The View on Anarchy

[Terryphi]

Hello,

I would like to know what Ron Paul Supporters think of Anarchy.

I'm not talking about the Anarchy sung in bad music nor the Anarchy delivered by a bullet, but, rather, the Anarchy of Emma Goldman, Noam Chomsky, and Peter Kropotkin. The Anarchy of the Spanish CNT.

In a capitalist society, money has power. It can be used to grant power disproportionately to individuals, or rob others of their power. With unequal power distribution you cannot have maximum individual liberty. One of Ron Paul's central themes is that of individual liberty. How do you resolve this conflict?

Ron Paul represents many Anarcho-Capitalistic ideas. What makes you perfer Anarcho-Capitalism to traditional Anarcho-Socialism.

Lastly, how do you justify the ownership of property while promulgating individual liberty? Does not the ownership of property inheritly give rise to misers whom breed tyrants?

I very much look forward to hearing your thoughts.

-Terryphi

[FindLiberty]

The system we have now is not working out very well, and it continues to get worse, MUCH WORSE. We have war(s), freedom is going away, and the economy is tanking as we emulate the worst of national-socialism and relentless extreme government versus individual freedom and Constitutionally limited small government.

Yes, "federal" land owners and huge Gov/Corporations with repressive laws are indeed a problem... RIGHT NOW!

Let's try moving in the opposite direction for a while and see if that works out any better.

Call that sliding towards anarchy if you wish.

[werdd]

Anarchy in the sense of minimalistic goverment, whos only soul purpouse is to protect your unalienable rights sounds good to me.

But in order to protect those rights, you need a strong military, with a big stick mentality.

And i also think the goverment has the right to maintain a postal service.

Other than that, im all for every man for his self.

[Black Dude]

Hello,

I would like to know what Ron Paul Supporters think of Anarchy.

Ron Paul represents many Anarcho-Capitalistic ideas. What makes you perfer Anarcho-Capitalism to traditional Anarcho-Socialism.


-Terryphi

I don't see Ron Paul as representing Anarcho-Capitalistic ideas. It is more about getting the FEDERAL government out of our lives as much as possible, and letting the people at the local and State levels make their own decisions. The smaller the government, the more power the people have.

[Black Dude]

In a capitalist society, money has power. It can be used to grant power disproportionately to individuals, or rob others of their power. With unequal power distribution you cannot have maximum individual liberty. One of Ron Paul's central themes is that of individual liberty. How do you resolve this conflict?

-Terryphi

When I think of Liberty, I don't think of equality. I think of a person being able to make his/her own decisions on how to live his/her own life - without government interference. The assumption that many people have is that the government owns us, and decides whats best for us.

The government doesn't own us. The people own the government. At least that is how it is supposed to be in America.

[therealjjj77]

I see government as being instituted for one purpose: to secure the rights of the governed. That's it. It is not to infringe upon the rights of the governed through taxation. There are other means by which it can gain revenues to function.

I believe that NO MATTER THE SYSTEM, there will always be disparities between what one person has and another person. And that isn't a bad thing. Those who contribute more to society should have more. When the government only intervenes when rights are being infringed upon, then the free market can freely decide who should have how much property. Then the free market can properly do it's work. This gives people motivation to succeed. Everyone has an equal opportunity to find ways to contribute to society and benefit from it.

Problems occur in the free market when people are being misled, or lied to. Then it is the government's role to return that which was unlawfully exchanged and apprehend the abusers so they cannot further harm society.

About property, it is an inalienable right to own property. It is among the rights granted us by our Creator.

[inibo]

Hello,

I would like to know what Ron Paul Supporters think of Anarchy.

I'm not talking about the Anarchy sung in bad music nor the Anarchy delivered by a bullet, but, rather, the Anarchy of Emma Goldman, Noam Chomsky, and Peter Kropotkin. The Anarchy of the Spanish CNT.

In a capitalist society, money has power. It can be used to grant power disproportionately to individuals, or rob others of their power. With unequal power distribution you cannot have maximum individual liberty. One of Ron Paul's central themes is that of individual liberty. How do you resolve this conflict?

Ron Paul represents many Anarcho-Capitalistic ideas. What makes you perfer Anarcho-Capitalism to traditional Anarcho-Socialism.

Lastly, how do you justify the ownership of property while promulgating individual liberty? Does not the ownership of property inheritly give rise to misers whom breed tyrants?

I very much look forward to hearing your thoughts.

-Terryphi

Many of Ron Paul's ideas are compatible with anarcho-capitalism, but he is not an anarchist himself. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory153.html) He is a constitutionalist. He recognizes than there is a legitimate purpose for government: the protection of individual rights and liberty.

