So. I think I'm an anarchist

[josephadel_3]

Ron Paul's movement really woke me up to libertarian and traditional limited government conservatism. Now, however, I feel like even a libertarian government is too much. Why? Because it will only grow after it's downsized. I know anarchists don't believe in capitalism and that is probably the one glaring difference that I am struggling with. On one hand, I agree with it. On the other, I think it is something that easily turns into corporatism, fascism, socialism etc.

[dude58677]

Anarchists are the most capitalistic. It is known as anarcho-capitalism which is realy the belief that everything should be privatized:

http://www.perbylund.com

[josephadel_3]

anarcho-capitalism is different from most anarchisms in that it supports capitalism.

[BarryDonegan]

Ron Paul's movement really woke me up to libertarian and traditional limited government conservatism. Now, however, I feel like even a libertarian government is too much. Why? Because it will only grow after it's downsized. I know anarchists don't believe in capitalism and that is probably the one glaring difference that I am struggling with. On one hand, I agree with it. On the other, I think it is something that easily turns into corporatism, fascism, socialism etc.

anarchism will just be REPLACED by despotism and fascism instantly.

[RonPaulVolunteer]

In anarchy, someone will rise to be leader and dictator MUCH faster than a limited govt with checks and balances. As Jefferson said though, the tree of liberty must sometimes be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

[gls]

Anarchists don't believe in capitalism? Maybe not the radical left-wing "anarchists" you see on TV smashing stuff at WTO protests. I've always thought of anarchists as supporting a true free market, complete with protections for private property rights. I'm not really sure though...I haven't studied the subject too closely.

I still consider myself a libertarian. I understand your concerns about it being a slippery slope but I think as long as one always adheres to the non-agression principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle), then it is difficult to do much harm.

[powerofreason]

anarchism will just be REPLACED by despotism and fascism instantly.

no

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

There is no "Utopia".

"Government is a NECESSARY evil."
-Thomas Paine

The best thing we can come up with is limited government. The only problem with limited government is that most people don't realize the need for a little revolution now and then. Until people realize this we will never have a true system of checks and balances.

[FrankRep]

Dictatorships rise out of Anarchy.

Learn about the different forms of Government -

Overview of America
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6732659166933078950

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

no

How will it not? The only way you can prevent something like this is to organize some form of defense. Which is government.

[powerofreason]

Once a defense market is established, after private police and courts it would be very difficult for a new regime to take hold. I imagine a gradual abolition of government. If the abolition were immediate, then yes, I think its highly likely that a dictatorship would arise.

[UnReconstructed]

you statists do not understand anarchy.

it is simply the voluntary interaction between people.

EDIT: Government is not defense. It is force. What has government ever defended against? When has government ever defended anything?

[tremendoustie]

Actually, I never understood what anarchism really means, as distinct from libertarianism. Those who support it seem to accept the idea that some organizations will arise naturally, and say that they would support and pay into systems that treat people justly and protect people's rights. What's the difference between that and small government?

I mean, in a certain sense, isn't every country anarchistic, and we just happen to have a big, powerful group that arose to run everything now?

Can someone explain what's the key difference between a libertarian government, and what anarchists hope would arise naturally anyway?

(of course, I mean the reasonable kind of anarchist here, who believes in freedom, not someone who believes in chaos or violence).

[MGreen]

If you already knew of anarcho-capitalism, why did you still say you were an anarchist, despite believing in capitalism?

I've also come from a libertarian to a market anarchist over the past year. I doubt I'll ever be able to defend the existence of government again.

[josephadel_3]

Dictatorships rises out of Anarchy.

Learn about the different forms of Government -

Overview of America
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6732659166933078950

I've seen it. I don't really think anarchy has been tested as much as socialism and mercantilism.

[josephadel_3]

If you already knew of anarcho-capitalism, why did you still say you were an anarchist, despite believing in capitalism?

I've also come from a libertarian to a market anarchist over the past year. I doubt I'll ever be able to defend the existence of government again.

I don't believe or disbelieve in capitalism right now. You can see what I wrote. I said I was struggling with it because it diminishes so quickly into corporatism and fascism and other non-desireable forms of government.

[FrankRep]

I've seen it. I don't really think anarchy has been tested as much as socialism and mercantilism.

How will you ensure that Anarchy will sustain?

The criminal gangs and neo-Barbarians will rule the streets and the guy with the biggest stick will be the leader.

[tremendoustie]

I don't believe or disbelieve in capitalism right now. You can see what I wrote. I said I was struggling with it because it diminishes so quickly into corporatism and fascism and other non-desireable forms of government.

What's the distinction here? What is the alternative to capitalism? I assume that you believe people should be free to interact as they choose -- so then, why must you choose a monetary or economic system for them? If people want to be capitalists, they will be, if not, they won't.

Unless we're discussing your own personal economic choices in a free society, in support or opposition to capitalism, I don't understand the distinction.

[powerofreason]

Some people seem to think that in the absence of government we would all become cannibals and murder each other. Kind of like the proponents of the drug war say we would all be snorting coke while driving on our way to work if there weren't laws in place against it. I don't think its too hard to imagine different groups of the (disbanded) government military forming competing defense agencies to protect us in the case of foreign attack. If you want to try to convince me of the necessity of government, go for it. I keep an open mind.

[muzzled dogg]

"Government is a NECESSARY evil."
-Thomas Paine“

ANARCHY is the radical notion that
other people are not your property.

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

you statists do not understand anarchy.

it is simply the voluntary interaction between people.

EDIT: Government is not defense. It is force. What has government ever defended against? When has government ever defended anything?

My question to you is:

From where did government spawn?

It would seem as though it spawned from a need for strength and a good defense against neighbors.

I have no problem with anarchy. I just don't see how it could truly preserve Liberty for very long.

[powerofreason]

How will you ensure that Anarchy will sustain?

The criminal gangs and neo-Barbarians will rule the streets and the guy with the biggest stick will be the leader.

If there is a criminal gang roaming a street near your home, you may want to contact the road owner, who in turn can contact his private police agency of choice to remove these people.

[FrankRep]

Some people seem to think that in the absence of government we would all become cannibals and murder each other. Kind of like the proponents of the drug war say we would all be snorting coke while driving on our way to work if there weren't laws in place against it. I don't think its too hard to imagine different groups of the (disbanded) government military forming competing defense agencies to protect us in the case of foreign attack. If you want to try to convince me of the necessity of government, go for it. I keep an open mind.

If the Chinese and Russian armies decide to invade the Anarchy States of America with tanks and machine guns, we'll be wiped off the map.

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

ANARCHY is the radical notion that
other people are not your property.

Achieving total anarchy in this world would be like achieving world peace. Free will and human nature would not permit it.

As much as I like the idea I think limited government is the only realistic option.

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

If there is a criminal gang roaming a street near your home, you may want to contact the road owner, who in turn can contact his private police agency of choice to remove these people.

This criminal gang would just form a government more centralized and powerful then your private police force. Then you would most likely want to do the same.

That's human nature.

[powerofreason]

If the Chinese and Russian armies decide to invade the Anarchy States of America with tanks and machine guns, we'll be wiped off the map.

It will be a much harder fight for them than if we had a government army, for sure. Wheres the capital? Wheres the existing government apparatus to take over? They would need to conquer every single home and person in the country to truly take it over. They would be dealing with smart and nimble private defense forces. Why were the Soviets unable to conquer Afghanistan? Why did it take the English forever to conquer medievel Ireland? The answer is obvious.

[tremendoustie]

Some people seem to think that in the absence of government we would all become cannibals and murder each other. Kind of like the proponents of the drug war say we would all be snorting coke while driving on our way to work if there weren't laws in place against it. I don't think its too hard to imagine different groups of the (disbanded) government military forming competing defense agencies to protect us in the case of foreign attack. If you want to try to convince me of the necessity of government, go for it. I keep an open mind.

No, I think that in the absence of government, if we're smart, we'd form something like we started out with in 1776. I guess the distinction is, you'd like competition for everything, as opposed to one provider of national defense and law enforcement (I mean the good kind of course)? Is that it?

I mean, if you ask me, should the government force you to pay into it, I'd say no. And if you asked me if it should be outlawed for people to independently provide protection services I'd also say no -- does that make me an anarchist by your definition?

I'd also want any protection service I paid into to be run by representatives, so the people would have control, and have a strong constitution, so as to be less vulnerable to abuse. Does this make me not an anarchist?

As you can see, I'm having trouble seeing where the line is drawn.

[tremendoustie]

It will be a much harder fight for them than if we had a government army, for sure. Wheres the capital? Wheres the existing government apparatus to take over? They would need to conquer every single home and person in the country to truly take it over. They would be dealing with smart and nimble private defense forces. Why were the Soviets unable to conquer Afghanistan? Why did it take the English forever to conquer medievel Ireland? The answer is obvious.

Yeah, I've got to agree with that. The swiss have something like this form of defense, I believe.

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

It will be a much harder fight for them than if we had a government army, for sure. Wheres the capital? Wheres the existing government apparatus to take over? They would need to conquer every single home and person in the country to truly take it over. They would be dealing with smart and nimble private defense forces. Why were the Soviets unable to conquer Afghanistan? Why did it take the English forever to conquer medievel Ireland? The answer is obvious.

You are right about that. That's why it was so difficult for Britain to take back the colonial rebels. They had no capital to take over. They were so scattered.

But, if they were given the time and if it was just Britain and the colonies on the earth then the numbers and power of the empire would have eventually led to their victory. I think that's more obvious.

[powerofreason]

This criminal gang would just form a government more centralized and powerful then your private police force. Then you would most likely want to do the same.

That's human nature.

There would be a transitional period, I think, in which we would be especially vulnerable to the creation of a new government. Once the market is able to fully take over services normally provided by the state, I think it would be very difficult for a new state to take over. Thats a risk I'm willing to take, honestly. I would be perfectly fine with a limited government that stayed that way. But we tried that, and it didn't work. The American republic was established under the best possible circumstances but it still didn't work out in the end.

[tremendoustie]

There would be a transitional period, I think, in which we would be especially vulnerable to the creation of a new government. Once the market is able to fully take over services normally provided by the state, I think it would be very difficult for a new state to take over. Thats a risk I'm willing to take, honestly. I would be perfectly fine with a limited government that stayed that way. But we tried that, and it didn't work. The American republic was established under the best possible circumstances but it still didn't work out in the end.

Any system -- constitutional limited government, anarchy, anything can be abused. There is no system you can devise which will withstand a lazy and uneducated populace unwilling to protect their freedoms.

[Brassmouth]

anarchism will just be REPLACED by despotism and fascism instantly.

Please don't come on here and regurgitate what you've seen in YouTube videos. :rolleyes:

[FrankRep]

Can anyone name a country that has been able to sustain a long-term successful Anarchy state?

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

I know colonial Iceland had a nice one I think, but it wasn't long term. (I don't think)

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

Please don't come on here and regurgitate what you've seen in YouTube videos. :rolleyes:

What are Youtube videos lies because they're Youtube videos?:rolleyes:

[powerofreason]

Can anyone name a country that has been able to sustain a long-term successful Anarchy state?

http://www.graveyardofthegods.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=93508#93508

there ya go

[FrankRep]

I know colonial Iceland had a nice one I think, but it wasn't long term. (I don't think)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland#Settlement_and_the_establishment_of_the_Co mmonwealth

The first people thought to have inhabited Iceland were Irish monks or hermits who came in the eighth century, but left with the arrival of Norsemen, who systematically settled Iceland in the period circa AD 870-930. The first known permanent Norse settler was Ingólfur Arnarson, who built his homestead in Reykjavík in 874. Ingólfur was followed by many other emigrant settlers, largely Norsemen and their Irish slaves. By 930, most arable land had been claimed and the Althing, a legislative and judiciary parliament, was founded as the political hub of the Icelandic Commonwealth. Christianity was adopted in 1000. The Commonwealth lasted until 1262, when the political system devised by the original settlers proved unable to cope with the increasing power of Icelandic chieftains.

The Icelandic chieftains took power.

[Spider-Man]

Someone said if a powerful, militaristic nation rolled into the "Anarchy States of America," with an organized military invasion, we'd be "wiped off the map."

The fallacy, of course, is that there is no "Anarchy States of America" in a stateless society. So if the Chinese or Russians roll into, say, the eastern coast of the American continent, there's no specific building, i.e. the White House, that they can just lay seige to and claim the whole country. There's no governmental system that they can just hijack to take over everything. They'd have to put soldiers on the ground everywhere, a logistical impossibility.

Where natural resources are particularly high, defense business would also be high.

[Conza88]

Look, "anarchists" are ftl... in the old school terminology (Europeon) they see the state as a capitalist structure, pretty retarded aye? Calling yourself an anarchist back in the day, usually meant you were a socialist.. (voluntary) socialist (possibly) ... And it still applies today..

Anarcho-capitalist FAQ (http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html)

Have a good read... all of you. :)

Murray Rothbard's For A New Liberty, go check it out.... mises.org, audiobook if needed. :D

The US was a grand experiment, currently the best in history - magna carta first step towards freedom & rights.... US Constitution, it progressed to the second... Further guarenteed those rights. What we see now, is what a Constitutionally limited government ended up as.... granted it was by design, but pure minds do not want to rule over men - paraphrasing Jefferson. George Washington didn't want to run, Ron Paul was reluctant... that's the nature of things. It is usually only when shit starts to hit the fan / bad things happen, that good people feel the innate urge to correct the injustices / defend liberty etc... With Ron Paul that was when Nixon implemented price controls in 1971..

Government is evil. Even if you contend it is a necessary one.. as we have seen... EVIL does NOT sleep. No Constitution has been able to limit the growth of government / state.... this is all blatantly obvious.

For sure it SLOWED down the progress of growth of the state... but it did not eliminate that growth.

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. – Frederic Bastiat

... It's like with roads, people can't comprehend private ownership, without even considering it - you've already got a 'road block' set up in your mind.. (pardon the pun).... Road Socialism you are thus for, if you don't think they should be privately owned. The trouble is government intervention has already happened... you'd need to sell off the assets fairly to avoid setting up a monopoly - as has happened in the Media Industry, nationalization of radio / tele back in the day.

