist insisting that education needs to be better funded and more widely available.

I don't know, lost interest in having a serious discussion about libertarianism when advocating buying gold = AC hijack. Every time a liberal makes a point, I don't go screaming OMG LIBERAL HIJACK. Oh yeah, it was hilarious for me also to read that libertarianism is parrallel to communism as an orthodox moral system. It's like, the people who spend the least time trying to understand a topic is the one most interested in framing the discussion. I enjoyed my mini-vacation-staycation. But, I suppose buying gold waiting for the system to go dust is not inconsensistent with libertarianism. I am on a time budget, so I keep it simple. Also, I think it's a smart play to have insurance.