[garrettwombat]

anarchy is worse than tyranny.

you need to watch this short video and find out why we hate anarchy

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MW6AKVyi6As

[gerryb]

Hello,

I would like to know what Ron Paul Supporters think of Anarchy.

I'm not talking about the Anarchy sung in bad music nor the Anarchy delivered by a bullet, but, rather, the Anarchy of Emma Goldman, Noam Chomsky, and Peter Kropotkin. The Anarchy of the Spanish CNT.

We're not gonna take it! No we ain't gonna take it, anymore!

I don't fully understand the full definition of Anarchy, but I will speak to the degree that I do understand it.



In a capitalist society, money has power. It can be used to grant power disproportionately to individuals, or rob others of their power. With unequal power distribution you cannot have maximum individual liberty. One of Ron Paul's central themes is that of individual liberty. How do you resolve this conflict?

Money has power in every society. Or, more accurately, control and distribution of production has power. You can have "maximum individual liberty" with unequal distribution of money, as long as there is a system of enforcement and reparations when agreed upon terms of a contract or association are broken. I don't believe their is any conflict to resolve between Ron Paul's positions on a true Free Market Capitalist economy and individual liberty.




Ron Paul represents many Anarcho-Capitalistic ideas. What makes you perfer Anarcho-Capitalism to traditional Anarcho-Socialism.


I'm not sure really what the differences between Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Socialism actually are. But in the case of Anarcho-Socialism..
I'll take "Oxymorons" for 500 Alex. I don't know, but I think under an Anarcho-Capitalism society, people would be free to create Anarcho-Socialist associations?




Lastly, how do you justify the ownership of property while promulgating individual liberty? Does not the ownership of property inheritly give rise to misers whom breed tyrants?

I do not believe you can have individual liberty without the right to the ownership of your production. If you do not own your production or the goods or property you trade your production for, you do not have any personal liberty. Also, I do not know of any system of government or society that does not breed tyrants. The system I believe to be most resilient to tyrants is the free market capitalist system. After all, it has taken nearly 250 years for that system to become corrupted to its current broken form.

How do "misers" breed tyrants? Is Bill Gates a tyrant, is Warren Buffet? I would say no. They and other "misers" may be supporting the 'wrong' side of the political landscape with the wealth they have earned and saved, but I wouldn't call them tyrants just yet. While they have used the political system to ferment their control of production, coercion and control of government is not what gave them their wealth.

Now I ask, are the Rockefellers, Morgans, or Rothschilds tyrants? I would say yes. Their wealth was and is earned through coercive means from "We The People" through the individuals that control government.

The waning state of our Republic is not due to the failure of Free Market Capitalism, but is rather due to the failure of our Republic to protect the Free Market.



I very much look forward to hearing your thoughts.

-Terryphi

[Black Dude]

In a capitalist society, money has power. It can be used to grant power disproportionately to individuals, or rob others of their power. With unequal power distribution you cannot have maximum individual liberty. One of Ron Paul's central themes is that of individual liberty. How do you resolve this conflict?

-Terryphi

A utopian world of liberty doesn't exist. The goal is allowing people to make their own decisions on how they want to live. Some people want to make money, have wealth, and provide for their families as well as they possibly can. Others are content to live on their own growing their own food. Unfortunately, some people desire power, and money can be used for that. Rich people continuing to make money and hoarding it away could also be a problem when there is a fixed money supply. If I recall correctly, Thomas Paine suggested having an Inheritance Tax to help redistribute that money so that the rich don't just keep getting richer. But obviously, that would mean a major government presence in our lives to measure each person's wealth when they die, not to mention it is outright theft. My opinion on it is that it would only become a problem if it is illegal to have competition in money (which is how it is with the dollar). Especially if there is a policy of inflation, and the people that receive that new money are the rich, while the poor and middle class just got their money devalued (like it is here in the US). Eventually the middle and lower class keeps getting pushed down, as their wages don't go up until long after prices rise.

Some recommended reading would be Common Sense by Thomas Paine and Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

[Dave39168]

I don't know, but I think under an Anarcho-Capitalism society, people would be free to create Anarcho-Socialist associations?