Anyway, the point goes... many great thinkers just out right rejected the idea that there could be private roads, private courts etc... Harmony without the state... but there has been periods throughout history that have had society's that have had slices of ALL of them...

Rothbard addresses all that...

In For A New Liberty (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp) Rothbard applies abstract libertarian principles to solve current welfare-state problems. How would a stateless society provide for goods such as education, money, streets, police, courts, national defense, social security, environmental protection, etc.? Here are the answers.


Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe5.html)

8 months ago I was a semi-socialist independant leaning democrat who was practically a chosmkite. Wrote him a letter, and he did reply.. I re-read the letter recently.. it sickens me.. :eek: Anyway, I woke up to Ron Paul - because I'd never actually been given the opportunity to hear such things as liberty etc..

I've logically progressed from; alex jones was a nut, you're all conspiracy nuts -> to seeing the blackout for myself... I used to believe in global warming and climate change.... but then I was offered the ulterior motive, power... I thought it was just oil companies self interests... but I was shown the UN, global carbon tax etc... the quest for one world government.. (all over about 6 months... slowly awakening as it all slotted into place)

I then went from free markets need regulation, you need the middle way.. half socialism, half capitalism... I had heard Ron Paul speak about foreign policy etc.. and I knew he was spot on (from Chomsky etc..) So I thought, well maybe he's right about everything else... I heard about Austrian economics... but had no idea what it was about.. I read about all their predictions, Brenton woods, going of gold standard etc etc....

I thought you needed a limited state, the smaller the better. But that's practically exactly what the US constitution was. A fine document of epic proportions that was probably needed for sure, to test out it's premise. But if the founders were here today; had the opportunity to see what America has become... because of the state... If they had the opportunity to read Mises, Rothbard etc... I think they'd definitely come to the same conclusion. Hamilton wouldn't that's for damn certain. Jefferson etc would imo though... :)

Anyway; anarcho-capitalism is a big ass pill for people to swallow. Which is why I sometimes refer to myself as a libertarian (which provides a big enough knee-jerk reaction to start with). Anyway, it's taken me roughly 8 months of slow progress. Eventually seeing what was self-evident. It's been a fun journey and I don't know where I will end up... If I some how become a marxist, someone shoot me... :D I think I've reached the logical conclusion though.. but we'll see, always got to keep an open mind...,

[FrankRep]

http://www.graveyardofthegods.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=93508#93508

there ya go

I'm talking about Government Anarchy.

[powerofreason]

Any system -- constitutional limited government, anarchy, anything can be abused. There is no system you can devise which will withstand a lazy and uneducated populace unwilling to protect their freedoms.

No ones saying the absence of government will bring everyone eternal peace and prosperity. Socialists are utopians, not free marketeers.

[powerofreason]

I'm talking about Government Anarchy.

err what? me confused.

Government=leaders

anarchy=no leaders

[MGreen]

I'm talking about Government Anarchy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron

[FrankRep]

err what? me confused.

Government=leaders

anarchy=no leaders

A leader like Ghengis Kahn will always rise to take power and try to build an empire.

[FrankRep]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron

"No Government" is a type of Government.

[tremendoustie]

No ones saying the absence of government will bring everyone eternal peace and prosperity. Socialists are utopians, not free marketeers.

Yes, I was responding to your statement:


I would be perfectly fine with a limited government that stayed that way. But we tried that, and it didn't work. The American republic was established under the best possible circumstances but it still didn't work out in the end.

You state that limited government "didn't work", yet I am pointing out the fault was not in the form of government, but in our vigilance in the preservation of our rights. I think it's fairly obvious that a lazy, uneducated populace unwilling to protect their rights would also lead to very poor government (perhaps even worse) if we had started from anarchy.

[powerofreason]

Yes, I was responding to your statement:



You state that limited government "didn't work", yet I am pointing out the fault was not in the form of government, but in our vigilance in the preservation of our rights. I think it's fairly obvious that a lazy, uneducated populace unwilling to protect their rights would also lead to very poor government (perhaps even worse) if we had started from anarchy.

You don't think apathy is inevitable?

[powerofreason]

A leader like Ghengis Kahn will always rise to take power and try to build an empire.

Ghengis Khan? Get real man this is the 21st century.

[tremendoustie]

err what? me confused.

Government=leaders

anarchy=no leaders

Yet, there would be leaders of the "security" providers, the militias, etc. This goes to my earlier question (real difference between anarchism and small government). I've got to go now, but if someone's up for it, please look back a page or two, and answer my questions (since I still don't really get it) :). Thanks!

[powerofreason]

Your neighborhood won't be overrun by axe-wielding bloodthirsty barbarians. I promise.

[tremendoustie]

You don't think apathy is inevitable?

I don't, actually.

Or, if it is, perhaps this is what the founders meant when they said the tree of liberty had to be watered from time to time ...

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

Someone said if a powerful, militaristic nation rolled into the "Anarchy States of America," with an organized military invasion, we'd be "wiped off the map."

The fallacy, of course, is that there is no "Anarchy States of America" in a stateless society. So if the Chinese or Russians roll into, say, the eastern coast of the American continent, there's no specific building, i.e. the White House, that they can just lay seige to and claim the whole country. There's no governmental system that they can just hijack to take over everything. They'd have to put soldiers on the ground everywhere, a logistical impossibility.

Where natural resources are particularly high, defense business would also be high.
The Chinese would take America from us like the U.S. took America from the Natives, slowly over time.

They would build forts and force us west until we were on "reservations".

[powerofreason]

Yet, there would be leaders of the "security" providers, the militias, etc. This goes to my earlier question (real difference between anarchism and small government). I've got to go now, but if someone's up for it, please look back a page or two, and answer my questions (since I still don't really get it) :). Thanks!

One of the main criticisms of anarcho-capitalism is that the largest provider of private defense will become the new state. This could happen, but then we're back to where we started from, right?

[RonPaulVolunteer]

How will it not? The only way you can prevent something like this is to organize some form of defense. Which is government.

There is NO POINT in arguing with an anarchist. It's the same as arguing with a Communist.

[powerofreason]

The Chinese would take America from us like the U.S. took America from the Natives, slowly over time.

They would build forts and force us west until we were on "reservations".

Sounds better than the Chicoms marching into D.C. and declaring communist rule over the nation with the apparatus and infrastructure in place to control everything.

[powerofreason]

There is NO POINT in arguing with an anarchist. It's the same as arguing with a Communist.

orly

[FrankRep]

Ghengis Khan? Get real man this is the 21st century.

Adolph Hitler then.

[Conza88]

The Chinese would take America from us like the U.S. took America from the Natives, slowly over time.

They would build forts and force us west until we were on "reservations".

:rolleyes: Good luck any nation on earth attempting to occupy the Bronx, or 5 Boroughs.... :rolleyes:

Did the anarcho-communists (Indians have guns? Private property rights?) You've got a flawed analogy / situation there.... Those tribes, i.e the aboriginals / Indians, failed because they contained socialism.

In an anarcho-capitalistic society... think free market defence people fighting for their lives & property, who are able to form coalition, militia's, organizations FREELY & voluntarily to defend against the imposing collective menace. The demand for weaponry and guns in the local country would increase; there would be profit incentive to manufacture the best new weapons etc to defend your property with. The entrepreneur would respond.

Free market vs the state apparatus? The state always loses. Which is why it legislates against the free market. Tries to regulate it... ;) The ULTIMATE regulation? The Federal Reserve / Central bank.... 5th plank of the communist manifesto. :D

Point being there would be no current apparatus to just waltz in and take over, like Washington. If the society / people don't recognize the law / authority... that presumes to be in charge and has taken over... then they are in for a long, rough, ride... which will inevitably fail. They won't be collecting taxes, getting benefits from the occupation, if they are continually getting jibbed by revolutionaries within the populace costs are going to keep on going up, expenses etc will become to high..

See: The FIRST American Revolution.... ;)

[Conza88]

There is NO POINT in arguing with an anarchist. It's the same as arguing with a Communist.

Well sure... because most anarchists are anarcho-socialists / communists... Makes sense.. they have a flawed ideology / perspective on human nature and economic / political systems... :D

[powerofreason]

I don't, actually.

Or, if it is, perhaps this is what the founders meant when they said the tree of liberty had to be watered from time to time ...

People will never become politically complacent or apathetic? Where is this utopia at? And yes, that is what they meant. Was it Jefferson that said if the people truly cared about their freedoms there would be a revolution every 20 years?

[mport1]

Ron Paul's movement really woke me up to libertarian and traditional limited government conservatism. Now, however, I feel like even a libertarian government is too much. Why? Because it will only grow after it's downsized. I know anarchists don't believe in capitalism and that is probably the one glaring difference that I am struggling with. On one hand, I agree with it. On the other, I think it is something that easily turns into corporatism, fascism, socialism etc.

I am glad many people are waking up to the fact that government in any form is bad and destructive and that limited government will never be able to stay bound to its limits. I realized this too over the course of the campaign after 4 years of being a minarchist.

However, you are wrong about anarchists not believing in capitalism. Anarcho-capitalists believe completely in capitalism and the free market. I do.

[powerofreason]

Adolph Hitler then.

He was democratically elected. Try again.

[powerofreason]

:rolleyes: Good luck any nation on earth attempting to occupy the Bronx, or 5 Boroughs.... :rolleyes:

Did the anarcho-communists (Indians have guns? Private property rights?) You've got a flawed analogy / situation there.... Those tribes, i.e the aboriginals / Indians, failed because they contained socialism.

In an anarcho-capitalistic society... think free market defence people fighting for their lives & property, who are able to form coalition, militia's, organizations FREELY & voluntarily to defend against the imposing collective menace. The demand for weaponry and guns in the local country would increase; there would be profit incentive to manufacture the best new weapons etc to defend your property with. The entrepreneur would respond.

Free market vs the state apparatus? The state always loses. Which is why it legislates against the free market. Tries to regulate it... ;) The ULTIMATE regulation? The Federal Reserve / Central bank.... 5th plank of the communist manifesto. :D

lmao @ the chicoms trying to take over the Bronx :D

[mport1]

To all those who believe that anarchy will result in chaos or what have you, may I suggest some reading. I thought like you guys did before I actually studied the philosophy and its implications.

Practical Anarchy - Found in audio and pdf form here http://www.freedomainradio.com/books.html (goes well with Everyday Anarchy and Universally Preferable Behaviour but Practical Anarchy looks at the practical questions you are probably more interested in)

The Market For Liberty - Very good in most aspects and again looks at a lot of the practicalities. http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/

For A New Liberty - In print and audio. Also everything else by Rothbard is good. http://mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp

[Conza88]

This may help some what; Anarcho-capitalist FAQ (http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html) - fairly easy, short, and pretty correct answers imo.

Contains:
1. What is anarcho-capitalism?
2. Why should one consider anarcho-capitalism?
3. Do anarcho-capitalists favor chaos?
4. Isn't anarcho-capitalism utopian?
5. Isn't laissez-faire capitalism exploitative?
6. What justifications are there for anarcho-capitalism?
7. Are anarcho-capitalists anti-war?
8. What are the myths of statism?
9. What are the myths of socialism?
10. Why don't you just leave?
11. Are there different types of anarcho-capitalism?
12. How do anarcho-capitalists compare with other anarchists?
13. Is anarcho-capitalism the same thing as libertarianism?
14. Who are the major anarcho-capitalist thinkers?
15. How would anarcho-capitalism work?
16. How would anarcho-capitalists handle the "public goods" problem?
17. Have there been any anarcho-capitalist societies?
18. How might an anarcho-capitalist society be achieved?
19. What are some major anarcho-capitalist writings?
20. Where can I find anarcho-capitalist web sites?


And I'll highlight this:


http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/pictures/AnarchismTree08.gif

12. How do anarcho-capitalists compare with other anarchists?

The main distinction between anarcho-capitalists and other anarchists is the support of capitalism. Other anarchists have problems with either private neo-Lockean property, profiting from other people's labor, or both. The 19th century individualist anarchists are mutualists; they opposed "usury" - profit from land or capital or wage-labor. "Cost is the limit of price" was their motto, summing up their interpretation of the LTV. Anarcho-socialists not only oppose profit, but also oppose private ownership of capital ("the means of production" insoc-speak.) Of the four basic economic divisions of anarchism, collectivists and mutualists are anti-capitalist, while geoanarchists and anarcho-capitalists are pro-capitalist.

[dude58677]

So you people are suggesting that in an anarcho-capitlaist system a mafia would take over and become a government?

[FindLiberty]

There is no "Utopia".

"Government is a NECESSARY evil."
-Thomas Paine

The best thing we can come up with is limited government. The only problem with limited government is that most people don't realize the need for a little revolution now and then. Until people realize this we will never have a true system of checks and balances.

YES. If the chains are kept tight enough, can it be bloodless?

[Conza88]

YES. If the chains are kept tight enough, can it be bloodless?

That depends on the state. >.<

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. -- John F. Kennedy

Or better yet:


That genuine liberalism was essentially radical and revolutionary was brilliantly perceived, in the twilight of its impact, by the great Lord Acton (one of the few figures in the history of thought who, charmingly, grew more radical as he grew older). Acton wrote that “Liberalism wishes for what ought to be, irrespective of what is.” In working out this view, incidentally, it was Acton, not Trotsky, who first arrived at the concept of the “permanent revolution.” As Gertrude Himmelfarb wrote in her excellent study of Acton:

. . . his philosophy develop(ed) to the point where the future was seen as the avowed enemy of the past, and where the past was allowed no authority except as it happened to conform to morality. To take seriously this Liberal theory of history, to give precedence to “what ought to be” over “what is,” was, he admitted, virtually to install a “revolution in permanence.”

The “revolution in permanence,” as Acton hinted in the inaugural lecture and admitted frankly in his notes, was the culmination of his philosophy of history and theory of politics. . . . This idea of conscience, that men carry about with them the knowledge of good and evil, is the very root of revolution, for it destroys the sanctity of the past. . . . “Liberalism(Hi Kade, ohh look it's the actual proper usage, i.e classical, before it became corrupted) is essentially revolutionary,” Acton observed. “Facts must yield to ideas. Peaceably and patiently if possible. Violently if not.”

