Quote:
Originally Posted by dereds
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.
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.