AGREED gerry.
I've always used this when debating my socialists friends. Under a government system of capitolism and free markets, people who wanted socialism would be free to start their own communes/socialist communities with like minded people. Just give us freedom, and then people who truly believe in socialism can get together with other socialist and share farmland and property and share food and housing and do whatever they wish. (The pursuit of their happiness that is)

On the other hand, If the government system is socialism, then the capitolist are not free to live as they wish. (I cannot pursue my happiness in this system)

Just another example that freedom works :)

to the OP, I don't like anarchy b/c I think there is a proper role for government such as: protecting certain rights and enforcing contracts between individuals, making sure we don't murder each other, making sure we are able to speak freely and bear arms, protecting the environment & maybe maintaining a military,

[RevolutionSD]

I'm an anarcho-capitalist (and RP supporter).

The Ron Paul campaign was successful in getting people talking about such ideas as ending the income tax, dismantling the Federal Reserve, and practicing individualism vs. collectivism.

It's time to take it a step further.

Government is simply force, or services provided at the barrel of a gun. I think ALL services can be better if we have a choice in the matter, and without the violence.

Without the threat of violence our world would be a far better place. Minarchism (or small libertarian gov't) is just a stop on the way to complete liberty.

[berrybunches]

There are a lot of Rothbardians here and straight up anarchists. No one is the same here or anywhere. There is no 100% right answer anyway but I will try to sum ours up. Although, naturally it has flaws as does anything.

Most here believe in the necessary evil of government to insure rights, not grant rights - I think that is clear.

Personal liberty to me means taking what life gives you and doing what you will with it. Since I don't see liberty as something granted/given to us but something that we just have or are born with I don't see a need to ensure everyone is equal. We are born, we belong to ourselves and only to ourselves and we don't owe anything to anyone except to allow them their freedom. People are diverse, we are born with different abilities and some people are just luckier and more fortunate than others and I think thats okay.
I am not wealthy and I will never be wealthy..and you know why? Because I don't really give a damn to work hard. I would rather sit on my ass most of the time and have very little material and save. Thats me. I think if my neighbor wants to build a corporation and work their ass off thats okay. I think if they want to give their inheritance to their child so they never have to work and can have everything that it is none of my business. Just leave me alone.

Unequal power distribution and liberty? Thats just it, as long as they are not using their power from wealth to infringe on my rights thats fine. Sure, they have more liberties like being able to travel more frequently and buy big screen TV's but I don't see how that is bad. If they worked for it or someone gave it to them than thats fair IMO.
Personal property? Let me turn that around on you. How can I have liberty without being able to own property?

I find myself agreeing with Ayn Rand on the ownership issues (not on all issues) and I like the idea of libertarian anarchy. I think they go hand and hand.
I do see the point and merit in Chomsky and others with their whole "wage slavery" argument. But I think people like working for other people because it rids them of responsibility. Why should I not have the freedom to not be free if I choose? (If that makes since)

[A Ron Paul Rebel]

I'm curious why this is your first post.

But to clarify a few things, individual liberty does not mean
equal money for everyone. To me, that sounds like socialism.

If someone has land or money, that does NOT mean that that
person is corrupt/evil/miser, etc... If anyone is the corrupt it's
the establishment that takes that money and redistributes it
to everyone so that everyone has an equal amount. That's not
individual liberty. Again, that is socialism as far as I see it.

No, individual liberty is being able to offer a value (freely) and
being able to get value (cash) in return... with no limits... only
the market/public/consumers to decide if you deserve it.


I could go on but that's enough for me. If you are really serious
about knowing more, please stick around. I'm sure that you'll
find a library of knowledge here that will free your mind and free
your spirit.

Hunter

[AutoDas]

Anarchy is communism.

[A Ron Paul Rebel]

to the OP, I don't like anarchy b/c I think there is a proper role for government such as: protecting certain rights and enforcing contracts between individuals, making sure we don't murder each other, making sure we are able to speak freely and bear arms, protecting the environment & maybe maintaining a military,

The last one is the ONLY one for Federal Gov.

The others don't need laws and regulations to enforce and
can be ensured by a free market at the local level.

[RevolutionSD]

Anarchy is communism.

Wrong. What we have now is communism, or soon to be.

[Anti Federalist]

more here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=139923

[Anti Federalist]

Anarchy is communism.

Huh?

Anarchy = absence of government or leaders.

Communism = Large, intrusive authoritarian government which owns, commands and controls all means of production.

(and why didn't you answer the Bilderberg question?)

[Anti Federalist]

Wrong. What we have now is communism, or soon to be.

We have the worst of both worlds.

Economic fascism coupled with authoritarian "welfare" communism.

[Knightskye]

Change the title - either the original poster or a moderator. It makes it seem like he's talking about the TV show The View.

[Anti Federalist]

Change the title - either the original poster or a moderator. It makes it seem like he's talking about the TV show The View.

Har, that thought's making my head spin.