This is even more important to the point....


The second great philosophical influence on the decline of liberalism was evolutionism, or Social Darwinism, which put the finishing touches to liberalism as a radical force in society.

For the Social Darwinist erroneously saw history and society through the peaceful, rose-colored glasses of infinitely slow, infinitely gradual social evolution.

Ignoring the prime fact that no ruling caste in history has ever voluntarily surrendered its power, and that, therefore, liberalism had to break through by means of a series of revolutions, the Social Darwinists looked forward peacefully and cheerfully to thousands of years of infinitely gradual evolution to the next supposedly inevitable stage of individualism.

Quotes above from Rothbards; Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard33.html)

:)

So ideally, in summation: The state ain't ever going to give up it's power voluntarily. Such is the passage of history. So... why would you want continual revolutions against it? When you can damn well get RID of it... :D Think of the state as a weed. When it grows it begins to choke everything, all the plant life around it. The constitution seeks to apply weed killer on it, but it only prunes it back. If you keep applying it, it will keep it stunted... but should you stop; or it becomes largely immune to the application.. it will grow unabated...

Why not PULL it out from it's roots? Don't let it exist at all.... :cool:

[libertarian4321]

Ron Paul's movement really woke me up to libertarian and traditional limited government conservatism. Now, however, I feel like even a libertarian government is too much. Why? Because it will only grow after it's downsized. I know anarchists don't believe in capitalism and that is probably the one glaring difference that I am struggling with. On one hand, I agree with it. On the other, I think it is something that easily turns into corporatism, fascism, socialism etc.

The idea of living in a peaceful state of anarchy is Utopian nonsense. Its the stuff college kids talk about after too many hours of Dungeons and Dragons and too many beers.

Yes, I hear all the crazy theories about "contracting for defense" and police and whatever else- its utterly absurd.

First off, any "defense" you can contract is going to need leaders- effective military organizations aren't anarchist in nature. Whoever leads that group could decide, at any time, that he'd rather TAKE your money than work for you under contract- at which point, your Utopian anarchy ends, and you become a slave.

BTW, there have been plenty of instances where people have been thrown into anarchy throughout history, for a variety of reasons. NONE of them has resulted in a Utopian, peaceful, prosperous society. ALL have ended in dictatorship of one form or another.

[literatim]

Anarchy is a vacuum where something will fill its gap, probably a dictatorship.

[free.alive]

I am a Rothbard Republican. Repeat. I am a Rothbard Republican. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=161759)

[Brassmouth]

What are Youtube videos lies because they're Youtube videos?:rolleyes:

No, but fact is always a better basis for an argument than a 7 minute video.

[Conza88]

The idea of living in a peaceful state of anarchy is Utopian nonsense. Its the stuff college kids talk about after too many hours of Dungeons and Dragons and too many beers.

Yes, I hear all the crazy theories about "contracting for defense" and police and whatever else- its utterly absurd.

First off, any "defense" you can contract is going to need leaders- effective military organizations aren't anarchist in nature. Whoever leads that group could decide, at any time, that he'd rather TAKE your money than work for you under contract- at which point, your Utopian anarchy ends, and you become a slave.

BTW, there have been plenty of instances where people have been thrown into anarchy throughout history, for a variety of reasons. NONE of them has resulted in a Utopian, peaceful, prosperous society. ALL have ended in dictatorship of one form or another.

Anarchy is Utopian in it's traditional sense... i.e because it's socialist. Which is why I support Anarcho-Capitalism... :cool:


3. Do anarcho-capitalists favor chaos?

No. Anarcho-capitalists believe that a stateless society would be much more peaceful, harmonious, and prosperous than society under statism. We see life under States as chaotic - the insanity of war and the arbitrariness of government regulation and plunder. Anarcho-capitalists agree with the "father of anarchism" Pierre Proudhon: "Liberty is not the daughter but the mother of order," and his contemporary Frederic Bastiat, who wrote of the "natural harmony" of the market, that "natural and wise order that operates without our knowledge." ("Economic Harmonies")


4. Isn't anarcho-capitalism utopian?

No. Anarcho-capitalists tend to be pragmatic, and argue that, no matter how good or bad man is, he is better off in liberty. If men are good, then they need no rulers. If men are bad, then governments of men, composed of men, will also be bad - and probably worse, due to the State's amplification of coercive power. Most anarcho-capitalists think that some men are okay and some aren't; and there will always be some crime. We are not expecting any major change in human nature in that regard. Since utopianism by definition requires a change in human nature, anarcho-capitalism is not utopian.


15. How would anarcho-capitalism work?

In one sense, this is easy to answer. Since most people are familiar with capitalism, one could simply say, "Just like today's semi-capitalist societies, except with no coercive monopolies." As already noted, most services currently provided by State have been done voluntarily in the past, usually with better quality and service than the State. This is what you'd expect, since monopolies lack the usual competitive incentives to improve. The services that people have not seen provided privately, such as court, police, and defense against military invasion, require more explanation.


"Imagine a society with no government. Individuals purchase law enforcement from private firms. Each such firm faces possible conflicts with other firms. Private policemen working for the enforcement agency that I employ may track down the burglar who stole my property only to discover, when they try to arrest him, that he too employs an enforcement agency.

There are three ways in which such conflicts might be dealt with. The most obvious and least likely is direct violence-a mini-war between my agency, attempting to arrest the burglar, and his agency attempting to defend him from arrest. A somewhat more plausible scenario is negotiation. Since warfare is expensive, agencies might include in the contracts they offer their customers a provision under which they are not obliged to defend customers against legitimate punishment for their actual crimes. When a conflict occurred, it would then be up to the two agencies to determine whether the accused customer of one would or would not be deemed guilty and turned over to the other.

A still more attractive and more likely solution is advance contracting between the agencies. Under this scenario, any two agencies that faced a significant probability of such clashes would agree on an arbitration agency to settle them-a private court. Implicit or explicit in their agreement would be the legal rules under which such disputes were to be settled.

Under these circumstances, both law enforcement and law are private goods produced on a private market. Law enforcement is produced by enforcement agencies and sold directly to their customers. Law is produced by arbitration agencies and sold to the enforcement agencies, who resell it to their customers as one characteristic of the bundle of services they provide."
- David Friedman, Law as a Private Good

There are several obvious advantages to private law.

* You are likely to be treated better by a PDA than a monopoly government agency, since you are a customer (or at least a potential customer) rather than a suspect.
* Victimless "crime" laws are significantly less likely, since customers would bear the cost of enforcing laws against vices rather than passing the cost on to society at large. (E.g. Someone opposed to marijuana is likely to vote against legalization, but less likely to pay $100/year to make it illegal.)
* But most importantly, everyone gets their own preferred law, rather than having to submit to winner-take-all imposed law. E.g. A religious puritan may subscribe to a PDA under a plan in which adulterers (who subscribe to this plan) would be stoned to death. His next-door neighbor may subscribe to a service that allows open copulation in the front yard. Both can have their way, since jurisdictions are simply the combined properties of the subscribers.

Non-government military provision is more familiar to most people, under the guise of ''militia''. A militia is a voluntary defense service which is unlikely to invade a foreign country, build weapons of mass destruction and death, fund itself with stolen money, or most other questionable actions in which government militaries routinely engage. A militia is geared to do one thing: defend the local people. Anarcho-capitalists also see a role for defense firms and mercenaries, to take care of security issues not so localized. Note that, since the costs of warfare are borne by those firms who engage in it, they are considerably more likely to sue for peace than a State, which is able to shove costs onto their plundered and conscripted citizenry. "

How can you seriously say something is absurd when you haven't even investigated / contemplated it? :rolleyes:

You're a Ron Paul supporter, not a socialist. You're better than that. Now get to work. :D

Plus this is a god damn FAQ... you want some in depth stuff, go have an argument with Rothbard's work... Haha, good luck, you'll need it. :p

[Conza88]

Our Enemy, The State by Albert, J. Nock (http://mises.org/etexts/ourenemy.pdf)

There appears to be a curious difficulty about exercising reflective thought upon the actual nature of an institution into which one was born and one’s ancestors were born. One accepts it as one does the atmosphere; one’s practical adjustments to it are made by a kind of reflex.

One seldom thinks about the air until one notices some change, favourable or unfavourable, and then one’s thought about it is special; one thinks about purer air, lighter air, heavier air, not about air. So it is with certain human institutions. We know that they exist, that they affect us in various ways, but we do not ask how they came to exist, or what their original intention was, or what primary function it is that they are actually fulfilling; and when they affect us so unfavourably that we rebel against them, we contemplate substituting nothing beyond some modification or variant of the same institution. Thus colonial America, oppressed by the monarchical State, brings in the republican State; Germany gives up the republican State for the Hitlerian State; Russia exchanges the monocratic State for the collectivist State; Italy exchanges the constitutionalist State for the “totalitarian” State.

It is interesting to observe that in the year 1935 the average individual’s incurious attitude towards the phenomenon of the State is precisely what his attitude was towards the phenomenon of the Church in the year, say, 1500. The State was then a very weak institution; the Church was very strong. The individual was born into the Church, as his ancestors had been for generations, in precisely the formal, documented fashion in which he is now born into the State. He was taxed for the Church’s support, as he now is for the State’s support. He was supposed to accept the official theory and doctrine of the Church, to conform to its discipline, and in a general way to do as it told him; again, precisely the sanctions that the State now lays upon him. If he were reluctant or recalcitrant, the Church made a satisfactory amount of trouble for him, as the State now does. Notwithstanding all this, it does not appear to have occurred to the Church- citizen of that day, any more than it occurs to the State-citizen of the present, to ask what sort of institution it was that claimed his allegiance.

There it was; he accepted its own account of itself, took it as it stood, and at its own valuation. Even when he revolted, fifty years later, he merely exchanged one form or mode of the Church for another, the Roman for the Calvinist, Lutheran, Zuinglian, or what not; again, quite as the modern State-citizen exchanges one mode of the State for another. He did not examine the institution itself, nor does the State-citizen today. My purpose in writing is to raise the question whether the enormous depletion of social power which we are witnessing everywhere does not suggest the importance of knowing more than we do about the essential nature of the institution that is so rapidly absorbing this volume of power.

One of my friends said to me lately that if the public-utility corporations did not mend their ways, the State would take over their business and operate it. He spoke with a curiously reverent air of finality. Just so, I thought, might a Church-citizen, at the end of the fifteenth century, have spoken of some impending intervention of the Church; and I wondered then whether he had any better informed and closer-reasoned theory of the State than his prototype had of the Church. Frankly, I am sure he had not. His pseudo-conception was merely an unreasoned acceptance of the State on its own terms and at its own valuation; he showed himself no more intelligent, and no less, than the whole mass of State-citizenry at large.

It appears to me that with the depletion of social power going on at the rate it is, the State-citizen should look very closely into the essential nature of the institution that is bringing it about. He should ask himself whether he has a theory of the State, and if so, whether he can assure himself that history supports it. He will not find this a matter that can be settled off-hand; it needs a good deal of investigation, and a stiff exercise of reflective thought. He should ask, in the first place, how the State originated, and why; it must have come about somehow, and for some purpose. This seems an extremely easy question to answer, but he will not find it so. Then he should ask what it is that history exhibits continuously as the State’s primary function. Then, whether he finds that “the State” and “government” are strictly synonymous terms; he uses them as such, but are they? Are there any invariable characteristic marks that differentiate the institution of government from the institution of the State?

Then finally he should decide whether, by the testimony of history, the State is to be regarded as, in essence, a social or an anti-social institution? It is pretty clear now that if the Church-citizen of 1500 had put his mind on questions as fundamental as these, his civilization might have had a much easier and pleasanter course to run; and the State-citizen of today may profit by his experience.

[libertarian4321]

Anarchy is Utopian in it's traditional sense... i.e because it's socialist. Which is why I support Anarcho-Capitalism... :cool:


3. Do anarcho-capitalists favor chaos?

No. Anarcho-capitalists believe that a stateless society would be much more peaceful, harmonious, and prosperous than society under statism. We see life under States as chaotic - the insanity of war and the arbitrariness of government regulation and plunder. Anarcho-capitalists agree with the "father of anarchism" Pierre Proudhon: "Liberty is not the daughter but the mother of order," and his contemporary Frederic Bastiat, who wrote of the "natural harmony" of the market, that "natural and wise order that operates without our knowledge." ("Economic Harmonies")


4. Isn't anarcho-capitalism utopian?

No. Anarcho-capitalists tend to be pragmatic, and argue that, no matter how good or bad man is, he is better off in liberty. If men are good, then they need no rulers. If men are bad, then governments of men, composed of men, will also be bad - and probably worse, due to the State's amplification of coercive power. Most anarcho-capitalists think that some men are okay and some aren't; and there will always be some crime. We are not expecting any major change in human nature in that regard. Since utopianism by definition requires a change in human nature, anarcho-capitalism is not utopian.


15. How would anarcho-capitalism work?

In one sense, this is easy to answer. Since most people are familiar with capitalism, one could simply say, "Just like today's semi-capitalist societies, except with no coercive monopolies." As already noted, most services currently provided by State have been done voluntarily in the past, usually with better quality and service than the State. This is what you'd expect, since monopolies lack the usual competitive incentives to improve. The services that people have not seen provided privately, such as court, police, and defense against military invasion, require more explanation.



There are several obvious advantages to private law.

* You are likely to be treated better by a PDA than a monopoly government agency, since you are a customer (or at least a potential customer) rather than a suspect.
* Victimless "crime" laws are significantly less likely, since customers would bear the cost of enforcing laws against vices rather than passing the cost on to society at large. (E.g. Someone opposed to marijuana is likely to vote against legalization, but less likely to pay $100/year to make it illegal.)
* But most importantly, everyone gets their own preferred law, rather than having to submit to winner-take-all imposed law. E.g. A religious puritan may subscribe to a PDA under a plan in which adulterers (who subscribe to this plan) would be stoned to death. His next-door neighbor may subscribe to a service that allows open copulation in the front yard. Both can have their way, since jurisdictions are simply the combined properties of the subscribers.

