
Rôzne Rozhovory Komentáre Slobodný trh Kultúrna vojna Slovenská otázka EUtópia Ideológia Ficoviny

11-01-2007 redakcia Rôzne verzia pre tlač

Pozvánka na akciu: „Svet 2007: Rok krízy, či pokoja?"

Kresťanskodemokratická mládež Slovenska - Bratislavský kraj Vás pozýva na konferenciu o perspektívach začínajúceho roku 2007 s poslancom NR SR za KDH, Františkom Mikloškom a šéfredaktorom Pravého Spektra, Lukášom Krivošíkom.

Reakcia na príspevok

RE: Pod lampou

autor: D

pridané: 13-01-2007 15:02

1. "Ide o to minimalizovat INICIALIZACIU nasilia. Cize postavit ho mimo zakon." vs. "Mne sa celkom pozdava Hoppeho model dobrovolnych poistovni."

Ak existuje dnes motivacia "inicializovat" nasilie, pocnuc roznymi mafiami az po nejaku vacsinu, ktora sa udajne sprisahala proti anarchokapitalistom, tak ako zazracne sa vyvtratia podobne motivacie len zavedenim poistovni? Nebudu aj tie odrazat len tieto iste motivacie? Nie je stat formou takej poistovne? Nemoze si v AK nejaka vynutit monopol na zaklade poziadavky ludi mat jednotne a jasne pravidla na nejakom uzemi?
Nezda sa Ti to ako uplne obycajna poziadavka(pocnuc nejakou komunitou)?
Ako sa budu riesit spory medzi dvoma stranami poistenymi v rozdielnych poistovniach, ktore obe zastupuju(zaviazali sa zastupovat) uplne protichodne zaujmy?
"Malo by to byt spolocenstvo individui, ktore je zalozene na dobrovolnosti a neinicializacii nasilia."

A konflikty sa budu riesit ako? Dve strany sa stretnu, co pri velkej casti konfliktov zaujmov dnes ani nie je mozne, a budu hladat cestu pokial sa nedohodnut a jedna strana ustupi, uzna si ze "nema pravo"(lebo pojem prava prestane existovat, bude sa dat hovorit len o nejakych zaujmoch dvoch stran)?
Ale sa za nich nejako dohodnut poistovne? A ked postovna uzatvori dohodu proti zaujmom toho, koho zastupuje co sa stane? A ak to tak urobit moct nebude, na co bude? Vrahovia, nasilnici, zlodeji si nebudu moct zalozit svoju poistovnu, ktora ich bude chranit v ich zaujme terorizovat okolie?

3. Ako? So zbranou v ruke? Kvetinami?

okrem velmi vseobecneho popisu, z ktoreho nie je vobec jasne konkretna predstava, nie je tam "recept" ako sa dopracova ku AK, wikipedia asi zhrnula vsetky az banalne otazky/vyhrady, ktore anarchokapitalizmus bud nevie zodpovedat alebo ignoruje.

Critics often assert that anarcho-capitalism will degenerate into plutocracy or feudalism in practice. They argue that it is a rational economic decision for organizations with the ability to exert coercion (private police, security and military forces) to exploit groups with less power. In this kind of environment, piracy, military imperialism, and slavery can be very profitable. Taken to its logical extreme, this argument assumes that allowing such "security" organizations to exert coercive power will inevitably lead to their becoming a de facto state. The anarcho-capitalist would respond that in the absence of what they call "victim disarmament" (gun politics), such domination would be expensive even for the most powerful, who would instead prefer peaceful trade with all.
However, this is contradicted by the large scale violence in stateless tribal societes were all males had and knew how to use weapons. Research shows that not only was warfare more common in small-scale societies than it has been among nation states, it involved a greater percentage of the population, and the numbers killed were proportionately higher as well.

Critics also argue that one can observe private protection organizations in practice in gang wars, where different gangs compete with each other on the same "turf" to "protect" their interests, causing high violence.

Another problem is that of externalities, such as pollution. A state can solve this by for example regulations or taxation, mechanisms not available to anarcho-capitalits.

Objectivists argue that, in a society without a police force to protect against the initiation of violence and breach of contracts, civil disagreements that lead to violence can be perpetuated by the formation of gangs, creating a fragmented tribal environment of civil wars; and that anarcho-capitalists are too quick to deny the possibility of a constitutionally limited government.

Minarchist and statist critics often argue that the free rider problem makes anarcho-capitalism (and, by extension, any anti-statist political system) fundamentally unworkable in modern societies. They typically argue that there are some vital goods or services — such as civil or military defense, management of common environmental resources, or the provision of public goods such as roads or lighthouses — that cannot be effectively delivered without the backing of a government exercising effective territorial control, and so that abolishing the state as anarcho-capitalists demand will either lead to catastrophe or to the eventual re-establishment of monopoly governments as a necessary means to solving the coordination problems that the abolition of the state created. One counterargument by free market economists, such as Alex Tabarrok, emphasizes the private use of dominant assurance contracts. Some anarcho-capitalists also contend that the "problem" of "public goods" is illusory and its invocation merely misunderstands the potential individual production of such goods. Others, such as David Friedman, point out that problems of market failure are the exception in private markets but the norm in the political markets that control state action.

Robert Nozick argued in Anarchy, State and Utopia that anarcho-capitalism would inevitably transform into a minarchist state, even without violating any of its own nonaggression principles, through the eventual emergence of a single locally dominant private defense and judicial agency that it is in everyone's interests to align with, because other agencies are unable to effectively compete against the advantages of the agency with majority coverage. Therefore, he felt that, even to the extent that the anarcho-capitalist theory is correct, it results in an unstable system that would not endure in the real world. Similarly, Paul Birch argues that as in the world today, legal disputes involving several jurisdictions and different legal system will be many times more complex and costly to resolve than disputes involving only one legal system. Thus, the largest private protection business in a territory will have lower costs since it will have more internal disputes and will outcompete those private protection business with more external disputes in the territory. In effect, according to Birch, protection business in territory is a natural monopoly.

A criticism of Rothbard's verion of anarcho-capitalism, in which certain fundamental natural rights will be followed, is that this, in the absence of a state which guarantee such rights, is merely wishful thinking.

Meno:
E-mail:
Web stránka:
Predmet:
Text správy:

Zadajte iniciály Pravého Spektra - PS: (antispamová ochrana)

Upozornenie

Príspevky v diskusii k článku sú osobnými názormi jednotlivých čitateľov. Redakcia Pravého Spektra za ich obsah nenesie žiadnu zodpovednosť.

Diskusné príspevky, ktoré sú v rozpore so zákonom budú odstránené.

O problematických príspevkoch nám môžete dať vedieť e-mailom na adresu redakcie.