[mport1]

Over the course of the campaign, I have moved from hardcore libertarian to anarcho-capitalist. Reading some Rothbard and other stuff really made me realize that abolishing government completely and not just minimizing it is what we need to do.

[LibertyOfOne]

anarchy is worse than tyranny.

you need to watch this short video and find out why we hate anarchy

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MW6AKVyi6As

Who is we? Why the collectivist terms?

"Without law there can be no freedom" Idiotic to say the least. Contradictory to say the most. Then the video dives into some bullshit that people need police etc. Like one can't hire their own protection. The function that the police provide is not limited to the state. The video cuts to some shots of chaos. Which is retarded because chaos and anarchy are not related as the common idiot on the street couldn't tell you. Next time post something more substantial than mere strawman arguments.

[inibo]

anarchy is worse than tyranny.

you need to watch this short video and find out why we hate anarchy

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MW6AKVyi6As

Thanks. I knew there was a reason I joined the JBS, even if I do find anarchocapitalism to be intriguing and more than a little attractive.

[garrettwombat]

Who is we? Why the collectivist terms?

"Without law there can be no freedom" Idiotic to say the least. Contradictory to say the most. Then the video dives into some bullshit that people need police etc. Like one can't hire their own protection. The function that the police provide is not limited to the state. The video cuts to some shots of chaos. Which is retarded because chaos and anarchy are not related as the common idiot on the street couldn't tell you. Next time post something more substantial than mere strawman arguments.

ok well thanks for slandering your founding fathers... this is what the same people who wrote the constitution preached of in the federalist papers.

learn about actual history rather than theorizing little dream worlds with no government

[Joseph Hart]

One reason Anarachy is bad: The digital world would rule, and allows the NWO to occur even easier.

[Tarzan]

Have we really been sucked into a time-wasting debate by a first time poster... smacks of the time wasting with the "Dr." Steve posts... looks like an anarchist troll has achieved his objective.

This is a debate everyone should have had (and resolved) in Jr. High. Besides, the anarchists are always the first up against the wall when the revolution comes.

[PredatorOC]

Hello,the Anarchy of Emma Goldman, Noam Chomsky, and Peter Kropotkin. The Anarchy of the Spanish CNT.

You are talking about left-anarchism. I personally don't view that as anarchism, since you still need a governing body. Is a local tyrant more preferable than a distant one?

The Spanish anarcho-syndicalists are a good example of this. Sure, they were mostly egalitarian, but they also killed plenty of people and the surviving people were virtual slaves of the local syndicates. For example, getting a bus ticket meant having to beg for one from the local leadership. And this quite well highlights why economic freedom should be the primary concern of anyone who wishes for liberty; without economic freedom, you don't have personal freedom.


In a capitalist society, money has power. It can be used to grant power disproportionately to individuals, or rob others of their power. With unequal power distribution you cannot have maximum individual liberty. One of Ron Paul's central themes is that of individual liberty. How do you resolve this conflict?

You are using inaccurate and biased language. Value is subjective. All free, voluntary exchanges are mutually beneficial; if you sell something, it means you value the money more than the good. It stems from this that money itself can't be used to rob someone. It seems you are confusing poor management of one's finances to exploitation.


Ron Paul represents many Anarcho-Capitalistic ideas. What makes you perfer Anarcho-Capitalism to traditional Anarcho-Socialism.

Actually, most anarcho-capitalists dislike Paul. They see him as perpetuating the system.


Lastly, how do you justify the ownership of property while promulgating individual liberty? Does not the ownership of property inheritly give rise to misers whom breed tyrants?

Because economic freedom = personal freedom. If the state owns 100% of the fruits of your labor, what happens to your personal freedom? Even thinking requires nutrition, that you now have to get from the state. So if the state owns everything you produce, then by extension, the state owns you.

As for producing tyrants, I would point out that every tyrant in history has been produced by the state. Free markets don't create tyrants. You only arrive at this conclusion since you are using a incomplete theory of capital. The theory you use seems to include only profits, where as any correct theory would also include loss. Capital doesn't automatically attract more capital. To accumulate capital, you either save (the slow method) or you take more risks (the faster method). But the latter one also means you are more likely to lose your capital. If capital was automatically profitable, then why are there undeveloped lots of land or empty factories?

[LibertyOfOne]

ok well thanks for slandering your founding fathers... this is what the same people who wrote the constitution preached of in the federalist papers.

learn about actual history rather than theorizing little dream worlds with no government

I'm a minarchist thank you very much. I think I know enough. This is a written form of communication. There is no such thing as "slander" in this specific medium. I didn't attack anyone. I attacked the nonsensical absolute, the idea not the person.