Non-government military provision is more familiar to most people, under the guise of ''militia''. A militia is a voluntary defense service which is unlikely to invade a foreign country, build weapons of mass destruction and death, fund itself with stolen money, or most other questionable actions in which government militaries routinely engage. A militia is geared to do one thing: defend the local people. Anarcho-capitalists also see a role for defense firms and mercenaries, to take care of security issues not so localized. Note that, since the costs of warfare are borne by those firms who engage in it, they are considerably more likely to sue for peace than a State, which is able to shove costs onto their plundered and conscripted citizenry. "

How can you seriously say something is absurd when you haven't even investigated / contemplated it? :rolleyes:

You're a Ron Paul supporter, not a socialist. You're better than that. Now get to work. :D

Plus this is a god damn FAQ... you want some in depth stuff, go have an argument with Rothbard's work... Haha, good luck, you'll need it. :p

Sorry, its still idealistic Utopian crap that has never been tried because its utterly absurd for a lot of reasons.

I'll give you one. You form your "militia" for defense (I won't even get into the fact that militias tend to crumble when when put up against a professional military).

Militias need leaders. Militia doesn't mean "rabble" (and if it did, it would be defeated even more quickly)- therefore, it has to have a leadership structure. Militias tend to be led by charismatic local leaders. Thats fine if your militia leader is pure as the driven snow and a Utopian idealist.

Unfortunately, when dealing with humans, you rarely find anyone like that. Sooner or later, that leader, or the one that follows him, is going to decide he can run things better than the Utopian anarchist commune (or whatever the Hell you decide to call it). Some of the "militia" will follow him- others may not, but it doesn't matter, because they will disintegrate into a leaderless rabble, easily swept aside.

Anarchy or Anarcho capitalism or whatever cute label you slap onto is bound to fail, for the same reason communism fails.

Because people aren't worker bees who survived only for the good of the hive. People are greedy, people are jealous, people are often not nice. If they aren't getting what they want through "playing by the rules", they'll change the rules.

Your "anarcho capitalist" utopia would work well with bees or ants, it would never work with humans.

Your Utopia would quickly devolve into a dictatorship, or, more likely, a group of warring dictatorships.

These sorts of "ideas" are fine when slamming back a couple of brews after your Dungeons and Dragons game, but not many people over the age of 25 would take this stuff seriously.

Government is evil, but its also necessary. Hence, the reason its best to keep it as small as possible. But to eliminate it? No, only college kids, dreamers, and crazy people think thats "realistic."

[libertarian4321]

"Anarcho-capitalists also see a role for defense firms and mercenaries, to take care of security issues not so localized."

Whoops, forgot to reply to your "mercenary" clause.

Hell, son, you and your band of Utopian Anarcho Capitalists hire me and my Mercenary company, and I guarantee you I will quickly realize its easier for me and my professional army to crush your amateur militia and TAKE EVERYTHING YOU HAVE (your money, your food, your home, your women, and whatever the heck else I want) rather than work for whatever fee you pay me. Professional mercenaries will chew up "militia" and spit them out.

(BTW, mercenary armies throughout history have done exactly that, even when pitted against state Armies).

[Conza88]

Sorry, its still idealistic Utopian crap that has never been tried because its utterly absurd for a lot of reasons.

I'll give you one. You form your "militia" for defense (I won't even get into the fact that militias tend to crumble when when put up against a professional military).

Militias need leaders. Militia doesn't mean "rabble" (and if it did, it would be defeated even more quickly)- therefore, it has to have a leadership structure. Militias tend to be led by charismatic local leaders. Thats fine if your militia leader is pure as the driven snow and a Utopian idealist.

Unfortunately, when dealing with humans, you rarely find anyone like that. Sooner or later, that leader, or the one that follows him, is going to decide he can run things better than the Utopian anarchist commune (or whatever the Hell you decide to call it). Some of the "militia" will follow him- others may not, but it doesn't matter, because they will disintegrate into a leaderless rabble, easily swept aside.

Anarchy or Anarcho capitalism or whatever cute label you slap onto is bound to fail, for the same reason communism fails.

Because people aren't worker bees who survived only for the good of the hive. People are greedy, people are jealous, people are often not nice. If they aren't getting what they want through "playing by the rules", they'll change the rules.

Your "anarcho capitalist" utopia would work well with bees or ants, it would never work with humans.

Your Utopia would quickly devolve into a dictatorship, or, more likely, a group of warring dictatorships.

These sorts of "ideas" are fine when slamming back a couple of brews after your Dungeons and Dragons game, but not many people over the age of 25 would take this stuff seriously.

Government is evil, but its also necessary. Hence, the reason its best to keep it as small as possible. But to eliminate it? No, only college kids, dreamers, and crazy people think thats "realistic."

I'm not going to waste my time with your little intrinsic specifics. And please don't be niave enough to consider that as I can't... :rolleyes: Experienced this plenty enough before.. both on abc.net.au forums, socialists coming up with there little theoretical situations about smoking laws etc... and you smack it down with property rights & reality, but they just go on make another one up.. and another... here, the teen08 is more than a fine example.

Please take the time to listen to: (Link far below - For a New Liberty)

Or actually READ something on the issue... then I'll answer your questions if you still have any... you won't do it though, will you? It's not hard, download the entire audiobook from the mises.org section, For A New Liberty... put it on your ipod, listen to it while you work, run, transit... then get back to me, eh?

Until then... Edit: see the below is all in the link [Anarcho-Capitalist FAQ]... but you haven't bothered to read it... you already think you're right... as if Rothbard or any of the other intellectual thinkers have never thought of your criticism or rebuttals.. you're some genius, and know they couldn't possible have an answer to your conclusions / thoughts.. :rolleyes:

Since it's not my duty to educate you, I'm going to take the easy option of continuing to quote this site; it's up to you to alleviate your ignorance. Not me. I've shown you the direction, I'm here for guidance. Your problem, not mine.



6. What justifications are there for anarcho-capitalism?


The most general justification was given above in part 2: no man should be ruled by another man. Individual sovereignty, moral autonomy, dignity, soul, whatever you wish to call it, demands that a person refuse to be ruled. What about the "capitalist" part? There are several justifications given by various anarcho-capitalists

Moral justifications:

* The life of man qua man, man as a rational being, morally necessitates a laissez-faire economic system. (Ayn Rand and objectivists)
* Man must be free and uncoerced so that the man, especially his moral faculty, is allowed to evolve. (Herbert Spencer)
* There is an overriding moral principle in civilized society: that no one should violate the (general moral) rights of others, i.e. initiate force or threat of force. This is called the NAP - Non-Aggression Principle. (Spencer, Rand, Rothbard)
* Capitalism is contractual; it is what rational people implicitly agree to do when they enter society. (Narveson)

Other justifications:

* Libertarianism capitalism is simply what society will do more or less in many or most places in the absense of a State. (David Friedman) This is a a utilitarian or "value-free" economic approach.
* One cannot argue against anarcho-capitalism without implicitly agreeing to its basic assumptions. (Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argumention ethic.)


17, Have there been any anarcho-capitalist societies?


Yes, more or less. Since both anarchism and capitalism are theoretical models, it's hard to claim that any real situation is 100% stateless and 100% free market capitalist. But there are various societies that were, for all intents and purposes, stateless, and societies that implemented anarcho-capitalist "programs" such as private law. Here is a short list:

* Celtic Ireland (650-1650)
In Celtic Irish society, the courts and the law were largely libertarian, and operated within a purely state-less manner. This society persisted in this libertarian path for roughly a thousand years until its brutal conquest by England in the seventeenth century. And, in contrast to many similarly functioning primitive tribes (such as the Ibos in West Africa, and many European tribes), preconquest Ireland was not in any sense a "primitive" society: it was a highly complex society that was, for centuries, the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe. A leading authority on ancient Irish law wrote, "There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justice... There was no trace of State-administered justice."

* Icelandic Commonwealth (930 to 1262)
David Friedman has studied the legal system of this culture, and observes:
The legal and political institutions of Iceland from the tenth to the thirteenth centuries ... are of interest for two reasons. First, they are relatively well documented; the sagas were written by people who had lived under that set of institutions and provide a detailed inside view of their workings. Legal conflicts were of great interest to the medieval Icelanders: Njal, the eponymous hero of the most famous of the sagas, is not a warrior but a lawyer--"so skilled in law that no one was considered his equal." In the action of the sagas, law cases play as central a role as battles.

Second, medieval Icelandic institutions have several peculiar and interesting characteristics; they might almost have been invented by a mad economist to test the lengths to which market systems could supplant government in its most fundamental functions. Killing was a civil offense resulting in a fine paid to the survivors of the victim. Laws were made by a "parliament," seats in which were a marketable commodity. Enforcement of law was entirely a private affair. And yet these extraordinary institutions survived for over three hundred years, and the society in which they survived appears to have been in many ways an attractive one . Its citizens were, by medieval standards, free; differences in status based on rank or sex were relatively small; and its literary, output in relation to its size has been compared, with some justice, to that of Athens. - David Friedman, Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: A Historical Case

* Rhode Island (1636-1648)
Religious dissenter Roger Williams, after being run out of theocratic puritan Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636, founded Providence, Rhode Island. Unlike the brutal Puritans, he scrupulously purchased land from local indians for his settlement. In political beliefs, Williams was close to the Levellers of England. He describes Rhode Island local "government" as follows: "The masters of families have ordinarily met once a fortnight and consulted about our common peace, watch and plenty; and mutual consent have finished all matters of speed and pace." While Roger Williams was not explicitly anarchist, another Rhode Islander was: Anne Hutchinson. Anne and her followers emigrated to Rhode Island in 1638. They bought Aquidneck Island from the Indians, and founded the town of Pocasset (now Portsmouth.) Another "Rogue Island" libertarian was Samuell Gorton. He and his followers were accused of being an "anarchists." Governor Winthrop of Massachusetts Bay called Gorton a "man not fit to live upon the face of the earth," Gorton and his followers were forced in late 1642 to found an entirely new settlement of their own: Shawomet (later Warwick). In the words of Gorton, for over five years the settlement "lived peaceably together, desiring and endeavoring to do wrong to no man, neither English nor Indian, ending all our differences in a neighborly and loving way of arbitration, mutually chosen amongst us."Pf

* Albemarle (1640's-1663)
The coastal area north of Albemarle Sound in what is now northeastern North Carolina had a quasi-anarchistic society in the mid-17th century. Officially a part of the Virginia colony, in fact it was independent. It was a haven for political and religious refugees, such as Quakers and dissident Presbyterians. The libertarian society ended in 1663, when the King of England granted Carolina to eight feudal proprietors backed by military.Pf

* Holy Experiment (Quaker) Pennsylvania (1681-1690)
When William Penn left his Quaker colony in Pennsylvania, the people stopped paying quitrent, and any semblance of formal government evaporated. The Quakers treated Indians with respect, bought land from them voluntarily, and had even representation of Indians and Whites on juries. According to Voltaire, the Shackamaxon treaty was "the only treaty between Indians and Christians that was never sworn to and that was never broken." The Quakers refused to provide any assistance to New England's Indian wars. Penn's attempt to impose government by appointing John Blackwell, a non-Quaker military man, as governor failed miserably.Pf
* The American "Not so Wild" West - various locations
Most law for settlements in the American West was established long before US government agents arrived. Property law was generally defined by local custom and/or agreement among the settlers. Mining associations established orderly mining claims, cattlemen's associations handled property rights on the plains, local "regulators" and private citizens provided enforcement. Yet most movie-watching people are surprised to learn that crime rates were lower in the West than the "civilized" East. Cf: The American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not so Wild, Wild, West
* Laissez Faire City
A more recent unsuccessful attempt to start a new country, LFC attempted to lease a hundred square miles of land from a third-world State in order to start an anarcho-capitalist society, taking Hong Kong as a guide. When that fell through, some members moved to Costa Rica, where the State is relatively weak, there is no standing army, and what little State interference there can usually be "bought off." There remain small libertarian communities in the central valley (Curridabat) and on the Pacific coast (Nosara).



13. Is anarcho-capitalism the same thing as libertarianism?

I thought this rather applicable because of your name... you act as if the position I hold is out of this world physical implausible, and even if it was obtainly you wouldn't want it you compared anarcho-capitalism to communism... :rolleyes: Really, come on... you're kidding right? Minarchists have more in common with communism, than anarcho-capitalists do!

"No, but it's close. Just as anarcho-capitalism is a subtype of anarchism, it is also a subtype of libertarianism. Libertarianism is the belief that liberty is the primary political virtue, conjoined with the belief in capitalism. But libertarians don't necessarily deny the legitimacy of the State as an institution - most believe that a minimal State is necessary to provide defense services. This minimal State, sometimes called "the nightwatchman State," is a government that provides only three things: police, courts, and defense against foreign invasion. This means that no government redistribution of wealth or regulation of the market is allowed. Anarcho-capitalists, therefore, hold the same values as minarchist libertarians, but take it to the logical conclusion: even a minimal State is too authoritarian. If government monopoly is bad for all other services, how can it suddenly be okay for the provision of defense? In short, an anarcho-capitalist is a radical libertarian. He rejects minarchism for anarchism."



"Anarcho-capitalists also see a role for defense firms and mercenaries, to take care of security issues not so localized."

Whoops, forgot to reply to your "mercenary" clause.

Hell, son, you and your band of Utopian Anarcho Capitalists hire me and my Mercenary company, and I guarantee you I will quickly realize its easier for me and my professional army to crush your amateur militia and TAKE EVERYTHING YOU HAVE (your money, your food, your home, your women, and whatever the heck else I want) rather than work for whatever fee you pay me. Professional mercenaries will chew up "militia" and spit them out.

(BTW, mercenary armies throughout history have done exactly that, even when pitted against state Armies).