[Black Dude]

Who is we? Why the collectivist terms?

"Without law there can be no freedom" Idiotic to say the least. Contradictory to say the most. Then the video dives into some bullshit that people need police etc. Like one can't hire their own protection. The function that the police provide is not limited to the state. The video cuts to some shots of chaos. Which is retarded because chaos and anarchy are not related as the common idiot on the street couldn't tell you. Next time post something more substantial than mere strawman arguments.

Try telling a poor person to "hire protection" to protect his rights and property.

[LibertyOfOne]

Try telling a poor person to "hire protection" to protect his rights and property.

You don't have to hire it because as a net gain the community as a whole gains by those that do get it. Also many insurance companies wouldn't cover landlords that rent out hosing while not getting a basic protection package. There is a strong incentive to get it.

[Black Dude]

You don't have to hire it because as a net gain the community as a whole gains by those that do get it. Also many insurance companies wouldn't cover landlords that rent out hosing while not getting a basic protection package. There is a strong incentive to get it.

poor people would be at the mercy of living where others provide protection for them,
if those that can afford protection decide not to grant it to the people that can't... tough luck

[Fields]

I'd just like to give a shout out to my friends, OptionsTrader and crazyfingers....

Bob Barr!

[PredatorOC]

poor people would be at the mercy of living where others provide protection for them,
if those that can afford protection decide not to grant it to the people that can't... tough luck

Acquiring protection isn't that expensive. Consider the rather low expenses of maintaining local police forces. It's not like you need someone around you 24/7. And guns are an even cheaper (and probably better) form of protection.

[LibertyOfOne]

poor people would be at the mercy of living where others provide protection for them,
if those that can afford protection decide not to grant it to the people that can't... tough luck

That makes no sense. You can't be at the mercy of someone if you have choice. Those that can't afford rent? No issurance company that plans on staying in business will grant someone coverage if they don't have protection. There is too much risk.

[LibertyOfOne]

I'd just like to give a shout out to my friends, OptionsTrader and crazyfingers....

Bob Barr!

The cancer of the Libertarian Party!

[Alawn]

Total 100% anarchy does not work and cannot last. It ends up turning into a totalitarian government in one day when the toughest meanest criminal takes over. A very limited government that only does the minimum required to protect liberty is the best option. There has to be some means to prosecute murders or some way to sue when someone destroys your property. A tiny bit of government is good as long as it is limited and not allowed to grow or take away your rights. What we have right now is way way too big. G. Edward Griffin talked about this in one of his recent interviews.

[Kludge]

I believe in free markets more then I believe in anarchy. I believe government is in place to prevent the most evil from happening, not produce "good". Victimless crimes do not exist. People are entitled only to life, liberty, and PROPERTY - not because historic figures wrote so, but because it needs to be recognized as an inherent right for society to function in the most effective way possible.


An ideal government would handle the judicial system (including a police force) paid for by the fines they impose on those who commit aggression, and would check immigrants for communicable diseases. Our legislative branch would not be paid, but allowed to take gifts (at the risk of a recall). The executive branch would be abolished, as with the entire federal government. States would operate independently.

[Black Dude]

That makes no sense. You can't be at the mercy of someone if you have choice. Those that can't afford rent? No issurance company that plans on staying in business will grant someone coverage if they don't have protection. There is too much risk.

If someone owns property, but can't afford to have someone watching over it all of the time, are they supposed to hire someone full time? Or carry all of their property around with them? They surely can't rely on a rich man that has full time property protection to protect theirs as well can they?

[PredatorOC]

Total 100% anarchy does not work and cannot last. It ends up turning into a totalitarian government in one day when the toughest meanest criminal takes over.

I agree with this to a point. I'm a minarchist myself, mainly since An-Cap isn't a viable option with a population that has learned from birth to rely on government for help. But I do think it could work with certain populations. For example, Ireland use to have a system very close to An-Cap. Somalia is a more modern example, though foreign interventions and attempts to force a central government on a tribal society aren't pretty.

I see no reason why An-Cap wouldn't work in a society where the majority are libertarians or willing to accept responsibility for themselves. Of course, achieving that stage is another thing.

[Black Dude]

Acquiring protection isn't that expensive. Consider the rather low expenses of maintaining local police forces. It's not like you need someone around you 24/7. And guns are an even cheaper (and probably better) form of protection.