For a New Liberty -
12: The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts
14: War and Foreign Policy (http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=87)

@ the bold. Ahh, thanks for agreeing with us? :D

[Scotso]

anarchism will just be REPLACED by despotism and fascism instantly.

Agreed.

We need a government. There's no such thing as a political vacuum.

[libertarian4321]

I'm not going to waste my time with your little intrinsic specifics. And please don't be niave enough to consider that as I can't... :rolleyes: Experienced this plenty enough before.. both on abc.net.au forums, socialists coming up with there little theoretical situations about smoking laws etc... and you smack it down with property rights & reality, but they just go on make another one up.. and another... here, the teen08 is more than a fine example.

Please take the time to listen to: (Link far below - For a New Liberty)

Or actually READ something on the issue... then I'll answer your questions if you still have any... you won't do it though, will you? It's not hard, download the entire audiobook from the mises.org section, For A New Liberty... put it on your ipod, listen to it while you work, run, transit... then get back to me, eh?

Until then... Edit: see the below is all in the link [Anarcho-Capitalist FAQ]... but you haven't bothered to read it... you already think you're right... as if Rothbard or any of the other intellectual thinkers have never thought of your criticism or rebuttals.. you're some genius, and know they couldn't possible have an answer to your conclusions / thoughts.. :rolleyes:

Since it's not my duty to educate you, I'm going to take the easy option of continuing to quote this site; it's up to you to alleviate your ignorance. Not me. I've shown you the direction, I'm here for guidance. Your problem, not mine.



6. What justifications are there for anarcho-capitalism?


The most general justification was given above in part 2: no man should be ruled by another man. Individual sovereignty, moral autonomy, dignity, soul, whatever you wish to call it, demands that a person refuse to be ruled. What about the "capitalist" part? There are several justifications given by various anarcho-capitalists

Moral justifications:

* The life of man qua man, man as a rational being, morally necessitates a laissez-faire economic system. (Ayn Rand and objectivists)
* Man must be free and uncoerced so that the man, especially his moral faculty, is allowed to evolve. (Herbert Spencer)
* There is an overriding moral principle in civilized society: that no one should violate the (general moral) rights of others, i.e. initiate force or threat of force. This is called the NAP - Non-Aggression Principle. (Spencer, Rand, Rothbard)
* Capitalism is contractual; it is what rational people implicitly agree to do when they enter society. (Narveson)

Other justifications:

* Libertarianism capitalism is simply what society will do more or less in many or most places in the absense of a State. (David Friedman) This is a a utilitarian or "value-free" economic approach.
* One cannot argue against anarcho-capitalism without implicitly agreeing to its basic assumptions. (Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argumention ethic.)


17, Have there been any anarcho-capitalist societies?


Yes, more or less. Since both anarchism and capitalism are theoretical models, it's hard to claim that any real situation is 100% stateless and 100% free market capitalist. But there are various societies that were, for all intents and purposes, stateless, and societies that implemented anarcho-capitalist "programs" such as private law. Here is a short list:

* Celtic Ireland (650-1650)
In Celtic Irish society, the courts and the law were largely libertarian, and operated within a purely state-less manner. This society persisted in this libertarian path for roughly a thousand years until its brutal conquest by England in the seventeenth century. And, in contrast to many similarly functioning primitive tribes (such as the Ibos in West Africa, and many European tribes), preconquest Ireland was not in any sense a "primitive" society: it was a highly complex society that was, for centuries, the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe. A leading authority on ancient Irish law wrote, "There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justice... There was no trace of State-administered justice."

* Icelandic Commonwealth (930 to 1262)
David Friedman has studied the legal system of this culture, and observes:
The legal and political institutions of Iceland from the tenth to the thirteenth centuries ... are of interest for two reasons. First, they are relatively well documented; the sagas were written by people who had lived under that set of institutions and provide a detailed inside view of their workings. Legal conflicts were of great interest to the medieval Icelanders: Njal, the eponymous hero of the most famous of the sagas, is not a warrior but a lawyer--"so skilled in law that no one was considered his equal." In the action of the sagas, law cases play as central a role as battles.

Second, medieval Icelandic institutions have several peculiar and interesting characteristics; they might almost have been invented by a mad economist to test the lengths to which market systems could supplant government in its most fundamental functions. Killing was a civil offense resulting in a fine paid to the survivors of the victim. Laws were made by a "parliament," seats in which were a marketable commodity. Enforcement of law was entirely a private affair. And yet these extraordinary institutions survived for over three hundred years, and the society in which they survived appears to have been in many ways an attractive one . Its citizens were, by medieval standards, free; differences in status based on rank or sex were relatively small; and its literary, output in relation to its size has been compared, with some justice, to that of Athens. - David Friedman, Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: A Historical Case

* Rhode Island (1636-1648)
Religious dissenter Roger Williams, after being run out of theocratic puritan Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636, founded Providence, Rhode Island. Unlike the brutal Puritans, he scrupulously purchased land from local indians for his settlement. In political beliefs, Williams was close to the Levellers of England. He describes Rhode Island local "government" as follows: "The masters of families have ordinarily met once a fortnight and consulted about our common peace, watch and plenty; and mutual consent have finished all matters of speed and pace." While Roger Williams was not explicitly anarchist, another Rhode Islander was: Anne Hutchinson. Anne and her followers emigrated to Rhode Island in 1638. They bought Aquidneck Island from the Indians, and founded the town of Pocasset (now Portsmouth.) Another "Rogue Island" libertarian was Samuell Gorton. He and his followers were accused of being an "anarchists." Governor Winthrop of Massachusetts Bay called Gorton a "man not fit to live upon the face of the earth," Gorton and his followers were forced in late 1642 to found an entirely new settlement of their own: Shawomet (later Warwick). In the words of Gorton, for over five years the settlement "lived peaceably together, desiring and endeavoring to do wrong to no man, neither English nor Indian, ending all our differences in a neighborly and loving way of arbitration, mutually chosen amongst us."Pf

* Albemarle (1640's-1663)
The coastal area north of Albemarle Sound in what is now northeastern North Carolina had a quasi-anarchistic society in the mid-17th century. Officially a part of the Virginia colony, in fact it was independent. It was a haven for political and religious refugees, such as Quakers and dissident Presbyterians. The libertarian society ended in 1663, when the King of England granted Carolina to eight feudal proprietors backed by military.Pf

* Holy Experiment (Quaker) Pennsylvania (1681-1690)
When William Penn left his Quaker colony in Pennsylvania, the people stopped paying quitrent, and any semblance of formal government evaporated. The Quakers treated Indians with respect, bought land from them voluntarily, and had even representation of Indians and Whites on juries. According to Voltaire, the Shackamaxon treaty was "the only treaty between Indians and Christians that was never sworn to and that was never broken." The Quakers refused to provide any assistance to New England's Indian wars. Penn's attempt to impose government by appointing John Blackwell, a non-Quaker military man, as governor failed miserably.Pf
* The American "Not so Wild" West - various locations
Most law for settlements in the American West was established long before US government agents arrived. Property law was generally defined by local custom and/or agreement among the settlers. Mining associations established orderly mining claims, cattlemen's associations handled property rights on the plains, local "regulators" and private citizens provided enforcement. Yet most movie-watching people are surprised to learn that crime rates were lower in the West than the "civilized" East. Cf: The American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not so Wild, Wild, West
* Laissez Faire City
A more recent unsuccessful attempt to start a new country, LFC attempted to lease a hundred square miles of land from a third-world State in order to start an anarcho-capitalist society, taking Hong Kong as a guide. When that fell through, some members moved to Costa Rica, where the State is relatively weak, there is no standing army, and what little State interference there can usually be "bought off." There remain small libertarian communities in the central valley (Curridabat) and on the Pacific coast (Nosara).



13. Is anarcho-capitalism the same thing as libertarianism?

I thought this rather applicable because of your name... you act as if the position I hold is out of this world physical implausible, and even if it was obtainly you wouldn't want it you compared anarcho-capitalism to communism... :rolleyes: Really, come on... you're kidding right? Minarchists have more in common with communism, than anarcho-capitalists do!

"No, but it's close. Just as anarcho-capitalism is a subtype of anarchism, it is also a subtype of libertarianism. Libertarianism is the belief that liberty is the primary political virtue, conjoined with the belief in capitalism. But libertarians don't necessarily deny the legitimacy of the State as an institution - most believe that a minimal State is necessary to provide defense services. This minimal State, sometimes called "the nightwatchman State," is a government that provides only three things: police, courts, and defense against foreign invasion. This means that no government redistribution of wealth or regulation of the market is allowed. Anarcho-capitalists, therefore, hold the same values as minarchist libertarians, but take it to the logical conclusion: even a minimal State is too authoritarian. If government monopoly is bad for all other services, how can it suddenly be okay for the provision of defense? In short, an anarcho-capitalist is a radical libertarian. He rejects minarchism for anarchism."




For a New Liberty -
12: The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts
14: War and Foreign Policy (http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=87)

@ the bold. Ahh, thanks for agreeing with us? :D

Don't assume that because I don't buy into this crap that I haven't read it. I doubt there's anything on Mises that I haven't read (unless it was added in the last month or two). I probably read it when you were still wearing diapers.

I read a lot of political and economic theory (even the "bad" stuff like Marx). Frankly, I find "anarcho capitalism" or any other version of anarchy as unrealistic as Marx's ideology.

Regarding your "examples" of "anarchistic" societies. Even if I accept what you and Wikipedia call "anarchist" societies (thanks for not copying the entire article, it was rather lengthy), they were all tiny societies (and, in fact, not truly anarchistic), usually in backwaters where they wouldn't be threatened, and they all failed (and btw, the you seemed to imply that Hong Kong was in some way anarchistic- to which I reply "what have you been smoking?").

To think that translating what may have kinda sorta worked for a little while in colonial Albermarle or Rhode Island, in societies that consisted of only a few hundred people, will work in a modern nation is extraordinarily naive.

Your ideas on politics remind me of high school physics- you remember, where everything was supposed to work in a "frictionless, massless" world. Unfortunately, the world isn't frictionless, and humans aren't the kind of selfless drones that would be required for those types Utopian political ideology (anarchy, communism, or whatever) to work.

Could this stuff work in a VERY small, very homogenous, very isolated community? Maybe, for a while. But it certainly wouldn't work for a nation of tens or hundreds of millions of people.

I live in the real world, not ideal world.

You keep dreaming, the rest of us have work to do...

And if you ever do succeed with this stuff, let me know where you're at, because I'm coming to take your stuff, lol.

[me3]

How will you ensure that Anarchy will sustain?

The criminal gangs and neo-Barbarians will rule the streets and the guy with the biggest stick will be the leader.
Isn't that what happens now?


Adolph Hitler then.
Didn't Hitler come to power under a parliamentary democracy, not under anarchy?


Anarchy is a vacuum where something will fill its gap, probably a dictatorship.
Anarchy is a response to dictatorship, not a precursor to it. Democracy leads to dictatorship. No one has ever rolled a democracy back from authoritarianism by voting in new people.

[libertarian4321]

you're some genius,

Yes, I am, thank you for noticing.

I try to stay humble, though.

It does come in handy, though. For example, unlike some people, I have the ability to critically analyze the ideas of others, I don't just genuflect and assume something is correct just because its on "mises.org."

[kojirodensetsu]

I think that anarcho-capitalism is too idealistic and unrealistic. We already have hard enough time trying to convince people to go for limited government.

[Conza88]

Don't assume that because I don't buy into this crap that I haven't read it. I doubt there's anything on Mises that I haven't read (unless it was added in the last month or two). I probably read it when you were still wearing diapers.

I read a lot of political and economic theory (even the "bad" stuff like Marx). Frankly, I find "anarcho capitalism" or any other version of anarchy as unrealistic as Marx's ideology.

Regarding your "examples" of "anarchistic" societies. Even if I accept what you and Wikipedia call "anarchist" societies (thanks for not copying the entire article, it was rather lengthy), they were all tiny societies (and, in fact, not truly anarchistic), usually in backwaters where they wouldn't be threatened, and they all failed (and btw, the you seemed to imply that Hong Kong was in some way anarchistic- to which I reply "what have you been smoking?").

I didn't imply anything. I'm copy & pasting here, because I don't find debating people with closed minds - worth my time... I ALREADY STATED this from the get go... It's so far well and true. You've just brushed it aside...

If you actually CLICKED the link; you're find out they were AUDIO... you can't READ audio can you? :rolleyes: So you're not even bothering to click links because your mind is made up... you FAIL.


To think that translating what may have kinda sorta worked for a little while in colonial Albermarle or Rhode Island, in societies that consisted of only a few hundred people, will work in a modern nation is extraordinarily naive.

Your ideas on politics remind me of high school physics- you remember, where everything was supposed to work in a "frictionless, massless" world. Unfortunately, the world isn't frictionless, and humans aren't the kind of selfless drones that would be required for those types Utopian political ideology (anarchy, communism, or whatever) to work.

Could this stuff work in a VERY small, very homogenous, very isolated community? Maybe, for a while. But it certainly wouldn't work for a nation of tens or hundreds of millions of people.

I live in the real world, not ideal world.

You keep dreaming, the rest of us have work to do... And if you ever do succeed with this stuff, let me know where you're at, because I'm coming to take your stuff, lol.

1. What is anarcho-capitalism?

"Anarcho-capitalism is the political philosophy and theory that

1. the State is an unnecessary evil and should be abolished, and
2. a free-market private property economic system is morally permissible.

Part one is simply the definition of "anarchism," and part two is soft propertarianism, known more generally as "a free market" or "laissez-faire." Let's look more closely at each of the two parts of our definition. Moral permissibility is a "minimum" position. Almost all anarcho-capitalists believe also that a laissez-faire economic system is generally better than alternatives. Some strong propertarians, such as objectivists, go further and claim that laissez-faire is the only moral economic system.

A typical dictionary definition of anarchism is: "The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished."Pf This definition follows the etymology of the word: "Anarchism" is derived from the Greek αναρχία meaning "without archon" (ruler, chief, or king.) This is the core meaning of the term - against the State. This means against it in principle, as an institution, not merely against certain policies or personnel."