Local police forces are paid by tax payers. People wouldn't be able to hire personal watchmen. Even if they grouped together, who would decide how many watchmen they hired? What if some people wanted more watchmen, but others can't afford it? All of the poor people would be forced to live together so they could afford someone to watch over their things. Then if one of the poor people ended up making some more money, and bought more property, he would want more protection. Then he would have to live in the next level up of community, because the other poor people can't afford the amount of protection he requires. Am I wrong about all of this?

Also, how is there Justice in an Anarchy if someone violates the rights of another? Wouldn't laws need to be made so there are enforceable rules to protect people? Who makes these laws? Are there rules for proposing laws? Who makes those rules? Or would someone just be able to kill and steal at will, as long as he has the guns for it?

[PredatorOC]

Local police forces are paid by tax payers. People wouldn't be able to hire personal watchmen. Even if they grouped together, who would decide how many watchmen they hired? What if some people wanted more watchmen, but others can't afford it? All of the poor people would be forced to live together so they could afford someone to watch over their things. Then if one of the poor people ended up making some more money, and bought more property, he would want more protection. Then he would have to live in the next level up of community, because the other poor people can't afford the amount of protection he requires. Am I wrong about all of this?

Yes, they are paid with tax money. But my point was that maintenance of police forces is not a huge expense. The worldwide average of police per capita is 2-3 to a 1000 people. And this is with large government bureaucracies and paper shuffling and the costs associated with them. So considering the improved efficiency and lower costs brought about by the free market, I don't see how anyone could be left out unless they voluntarily refused to pay for protection.

[Black Dude]

Yes, they are paid with tax money. But my point was that maintenance of police forces is not a huge expense. The worldwide average of police per capita is 2-3 to a 1000 people. And this is with large government bureaucracies and paper shuffling and the costs associated with them. So considering the improved efficiency and lower costs brought about by the free market, I don't see how anyone could be left out unless they voluntarily refused to pay for protection.

Wouldn't a lot of people voluntarily decide not to pay? Wouldn't taxes be required? Who decides what rules that the free market police are going to enforce? Can a person take 1 step on another person's property? What is the penalty for doing so? Who decides the penalty, if there is one? Would 2-3 private security covering 1000 be able to handle 10 men looting the people? Wouldn't they need the assistance of other private security? Who is going to pay for that other security help? Would a security monopoly be necessary?
Isn't the reason that 2-3 per thousand works because there are laws set so that if someone gets caught, they pay a particular consequence? Who would decide those consequences in an anarchy?

[PredatorOC]

Wouldn't a lot of people voluntarily decide not to pay? Wouldn't taxes be required?

I don't know why someone wouldn't pay, unless they live in a relatively safe area. Why would taxes be required?

[Black Dude]

I don't know why someone wouldn't pay, unless they live in a relatively safe area. Why would taxes be required?

Someone wouldn't pay because they aren't forced to pay, they just say "no thanks, I don't want to pay." But they still enjoy the benefits of the 2-3 people protecting everyone.
If 2-3 people are covering 1000, how are they going to force people to pay for those 2-3 people without taxes?

[G-Wohl]

I don't like how some people try to mold libertarianism into a lesser form of anarchy. Libertarianism still accepts that governance is important, if only done in the correct way and under the correct circumstances. The reason why libertarians swear by the Constitution is because it is the most-perfect form of determining the correct ways/circumstances government should be enacted. I turn to the very instinctual preferences of the human being to determine that governance is important - some people are simply not individual enough to survive in a fierce, uncompromising and competitive world established by anarchy. I am not a cruel enough person to suggest that every aspect of human living should be "every man for himself" or "survival of the fittest" because we are not like other mammals; we possess reason, affection, and the desire to do the right thing.

The point of governance, according to a libertarian, is to establish a body that maximizes individual liberty, which thus establishes maximum success in living life. (Otherwise, why not just be an anarchist?) Yes, far too many people abuse this power, and turn government into a body of force that severely detracts from this ultimate goal, but that is only because we don't follow the rules that are so perfectly laid out by our Constitution.

[PredatorOC]

Someone wouldn't pay because they aren't forced to pay, they just say "no thanks, I don't want to pay." But they still enjoy the benefits of the 2-3 people protecting everyone.
If 2-3 people are covering 1000, how are they going to force people to pay for those 2-3 people without taxes?

We are talking about a private enterprise. Those who have a need for protection, pay for protection. There are no taxes involved, nor does it have to be 2-3 police per 1000 people. You seem to be approaching the situation as though the current situation is optimal. It could be that no areas require the services of protection agencies. It could be that some areas require much more than now. My only point was that as an expense, we are talking about something that employs only 0.2-0.3% of people in the current situation. Many of whom require relatively little training.