Murray Rothbard coined the term "anarcho-capitalist" in the winter of 1949 or 1950. "My whole position was inconsistent [...], there were only two logical possibilities: socialism, or anarchism. Since it was out of the question for me to become a socialist, I found myself pushed by the irresistible logic of the case, a private property anarchist, or, as I would later dub it, an anarcho-capitalist."Pf


Ok you obviously have some emotional reaction to the word "anarchy"....

PURE, FREE MARKET, LAISSEZ-FAIRE CAPITALISM.... you call that Utopia & unachievable? :rolleyes: Just because a stateless society appears unrealistic at the moment, doesn't mean it's not achievable.


2. Why should one consider anarcho-capitalism?


First, there is the issue of self-ownership, as the abolitionists called it, or moral autonomy as the philosophers call it. Is your life your own moral purpose? Do you owe anyone obedience regardless of consent? In natural rights language: Do you have rights - moral claims to freedom of action? If you answer yes to any of these questions, then logic leads you to the position of philosophical anarchism.

The defining mark of the state is authority, the right to rule. The primary obligation of man is autonomy, the refusal to be ruled. It would seem, then, that there can be no resolution of the conflict between the autonomy of the individual and the putative authority of the state. Insofar as a man fulfills his obligation to make himself the author of his decisions, he will resist the state's claim to have authority over him. That is to say, he will deny that he has a duty to obey the laws of this state simply because they are the laws. In that sense, it would seem that anarchism is the only political doctrine consistent with the virtue of autonomy." - Robert Paul Wolff, In Defense of Anarchism.

A second more utilitarian reason is the dismal record of States. Considering all the war, genocide, slavery, and repression perpetrated by States through history, might humanity do better without this barbaric institution? As the young Edmund Burke wrote in the world's first anarchist essay (before he went conservative):

These Evils are not accidental. Whoever will take the pains to consider the Nature of Society, will find they result directly from its Constitution. For as Subordination, or in other Words, the Reciprocation of Tyranny, and Slavery, is requisite to support these Societies, the Interest, the Ambition, the Malice, or the Revenge, nay even the Whim and Caprice of one ruling Man among them, is enough to arm all the rest, without any private Views of their own, to the worst and blackest Purposes; and what is at once lamentable and ridiculous, these Wretches engage under those Banners with a Fury greater than if they were animated by Revenge for their own proper Wrongs - Edmund Burke, A Vindication of Natural Society.

That was written in 1756, long before modern weapons of mass destruction and long before 170 million civilian people were murdered by their own governments in the 20th century. That's just civilian deaths perpetrated by their own governments; it doesn't count the deaths due to enemy States, deaths of soldiers, dislocated refugees, and so on. To quote Rothbard, "If we look at the black record of mass murder, exploitation, and tyranny levied on society by governments over the ages, we need not be loath to abandon the Leviathan State and ... try freedom."


5. Isn't laissez-faire capitalism exploitative?

No. Laissez-faire literally means "let us be!" It means absolutely no government intervention in the economy - a free market. Of course, this is an ideal. Certainly the statist quo is not laissez-faire capitalism. Even in so-called "capitalist" States (really mixed economies), the government engages in all sorts of intervention: taxation, regulation, protectionism, prohibitions, occupational licensure, monopolies on "command posts" of society.

The vital command posts invariably owned monopolistically by the State are: (1) police and military protection; (2) judicial protection; (3) monopoly of the mint (and monopoly of defining money); (4) rivers and coastal seas; (5) urban streets and highways, and land generally (unused land, in addition to the power of eminent domain); and (6) the post office. The defense function is the one reserved most jealously by the State. It is vital to the State's existence, for on its monopoly of force depends its ability to exact taxes from the citizens. If citizens were permitted privately owned courts and armies, then they would possess the means to defend themselves against invasive acts by the government as well as by private individuals. - Murray N. Rothbard, The Myth of Efficient Government Service

With the State - biggest, baddest exploiter of all time - out of the picture, exploitation, in terms of aggression, would all but vanish. It would be a voluntary society, an anarchy.

Some say that property and capitalism is automatically exploitative, because it allows profit and/or private property. We'll answer this claim in the section below called What are the myths of socialism?.



Yes, I am, thank you for noticing.

I try to stay humble, though.

It does come in handy, though. For example, unlike some people, I have the ability to critically analyze the ideas of others, I don't just genuflect and assume something is correct just because its on "mises.org."

:eek: You've pretty much failed to address, nor provide any worthy criticisms that aren't already clearly covered by Rothbard. Go back to mises.org.. you completely missed his entire section it would seem. What books of his have you read / own? How long you been frequenting the site? You failed to address anything Nock said aswell. It's not all just Rothbard. :)


I think that anarcho-capitalism is too idealistic and unrealistic. We already have hard enough time trying to convince people to go for limited government.

Yeah, which is why I don't go around calling myself an anarcho-capitalist unless it's to annoy some socialist, who gets angry because I'm a libertarian... so why not tell him how I really feel? :D

[OferNave]

Wow, great thread. Glad to see it.

I'll chime in with my support - I'm an anarcho-capitalist. I'm not too picky on the terminology; I understand that "anarcho-capitalist" has become fashionable since anarchist is too ambiguous and stigmatized.

There's no such thing as Utopia. There is only the most practical system and the most moral system. After careful consideration over my entire life, I've come to the conclusion that anarcho-capitalism is both.

This is a great book about it:

http://www.amazon.com/Market-Liberty-Morris-Tannehill/dp/0930073088/

It was then turned into a free audio book by recorded by Ian of Free Talk Live:

http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/

Lastly, regarding the "vacuum" question, I think the vacuum is the product of psychology, not the product of the mechanics of power in a free society. I think the trick to achieving permanent peace and prosperity in a state-less society is successfully boot-strapping the first decent sized geographic region operating without a state. I have theories as to why this hasn't happened before, and why it can happen in the near future. The book above goes into a lot of detail about this.

[libertarian4321]

"Go back to mises.org.. you completely missed his entire section it would seem. What books of his have you read / own? How long you been frequenting the site? You failed to address anything Nock said aswell. It's not all just Rothbard. "

I don't own any of his books. Typically, in the old days (back before the world wide web- pre 1995, when you were probably in diapers) I would borrow them from the library or buy them from garage sales/bargain bins at the book store. Now, of course, there is a ton of his stuff for free online- and most of it is in .pdf form (hint: that ain't audio).

Frankly, I find it to be a lot of philosophical BS- suitable for self-described "know-it-alls" sitting in a circle and trying to determine who can be the most ideologically"pure." You know the type of person I'm talking about, we have a lot of them on these forums.

His ideas might work in an "ideal" world, but they won't work in the real world.

Your ideas aren't practical, for a lot of reasons- you still haven't refuted the one example I gave you- how do you defend your little Utopian society? I'll reiterate for you, in case you forgot. Militias are next to worthless against a professional army (even if you can get them to show up and actually fight, and even if they don't turn against the Utopian society themselves), and mercenaries are just as likely to turn on their employers as work for them.

Limited government is achievable. "No government" is not...

[libertarian4321]

Er, lest you think that I think Rothbard and his acolytes are wrong about everything, that is not the case.

My point is, they take their idealism to extreme and impractical levels.

When I read Rothbard or Rand or some of the other philosophers that some of you seem to worship as heroes, I wonder if they ever left their ivory towers/debating circles and spent time with the people who were supposed to populate their ideal societies? If they had, they might realize that implementing their versions of Utopia wouldn't be quite as practical as they think...

[powerofreason]

His ideas might work in an "ideal" world, but they won't work in the real world.

Your ideas aren't practical, for a lot of reasons- you still haven't refuted the one example I gave you- how do you defend your little Utopian society? I'll reiterate for you, in case you forgot. Militias are next to worthless against a professional army (even if you can get them to show up and actually fight, and even if they don't turn against the Utopian society themselves), and mercenaries are just as likely to turn on their employers as work for them.

Limited government is achievable. "No government" is not...

An anarchy is harder to conquer than an organized state. Do you need that explained to you?

[Truth Warrior]

You're an Anarchist (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer60.html)
Me too, says Butler Shaffer. So are all civilized men, in practice.

[Truth Warrior]

Politics Is a Sociopathic Cult (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer96.html)
Butler Shaffer on the prognosis.

[powerofreason]

You're an Anarchist (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer60.html)
Me too, says Butler Shaffer. So are all civilized men, in practice.

Was wondering when you'd pop in this thread :D

[Truth Warrior]

Was wondering when you'd pop in this thread :D Thead posts # 88 - # 89, as it turns out. :) Not counting this one.

[constituent]

I've always thought of anarchists as supporting a true free market, complete with protections for private property rights.
.

I have yet to hear of a way that any "anarcho-capitalists" have come up w/ that would ensure property rights w/out simply forming a new branch of (their puppet) government.

it is a rare anarchist that will admit that the only valid means of protecting your property are yourself, your family and your firepower.

Usually they'll just start blabbing utopian bilge at you about privatized courts and other such non-sense.

[Truth Warrior]

Government is NOT in the PROTECTION business, it's only in the RETRIBUTION business.<IMHO> ;)

[powerofreason]

I have yet to hear of a way that any "anarcho-capitalists" have come up w/ that would ensure property rights w/out simply forming a new branch of (their puppet) government.

it is a rare anarchist that will admit that the only valid means of protecting your property are yourself, your family and your firepower.

Usually they'll just start blabbing utopian bilge at you about privatized courts and other such non-sense.

Private courts have existed and continue to exist today. Nonsense? No. Reality? Yes.

[constituent]

Private courts have existed and continue to exist today. Nonsense? No. Reality? Yes.

lol.

good luck enforcing a ruling.


courts = not anarchy

[powerofreason]

lol.

good luck enforcing a ruling.


courts = not anarchy

Do some research.

[constituent]

When I read Rothbard or Rand or some of the other philosophers that some of you seem to worship as heroes, I wonder if they ever left their ivory towers/debating circles and spent time with the people who were supposed to populate their ideal societies?

+1

[constituent]

Do some research.

lol... applause... what a joke.

i've done plenty.

you should try living sometime.

[Truth Warrior]

When will the BARBARIANS EVER willingly actually shrink THEIR governments by ANY amount whatsoever? ;) :D


http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/freeyourmind.jpg

[powerofreason]

see next post

[powerofreason]

lol... applause... what a joke.

i've done plenty.

you should try living sometime.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academ...d/Iceland.html

Thats 1000 years ago. Couldn't we do even better now?

[libertea]

Actually, I never understood what anarchism really means, as distinct from libertarianism. Those who support it seem to accept the idea that some organizations will arise naturally, and say that they would support and pay into systems that treat people justly and protect people's rights. What's the difference between that and small government?



Choice

[constituent]

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html

Thats 1000 years ago. Couldn't we do even better now?

lemme make this really easy for you (though i will eventually read the whole article)


PRIVATE CREATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF LAW:

Anarchy?

No.

(and that's the headline!)

"Private Creation" of LAW and LAW ENFORCEMENT is simply setting up another form of government.

(What were the founders if not private citizens?)

Perhaps at the "local" level? The "communal" level? Who cares? It is what it is, another form of government, hence not anarchy.


Some days i swear that most "anarchists" just want a world where they get to play feudal lord, just as the "communists" chomp for their day at the top of some bureau.

[powerofreason]

lemme make this really easy for you (though i will eventually read the whole article)



Anarchy?

No.

(and that's headline!)

"Private Creation" of LAW and LAW ENFORCEMENT is simply setting up another form of government.

(What were the founders if not private citizens?)

Perhaps at the "local" level? The "communal" level? Who cares? It is what it is, another form of government, hence not anarchy.


Some days i swear that most "anarchists" just want a world where they get to play feudal lord, just as the "communists" chomp for their day at the top of some bureau.

Incorrect. You get to choose which court to patronize. Government is an aggressively maintained monopoly over a few services, financed via theft. I fail to see how that is the same as private law. If I have a case against the government, who gets to decide the case? Oh thats right, the government. Can I appeal to my own court? No. The difference, is FORCE.

[constituent]

Incorrect. You get to choose which court to patronize. Government is an aggressively maintained monopoly over a few services, financed via theft. I fail to see how that is the same as private law. If I have a case against the government, who gets to decide the case? Oh thats right, the government. Can I appeal to my own court? No. The difference, is FORCE.


Here is the difference, one people agree w/ until they lose (so what's the point), and the other people generally disagree w/ so it must be implemented through the force of law.


One more time... "LAW and its ENFORCEMENT"

I understand it's kind of hiding in plain sight, but right there in the middle of ENFORCEMENT you will find the very word that gets at the heart of the matter....

think.

Now, i'm going to read the rest of the essay you posted, i don't really care to keep going back and forth over the headline. but feel free say your peace or whatever.

[powerofreason]

Iceland is just one example. England, I believe had private common law courts for quite a long time. The idea that a coercive state is necessary to enforce rulings is just plain wrong. Lets take Somalia, which by now probably has had some interim govt. forced on them by the U.N. They have private law.

The Rule of Law Without the State
http://mises.org/story/2701

Stateless in Somalia, And Loving It
http://mises.org/story/2066

Do you think the U.S. would fare better or worse than Somalia in a state of anarchy?

[Truth Warrior]

"An anarchist is anyone that wants less government than you do." -- Bob LeFevre

[Truth Warrior]

Hidden History: Where Organized Crime and Government Meet
http://www.lewrockwell.com/burris/burris10.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/burris/burris10.html)

"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators, and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class."
~ Albert Jay Nock, Our Enemy, The State (http://www.mises.org/store/Our-Enemy-the-State-P321.aspx?AFID=14)

[powerofreason]

Here is the difference, one people agree w/ until they lose (so what's the point), and the other people generally disagree w/ so it must be implemented through the force of law.


One more time... "LAW and its ENFORCEMENT"

I understand it's kind of hiding in plain sight, but right there in the middle of ENFORCEMENT you will find the very word that gets at the heart of the matter....

think.

Now, i'm going to read the rest of the essay you posted, i don't really care to keep going back and forth over the headline. but feel free say your peace or whatever.