[PredatorOC]

I don't like how some people try to mold libertarianism into a lesser form of anarchy. Libertarianism still accepts that governance is important, if only done in the correct way and under the correct circumstances.

Libertarianism is a blanket term. It includes Constitutionalists, Minarchists and An-Caps and everything in between. Which is why it is more accurate to call Paul a Constitutionalist, than a libertarian.

Edit: Come to think of it, Paul is somewhat more difficult to label. He has read plenty of Ludvig von Mises and other Austrian School economists, so he is probably in the Minarchist category. But he takes his oath of office seriously, so from that viewpoint, he is a Constitutionalist.

[PeterWellington]

People aren't ready for Anarcho-Capitalism right now, but I believe it's superior to any form of government once people understand its dynamics and begin to voluntarily build an infrastructure for it.

If you believe stealing is wrong, for example, how can you support the existence of the state? How is a mandatory tax not stealing? What makes the people who work in government any more special than you or I that they can steal?

Some people cannot conceive of a world without government because they cannot imagine what would replace certain parts of it (roads, legal system, etc.). But because you cannot imagine a solution does not mean it does not exist. Any product or service the government provides can be traded in a free market, it just takes more creativity in certain areas. You don't need the government, the government needs you.

[Verad]

Economics is based on scarcity. There is a limited amount of resources that we can use at any given time, and economics takes a look at how people make the most of the resources that are available to them. In a socialist system, people rely on government institutions to distribute resources in as fair of a manner as possible. However, no government, no matter how big, can efficiently manage all resources, especially since they very rarely take the real cost of goods into account.

For instance, think about how wooden pencils are made. Here is Milton Friedman discussing the manufacture of pencils:


Nobody knows how to make a pencil. There's not a single person in the world who actually knows how to make a pencil.

In order to make a pencil, you have to get wood for the barrel. In order to get wood, you have to have logging. You have to have somebody who can manufacture saws. No single person knows how to do all that.

What's called lead isn't lead. It's graphite. It comes from some mines in South America. In order to make pencils, you'd have to be able to get the lead.

The rubber at the tip isn't really rubber, but it used to be. It comes from Malaysia, although the rubber tree is not native to Malaysia. It was imported into Malaysia by some English botanists.

So, in order to make a pencil, you would have to be able to do all of these things. There are probably thousands of people who have cooperated together to make this pencil. Somehow or other, the people in South America who dug out the graphite cooperated with the people in Malaysia who tapped the rubber trees, cooperated with, maybe, people in Oregon who cut down the trees.

These thousands of people don't know one another. They speak different languages. They come from different religions. They might hate one another if they met. What is it that enabled them to cooperate together?

The answer is the existence of a market.

The simple answer is the people in South America were led to dig out the graphite because somebody was willing to pay them. They didn't have to know who was paying them; they didn't have to know what it was going to be used for. All they had to know was somebody was going to pay them.

What brought all these people together was an enormously complex structure of prices - the price of graphite, the price of lumber, the price of rubber, the wages paid to the laborer, and so on. It's a marvelous example of how you can get a complex structure of cooperation and coordination which no individual planned.

There was nobody who sat in a central office and sent an order out to Malaysia: 'Produce more rubber.' It was the market that coordinated all of this without anybody having to know all of the people involved.

Now, think about how a tractor-trailer is manufactured and you begin to understand the futility in getting a centralized agency to effectively and efficiently plan an economy, in addition to how the lack of a free market driven by price differentials and incentives would also be inadequate. In order to have a society without capitalism, then, people would have to submit to a decrease in their standard of living as no one has the economic incentive to make such things as air conditioners, washing machines, dishwashers, etc. Basically anything that is more of a 'want' than a 'need.'

So, as you can see, in order to pursue egalitarianism, the freedom to act independently in response to economic incentives cannot be permitted to exist, and without this freedom, the net living standards have no vehicle of advancement. You may be able to reach egalitarianism, but in the end you must ask yourself: "Is it worth it?" Rather, I prefer to have a system where there is an equality of opportunity (to advance and/or pursue a way of life that one prefers) and a society in which all individuals are equal under the law (including presidents damnit). Being that I wrote this at about four in the morning, it might not be completely coherent, but I hope it gives you an idea as to why I favor "anarcho-capitalism" over "anarcho-socialism," though I prefer a minimalist form of constitutional democratic republican (not as in the party) government to either of those two.

[Rhys]

Without reading everything, my standard answer is always:

Give me a huge government with central control over everything, and I fear the wrong leader with my life.