If my private court and your private court cannot reach an agreement, we will choose another, neutral court to decide. At least, that seems the most likely thing to happen. Who knows what the market will choose as the most efficient way to solve disputes?

Now lets look at the enforcement part. Lets say you beat the shit out of my face with a baseball bat and steal $10k from me. I go to my court with witnesses. You are served with a notice that the trial is taking place, and refuse to come. Thats ok. The trial proceeds in absentia. I receive a judgement in my favor which your court recognizes as being legitimate. Lets say you choose not to appeal, because you know you'll lose. How do I collect the following?

1. My $10,000 from you.
2. My hospital bills.
3. My legal fees.
4. Another $10,000 from you as retribution.
5. Plus I get to beat your face in with a baseball bat!

I send out agents to go find you, beat your face in, and take whats legally mine, because I'm a busy guy. They find you but you apparently have no money. This information is relayed to your insurance agency which pays me, and your premiums go up a good amount. Now say you don't have insurance. Thats unlikely, but in that case the court will probably order your wages garnished until the money is paid back.

Thats how I envision it.

[constituent]

If my private court and your private court cannot reach an agreement, we will choose another, neutral court to decide. At least, that seems the most likely thing to happen. Who knows what the market will choose as the most efficient way to solve disputes?

Now lets look at the enforcement part. Lets say you beat the shit out of my face with a baseball bat and steal $10k from me. I go to my court with witnesses. You are served with a notice that the trial is taking place, and refuse to come. Thats ok. The trial proceeds in absentia. I receive a judgement in my favor which your court recognizes as being legitimate. Lets say you choose not to appeal, because you know you'll lose. How do I collect the following?

1. My $10,000 from you.
2. My hospital bills.
3. My legal fees.
4. Another $10,000 from you as retribution.
5. Plus I get to beat your face in with a baseball bat!

I send out agents to go find you, beat your face in, and take whats legally mine, because I'm a busy guy. They find you but you apparently have no money. This information is relayed to your insurance agency which pays me, and your premiums go up a good amount. Now say you don't have insurance. Thats unlikely, but in that case the court will probably order your wages garnished until the money is paid back.

Thats how I envision it.


insurance? my private court?

you must have lived a sheltered life (there's nothing wrong with that.)

i think what you fail to understand is that if i beat you senseless w/ a baseball bat to steal your money i'll likely have no concern about shooting your "agents" on first sight, 'cuz i'd be that kinda guy.

eventually, when enough agents have been shot, there won't be agents.

i would own zero insurance (no premiums), i would not have "my court" and you would simply be shit out of luck.

(p.s. if you're the kinda guy carries around 10K in cash, you've probably got it comin' ;) )


in anarchy those who will survive will be those awake to how things in this world really work (and have good interpersonal communication skills.)

[powerofreason]

insurance? my private court?

you must have lived a sheltered life (there's nothing wrong with that.)

i think what you fail to understand is that if i beat you senseless w/ a baseball bat to steal your money i'll likely have no concern about shooting your "agents" on first sight, 'cuz i'd be that kinda guy.

eventually, when enough agents have been shot, there won't be agents.

i would own zero insurance (no premiums), i would not have "my court" and you would simply be shit out of luck.

(p.s. if you're the kinda guy carries around 10K in cash, you've probably got it comin' ;) )


in anarchy those who will survive will be those awake to how things in this world really work (and have good interpersonal communication skills.)

Ok.

Then how was private law able to work in Iceland with barbarians longer than our republic was able to stay a republic?

Care to explain? I don't live a "sheltered life" btw, whatever that phrase means to you.

And one more thing. If you attempt to shoot my armed agents they will gladly kill you. And they're not gonna let you know they're coming either. Sounds like you'd be one of the first to go. :(

[powerofreason]

Did you read the Somalia articles?

[Conza88]

Read it.... What do you disagree with, what's wrong? Spell it out to me... :rolleyes: Reposting again because it was "oddly :rolleyes:" totally ignored...

Our Enemy, The State by Albert, J. Nock (http://mises.org/etexts/ourenemy.pdf)

There appears to be a curious difficulty about exercising reflective thought upon the actual nature of an institution into which one was born and one’s ancestors were born. One accepts it as one does the atmosphere; one’s practical adjustments to it are made by a kind of reflex.

One seldom thinks about the air until one notices some change, favourable or unfavourable, and then one’s thought about it is special; one thinks about purer air, lighter air, heavier air, not about air. So it is with certain human institutions. We know that they exist, that they affect us in various ways, but we do not ask how they came to exist, or what their original intention was, or what primary function it is that they are actually fulfilling; and when they affect us so unfavourably that we rebel against them, we contemplate substituting nothing beyond some modification or variant of the same institution. Thus colonial America, oppressed by the monarchical State, brings in the republican State; Germany gives up the republican State for the Hitlerian State; Russia exchanges the monocratic State for the collectivist State; Italy exchanges the constitutionalist State for the “totalitarian” State.

It is interesting to observe that in the year 1935 the average individual’s incurious attitude towards the phenomenon of the State is precisely what his attitude was towards the phenomenon of the Church in the year, say, 1500. The State was then a very weak institution; the Church was very strong. The individual was born into the Church, as his ancestors had been for generations, in precisely the formal, documented fashion in which he is now born into the State. He was taxed for the Church’s support, as he now is for the State’s support. He was supposed to accept the official theory and doctrine of the Church, to conform to its discipline, and in a general way to do as it told him; again, precisely the sanctions that the State now lays upon him. If he were reluctant or recalcitrant, the Church made a satisfactory amount of trouble for him, as the State now does. Notwithstanding all this, it does not appear to have occurred to the Church- citizen of that day, any more than it occurs to the State-citizen of the present, to ask what sort of institution it was that claimed his allegiance.

There it was; he accepted its own account of itself, took it as it stood, and at its own valuation. Even when he revolted, fifty years later, he merely exchanged one form or mode of the Church for another, the Roman for the Calvinist, Lutheran, Zuinglian, or what not; again, quite as the modern State-citizen exchanges one mode of the State for another. He did not examine the institution itself, nor does the State-citizen today. My purpose in writing is to raise the question whether the enormous depletion of social power which we are witnessing everywhere does not suggest the importance of knowing more than we do about the essential nature of the institution that is so rapidly absorbing this volume of power.

One of my friends said to me lately that if the public-utility corporations did not mend their ways, the State would take over their business and operate it. He spoke with a curiously reverent air of finality. Just so, I thought, might a Church-citizen, at the end of the fifteenth century, have spoken of some impending intervention of the Church; and I wondered then whether he had any better informed and closer-reasoned theory of the State than his prototype had of the Church. Frankly, I am sure he had not. His pseudo-conception was merely an unreasoned acceptance of the State on its own terms and at its own valuation; he showed himself no more intelligent, and no less, than the whole mass of State-citizenry at large.

It appears to me that with the depletion of social power going on at the rate it is, the State-citizen should look very closely into the essential nature of the institution that is bringing it about. He should ask himself whether he has a theory of the State, and if so, whether he can assure himself that history supports it. He will not find this a matter that can be settled off-hand; it needs a good deal of investigation, and a stiff exercise of reflective thought. He should ask, in the first place, how the State originated, and why; it must have come about somehow, and for some purpose. This seems an extremely easy question to answer, but he will not find it so. Then he should ask what it is that history exhibits continuously as the State’s primary function. Then, whether he finds that “the State” and “government” are strictly synonymous terms; he uses them as such, but are they? Are there any invariable characteristic marks that differentiate the institution of government from the institution of the State?

Then finally he should decide whether, by the testimony of history, the State is to be regarded as, in essence, a social or an anti-social institution? It is pretty clear now that if the Church-citizen of 1500 had put his mind on questions as fundamental as these, his civilization might have had a much easier and pleasanter course to run; and the State-citizen of today may profit by his experience.

Excerpt. Pg 18-21.

Oh of course!!! Thinking that there would never be a state makes you a total LOON.. when we are born from the DAWN of time... since the BEGINNING of man... only 3 things remain forever constant, birth, death & the ever presence of the state!!! How stupid of me, forgive my ignorance... Man of man, what was I thinking!?? Pardon the interruption folks, I spent 13 years getting a PUBLIC / STATE EDUCATION..... OF COURSE THE STATE IS AS NATURAL AS AIR. IT'S EVEN BETTER! :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

Religion and politics are both the very same thing. They are both only, very old and very effective, means to control large masses of people. It has always only been that way, and it always only will be.

The ends do NOT justify the means.

[powerofreason]

Religion and politics are both the very same thing. They are both only, very old and very effective, means to control large masses of people. It has always only been that way, and it always only will be.

The ends do NOT justify the means.

Well said.

[Truth Warrior]

Well said. Thanks! :)

[constituent]

Ok.

Then how was private law able to work in Iceland with barbarians longer than our republic was able to stay a republic?

That tells me to question who the "barbarians" really are.



Care to explain? I don't live a "sheltered life" btw, whatever that phrase means to you.

That you don't understand how little regard people give all niceties, particularly law enforcement efforts (that apply to them.)

W/out a publicly excused, legitimized monopoly on "law enforcement," laws will be impossible to enforce.

Anything else would not be anarchy, it's just another form of government, albeit one that you feel represents your interests better than the one we've got now.



And one more thing. If you attempt to shoot my armed agents they will gladly kill you. And they're not gonna let you know they're coming either. Sounds like you'd be one of the first to go. :(

Power of reason is your username, yet you cannot read a hypothetical w/out getting wound up about it? It is what it is man, what you're proposing w/ new "privatized" courts would lead to nothing but armed conflict, or everyone simply ignoring those attempting to implement it ( one would lead to the other, though i'm not sure in which order.)

How are you going to "enforce" any "law" without "force?"

This seems so simple, explain to me why it isn't, and then we'll be getting somewhere.

[Truth Warrior]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/barbarian (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/barbarian) AKA those dependent on force, coercion and violence.<IMHO>

[Truth Warrior]

Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.
http://www.voluntaryist.com/

[powerofreason]

That tells me to question who the "barbarians" really are.



That you don't understand how little regard people give all niceties, particularly law enforcement efforts (that apply to them.)

W/out a publicly excused, legitimized monopoly on "law enforcement," laws will be impossible to enforce.

Anything else would not be anarchy, it's just another form of government, albeit one that you feel represents your interests better than the one we've got now.



Power of reason is your username, yet you cannot read a hypothetical w/out getting wound up about it? It is what it is man, what you're proposing w/ new "privatized" courts would lead to nothing but armed conflict, or everyone simply ignoring those attempting to implement it ( one would lead to the other, though i'm not sure in which order.)

How are you going to "enforce" any "law" without "force?"

This seems so simple, explain to me why it isn't, and then we'll be getting somewhere.

I've already shown you historical examples of private law working.... without a government (monopoly on force).... read the Somalia articles.... they have no government and yet they have laws that are enforced (shocker!).... and of course you need to use force, just in a defensive, as opposed to agressive way. Might doesn't make right. Are you ignoring the evidence I'm offering to you, or do you have a learning disability? I'm a patient guy though, so here's another article for you to read about Iceland.

http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1121

[powerofreason]

Here's another good article, about private law in general.

http://mises.org/story/2542

[Truth Warrior]

Is Voting an Act of Violence? by Carl Watner (http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/103.php)

[enter`name`here]

As an anarchist I do not feel the state will ever be eliminated, I do not see a contradiction in this position. Do we stop trying to fight murder simply because we realize we will never be able to completely eliminate it? The question isn't will there be a group of armed assholes trying to install themselves as petty dictators, as there always will be no matter what system of (non)government you have in place. The question is do we stand up to them and fight? or do we lie down and accept their dominion over us?

[Truth Warrior]

As an anarchist I do not feel the state will ever be eliminated, I do not see a contradiction in this position. Do we stop trying to fight murder simply because we realize we will never be able to completely eliminate it? The question isn't will there be a group of armed assholes trying to install themselves as petty dictators, as there always will be no matter what system of (non)government you have in place. The question is do we stand up to them and fight? or do we lie down and accept their dominion over us? If the state is not eliminated, our species may eventually be.<IMHO> :( Chalked up as just yet one more of nature's FAILED experiments. ;)

A couple of Albert Einstein quotes:

"We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive."

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

[RevolutionSD]

Ron Paul's movement really woke me up to libertarian and traditional limited government conservatism. Now, however, I feel like even a libertarian government is too much. Why? Because it will only grow after it's downsized. I know anarchists don't believe in capitalism and that is probably the one glaring difference that I am struggling with. On one hand, I agree with it. On the other, I think it is something that easily turns into corporatism, fascism, socialism etc.

I'm totally with you man. I went from Libertarian to RP suppoter to anarchist. I no longer have any use for government.

Check out www.freedomainradio.com and download "Real Time Relationships" pdf (free) for the real red pill. Also listen to some of the podcasts. Amazing stuff.

[Truth Warrior]

I'm totally with you man. I went from Libertarian to RP suppoter to anarchist. I no longer have any use for government.

Check out www.freedomainradio.com (http://www.freedomainradio.com) and download "Real Time Relationships" pdf (free) for the real red pill. Also listen to some of the podcasts. Amazing stuff. Very :cool: on the PDFs. Thanks! :)

[cujothekitten]

Hey anarcho-capitalists, if you haven't joined anarchme yet please do so now :D

http://anarchme.ning.com/

It's a new little community that's growing quickly. It's mostly centered around capitalism but here are some mutualists and syndicalists there as well. There's a few projects that could use more people as well.

[Andrew-Austin]

Once a defense market is established, after private police and courts it would be very difficult for a new regime to take hold. I imagine a gradual abolition of government. If the abolition were immediate, then yes, I think its highly likely that a dictatorship would arise.

Would you agree that a libertarian society must mature, and be the intermediate step, before anarchism can be reached? I think otherwise, say if we reached anarchy a month from now, people would soon be clamoring for government because they wouldn't know what to do with themselves.

[Truth Warrior]

Without FIRST stopping the GROWTH of government, all of the points are merely moot.<IMHO>

[powerofreason]

Would you agree that a libertarian society must mature, and be the intermediate step, before anarchism can be reached?