Give me the smallest government the Founders could think up, and who's in control is the people. The all-terrible enemy to the left, the rich... can not execute power without force. Money is one thing, but in a rich society you get songs like "you can take this job and shove it I aint workin' here no more." In a socialist society, you are told where to work to make you most productive.

In a free society, you own your self and work for your own benefit. You will not chose things which do not benefit you, without a consequence. When control is central, those people who do not chose well but are still in power (Bush) can ruin your life with their consequences.

The ONLY humane form of economics is void of government. Sure, one man will be wealthier than another, but at least the poorer man can save his money and work hard.

In our current system, the poorer man can not save his money. The money vanishes into thin air, bombs, government cheese and other stuff.

In South America, no one is free to chose because no one has money. This did not come about from free markets. If there were free markets, people would not chose to have their land raped by multi-nationals for pennies on the dollar. Now, they're dependent on food aid and shit. That's no good.

What's more, the mega establishment cooperation that leftists fear are ONLY possibly because of leftist leaning governments. Special protection and incentives are provided to large companies. Haliburton, Blackwater, General Electric, DOW... these companies get big because of government.

Big oil gets subsidies. So do big farms. Small oil, competing energy, small farms? lol no competition is possible because the government is using it's central control to provide price fixing to these companies. Some farms get paid to NOT grow... that's one way government stops the free markets from lowering prices and making everyone more wealthy.

Another way is the EPA, FCC, FAA and on and on and ABC. You can't be a TV station without permission, you can't fly somewhere, or drill somewhere, or build somewhere. How can prices come down and production go up, and living conditions increase, if the government is always stopping you.

Someone link to the article called "Everything I want to do is Illegal"?

Another way is tax incentives. If you do this thing here, we'll let you keep YOUR money, but if you do this thing here, you give us YOUR money. Therefor, the government decides what you do.

Last off the top of my head is interest rates and money supply. When the spend a bazillion dollars on cheese for the poor, they make people poor and need cheese from the government by driving down the ability of people to purchase. Forget money... people work harder for less when the government buys their cheese and medicine. If that's why people want socialism... to work harder for less... then cool. Otherwise, it's just being naive to want socialism.

Anyway, this all skews prices. When prices don't reflect value, people value the wrong things. War and oil become important, not because it's valuable to the market by itself, but because government protects it's use, supply and demand. Oil is dirty and could have been replaces by the free market 40 years ago.

So you might say, all this sounds very anarcho.... well that's where Ron Paul and the constitution comes in.

The Constitution provides powers to the Federal government, and then everything else to the states or the person. The Court protects those rights. The Constitution is very clearly a document set up to restrict government enchroachment into the States of the Union, and the person. The government does not regulate people, it protects their rights.

Anyway, that's the theory. If you can't afford to get sued, you wont suck. The rest is in the constitution. Basically, we're even saying that can change if you follow the law.

We're mostly about the Rule of Law... that's two fold. We are for the Rule of Law, and the Law agrees with us ideologically.

[Rhys]

:::::this was an exact duplicate of my above post. i hit refresh or something. sorry

[Truth Warrior]

The statists don't like it. They cling to their 6,000 year history on the road to no where.

[Thomas_Paine]

Hello,

I would like to know what Ron Paul Supporters think of Anarchy.

I'm not talking about the Anarchy sung in bad music nor the Anarchy delivered by a bullet, but, rather, the Anarchy of Emma Goldman, Noam Chomsky, and Peter Kropotkin. The Anarchy of the Spanish CNT.

In a capitalist society, money has power. It can be used to grant power disproportionately to individuals, or rob others of their power. With unequal power distribution you cannot have maximum individual liberty. One of Ron Paul's central themes is that of individual liberty. How do you resolve this conflict?

Ron Paul represents many Anarcho-Capitalistic ideas. What makes you perfer Anarcho-Capitalism to traditional Anarcho-Socialism.

Lastly, how do you justify the ownership of property while promulgating individual liberty? Does not the ownership of property inheritly give rise to misers whom breed tyrants?

I very much look forward to hearing your thoughts.

-Terryphi


I really like this troll :D

Your version of anarchy is devoid of individual liberty.

You confuse Capitalism with Corporatism.

The right to private property stems from self-ownership. You simply can not have one without the other. How can I be free as an individual and not have the right own property? Tyrants spring from governments which respect neither Private Property nor Individual Liberty. If you can find an example of what you speak of (private property giving rise to tyrants) please cite you example.

I look forward to your response to the points I have made.

[Truth Warrior]

What Is Anarchy?
by Butler Shaffer
http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/ebook/60.html