Sparsely populated rural areas would be ok. More heavily populated areas, like cities would no doubt experience a chaotic period if government were immediately removed. Rothbard figured there would be chaos for a few days in the cities, but that it would eventually subside, seeing as criminals are a small minority of the population. Former police would inevitably form private police agencies and order would begin to be re-established. During this period there is a risk that some group of people will declare that they are the government, but how would they establish legitimacy? In other words, why would anyone even pay attention to them? Or maybe the U.N. will try to meddle? I don't know. The sudden removal of government is a very strange hypothetical situation, so its hard to take into account every variable and the circumstances under which that might happen. I imagine that over time a sort of paradigm shift will take place and people will see government for what it is. The state will be whittled down to services like police and courts, and then inevitably experimentation will take place with private courts and police. I'm not saying any of this will happen in our lifetimes, but if humanity lasts long enough its sort of inevitable, right? It'll be tried one day in a modern and civilized society.

[constituent]

Are you ignoring the evidence I'm offering to you, or do you have a learning disability? I'm a patient guy though

No, you are a dullard.

You applaud TW's pointing out that religion and politics (both systems of control) are one and the same. Then you go on to tell me that what you're offering is not itself of the very same ilk of government as it now stands?

You admit that enforcement requires the use of force, correct?

Pretending as if we're going to live in little just, equitable communes like those mentioned in the essay (that had nothing to do w/ anarchy) is trippin', plain and simple.

If you don't understand that, this conversation is not worth continuing.

[constituent]

http://mises.org/story/2542

i see, you do fancy yourself as some sort of feudal lord in your mythical, utopian, "anarchist" government...

like i said, just as bad as the commies, but in a different way.

[Blowback]

It seems to me that the main reason governments exist is due to missinformation.

People accept the various governement monoplies (e.g. defense and law) as necessary because that is what they have been told their whole life.

[Truth Warrior]

It seems to me that the main reason governments exist is due to missinformation.

People accept the various governement monoplies (e.g. defense and law) as necessary because that is what they have been told their whole life. The "brainwashing" begins at a very early age. ;)

[AbolishTheGovt]

How will you ensure that Anarchy will sustain?

The criminal gangs and neo-Barbarians will rule the streets and the guy with the biggest stick will be the leader.

As though that were not the very definition of involuntary government.

[josephadel_3]

I am glad many people are waking up to the fact that government in any form is bad and destructive and that limited government will never be able to stay bound to its limits. I realized this too over the course of the campaign after 4 years of being a minarchist.

However, you are wrong about anarchists not believing in capitalism. Anarcho-capitalists believe completely in capitalism and the free market. I do.

No, I'm not wrong, in fact a large sect of anarchists don't agree with capitalism and see it as a type of force and control over another person.

And for risk of repeating myself, anarcho-capitalism is a fairly new theory in the territory of anarchisms. There are individual anarchists who would be less hostile to capitalism and then there are the anarcho-communist types like the guys from Rage Against the Machine. I tend towards individualism because humans aren't a pack animal. Maybe communism works for dogs, but even then there's hierarchy and inequality.

I am tending towards anarchy in a philosophical sense mostly. This whole idea of owning land is absurd when you think of it. We came from the Earth and it gave us life, yet somehow we claim ownership to it with borders and such. It's land mass in it's purest form. If everyone thought like that, there would be no war, maybe small, local ones, but nothing massive with brigades representing a giant land mass of people with a usually nationalistic mindset.

[Truth Warrior]

No, I'm not wrong, in fact a large sect of anarchists don't agree with capitalism and see it as a type of force and control over another person.

And for risk of repeating myself, anarcho-capitalism is a fairly new theory in the territory of anarchisms. There are individual anarchists who would be less hostile to capitalism and then there are the anarcho-communist types like the guys from Rage Against the Machine. I tend towards individualism because humans aren't a pack animal. Maybe communism works for dogs, but even then there's hierarchy and inequality.

I am tending towards anarchy in a philosophical sense mostly. This whole idea of owning land is absurd when you think of it. We came from the Earth and it gave us life, yet somehow we claim ownership to it with borders and such. It's land mass in it's purest form. If everyone thought like that, there would be no war, maybe small, local ones, but nothing massive with brigades representing a giant land mass of people with a usually nationalistic mindset. And you are here posting on the RPF, why? :rolleyes:

[josephadel_3]

The idea of living in a peaceful state of anarchy is Utopian nonsense. Its the stuff college kids talk about after too many hours of Dungeons and Dragons and too many beers.

Yes, I hear all the crazy theories about "contracting for defense" and police and whatever else- its utterly absurd.

First off, any "defense" you can contract is going to need leaders- effective military organizations aren't anarchist in nature. Whoever leads that group could decide, at any time, that he'd rather TAKE your money than work for you under contract- at which point, your Utopian anarchy ends, and you become a slave.

BTW, there have been plenty of instances where people have been thrown into anarchy throughout history, for a variety of reasons. NONE of them has resulted in a Utopian, peaceful, prosperous society. ALL have ended in dictatorship of one form or another.


I said nothing about contracting for defense and police. This was someone else. I am merely struggling with limited government, because in truth it is never limited, and never has been, if only for a few years. But yes, throwing out value judgements such as "absurd" and belittling those who disagree with you by calling them drunken geeks is never appropriate to intelligent debate.

[josephadel_3]

And you are here posting on the RPF, why? :rolleyes:

Because I support Ron Paul. I said I "think" I'm an anarchist. I don't know. If you noticed I kind of conveyed the idea I thought government power was evil. It is coercion of man by man, a monopoly on force. I supported and support his message because he was a peace candidate intent on downsizing that monopoly. Ron Paul would have cut down the size of government drastically, or as much as he could have with a neoconservative Congress.

I don't have to agree with every single thing Ron Paul believes to post on a forum dedicated to him. Lot's of his supporters came from the Left wing Democratic and Green parties. Are you gonna question their presence here?

[josephadel_3]

Oh, and monarchs used to use "republic" and "democracy" as synonyms for chaos, just as anarchy is incorrectly used as a synonym for chaos today. It is the current order wishing to maintain itself. Brains don't like to change, therefore the current order of things wants to remain the same.

[Truth Warrior]

Because I support Ron Paul. I said I "think" I'm an anarchist. I don't know. If you noticed I kind of conveyed the idea I thought government power was evil. It is coercion of man by man, a monopoly on force. I supported and support his message because he was a peace candidate intent on downsizing that monopoly. Ron Paul would have cut down the size of government drastically, or as much as he could have with a neoconservative Congress.

I don't have to agree with every single thing Ron Paul believes to post on a forum dedicated to him. Lot's of his supporters came from the Left wing Democratic and Green parties. Are you gonna question their presence here? Ron is VERY pro free market AKA capitalism and private ownership.

And, of course I do and will, each and every one. ;)

[powerofreason]

this conversation is not worth continuing.

Well, you're right about that. Sorry I was unable to break your fixation on "feudal communes."

[Conza88]

Would you agree that a libertarian society must mature, and be the intermediate step, before anarchism can be reached? I think otherwise, say if we reached anarchy a month from now, people would soon be clamoring for government because they wouldn't know what to do with themselves.

This is my largely current line of thought. Limited government -> extremely limited government -> no government at all. If presented with the opportunity though I'd push the button.... i.e minimum wage laws gone, income tax gone, goods and services tax gone, gold standard implemented.. etc. People would get a shock imo, I don't need to file an income tax report?! :D! I'd get rid of sedition laws.. I'd practically implement the US Constitution into law... I'd attack the state so hard the bastard will probably assassinate me... lol </daydreams> :) Liberty has got to be in the hearts & minds of the people... they've got to learn not to look towards government first, but as a last resort or not at all.

18. How might an anarcho-capitalist society be achieved?


"There is no consensus among anarcho-capitalists how a free society might be achieved. Everyone agrees that educating other people is useful. Beyond that, there are many strategies. There are Gulchers (named after the fictional "Galt's Gulch" in Ayn Rand's book "Atlas Shrugged") such as the Laissez Faire City bunch, who see little or no chance in changing an entrenched welfare-warfare State. These "retreatists" propose to set up isolated communities away from statist authority.

PTs (permanent tourists, perpetual travelers, prior tax-payers) try to maintain tourist status in all States they traverse, paying no taxes and keeping wealth effectively beyond the reach of grasping States. A sophisticated PT uses the "four flag" strategy: he'll use a passport from a different State than the one which claims him as subject, keep his wealth in a third State, and, when not traveling, reside in a fourth State.

At the other extreme, some anarcho-capitalists are active in electoral politics despite the traditional anarchist aversion to such means. Most anarcho-capitalists choose to "tend their own garden," preferring to set up voluntary alternatives to State agencies and functions. Home schooling, for example, is strongly advocated, as are neighborhood mediation associations, and participation in organizations such as Habitat for Humanity. Many anarcho-capitalists use private currencies such as Liberty Dollars, or anonymous digital currencies such as e-gold.

Virtually all anarcho-capitalists see the transition to a free society to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Some see little to do about proximate politics, and simply wait for the inevitable decline of statism while trying to "stay beneath the radar" of government. Anarcho-capitalists are, of course, ardent supporters of tax resistence. Many strive to support "counter-economic" activity, i.e. the illegal ("black") market, which they see as the only truly free market. (Agorism.) Many achieve an "off the books" income where no tribute is paid to the State. Thus, information about guerrilla capitalism, such as not leaving paper trails, not using tracable money, private mail drops, anonymous bank accounts and debit cards, etc. are of vital interest to these anarcho-capitalists."


Well, you're right about that. Sorry I was unable to break your fixation on "feudal communes."

Don't worry about constituent... he has an emotional preference towards anarcho-communes. (Tribes) It's your heritage isn't it?

[josephadel_3]

Ron is VERY pro free market AKA capitalism and private ownership.

And, of course I do and will, each and every one. ;)

I am well aware of Ron's position. That was implied in your question. I am not against private ownership of possessions, but it's kind of strange to me to claim land as your own. It's like saying you own the ocean, which does exist sadly enough. I am for use of land, but ownership of land is just strange to me right now.

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

No, but fact is always a better basis for an argument than a 7 minute video.

Well, you're right about that.

(Unless if it's a cited video) :D

[powerofreason]

We're being overrun! Quick, form a coercive monopoly on some services the free market can provide us!

http://www.mightyarmiesonline.com/images/Barbarians-Box.gif

[mediahasyou]

How will it not? The only way you can prevent something like this is to organize some form of defense. Which is government.

As an anarchist, I advocate a voluntary state, not one that relies on the coercive action of taxation to sustain its life.

Government is a leech.

Imagine, subtract all your taxes to zero. No taxes. The economy would go off the hook. The standard of living for the poorest folk would be multiplied by 10x. That's better than any welfare can do.

[Truth Warrior]

I am well aware of Ron's position. That was implied in your question. I am not against private ownership of possessions, but it's kind of strange to me to claim land as your own. It's like saying you own the ocean, which does exist sadly enough. I am for use of land, but ownership of land is just strange to me right now.

Try this:

http://americanrevival.org/read/books/ownership.pdf

[powerofreason]

As an anarchist, I advocate a voluntary state, not one that relies on the coercive action of taxation to sustain its life.

Government is a leech.

Imagine, subtract all your taxes to zero. No taxes. The economy would go off the hook. The standard of living for the poorest folk would be multiplied by 10x. That's better than any welfare can do.

word.

[josephadel_3]

Yeah, after a great deal of reading and thinking, I now know for sure I am an anarchist, a Christian anarchist, more specifically. I won't be voting in November.

[Truth Warrior]

Yeah, after a great deal of reading and thinking, I now know for sure I am an anarchist, a Christian anarchist, more specifically. I won't be voting in November. :cool: Congrats! :)

[nbhadja]

Ron Paul's movement really woke me up to libertarian and traditional limited government conservatism. Now, however, I feel like even a libertarian government is too much. Why? Because it will only grow after it's downsized. I know anarchists don't believe in capitalism and that is probably the one glaring difference that I am struggling with. On one hand, I agree with it. On the other, I think it is something that easily turns into corporatism, fascism, socialism etc.

What???????
Anarchists are the MOST capitalistic!!

[Truth Warrior]

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/lewrock0305a.gif

[Conza88]

What???????
Anarchists are the MOST capitalistic!!

Traditionally, anarchists have been anti capitalist. European anarchists etc.

You see the usual anarchists respecting property rights? :D

[Truth Warrior]

You're an Anarchist (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer60.html)
Me too, says Butler Shaffer. So are all civilized men, in practice.

[RevolutionSD]

"Anarchy" just means no rule.
Anarchists are the most freedom loving people of all.

There are others who CALL themselves anarchists, but still want some sort of government (i.e. "anarcho-socialists).

Then there are the cartoon-depicted bomb-throwing anarchists, which has nothing to do with anarchy and instead is just violence and chaos.

Keep in mind that 1) anarchy is the opposite of chaos, and 2) even in the smallest-government scenario that you can come up with, you will still need to use violence to keep the government in power, and that violence will grow larger and larger until we get right back to the socialist-fascist government we have today.

Anarchy is the only way for peace and prosperity. For more on this see www.freedomainradio.com

[Truth Warrior]

"Anarchy" just means no rule.
Anarchists are the most freedom loving people of all.

There are others who CALL themselves anarchists, but still want some sort of government (i.e. "anarcho-socialists).

Then there are the cartoon-depicted bomb-throwing anarchists, which has nothing to do with anarchy and instead is just violence and chaos.

Keep in mind that 1) anarchy is the opposite of chaos, and 2) even in the smallest-government scenario that you can come up with, you will still need to use violence to keep the government in power, and that violence will grow larger and larger until we get right back to the socialist-fascist government we have today.

Anarchy is the only way for peace and prosperity. For more on this see www.freedomainradio.com (http://www.freedomainradio.com) Actually it literally means "no ruler". ;)

[josephadel_3]

What???????
Anarchists are the MOST capitalistic!!

How many times do I have to repeat myself? Seriously?