Wow, I am now an anarcho-capitalist

[socialize_me]

I would like to first apologize to those I lambasted over believing in anarchism. I was wrong. I am convinced no system of government work. None. Obama has spent over $36 billion a DAY since his inauguration and is asking for an additional $3.55 TRILLION in his budget request which includes $1 trillion tax increases. All of this is happening in a Republic, the supposed optimal form of government. Turns out the fallacy of "Taxation WITH representation" being a better alternative to oligarchical rape and pillage systems we used to live under. This shit Obama is doing would never have been dreamt of by Kings or Emperors...and it's happening right in front of us!!

If anything, a Republic is the worst form of government to live under. If Democracies are "tyrannies of the majority", then what the fuck are Republics? They're nothing more than tyrannies of the minority!! You have 435 members of congress + 1 president + 9 justices who all legislate, execute, and adjudicate for 300+ million??? A republic is an oligarchy!! Not only that but the false sense of "representation and freedom" is complete horseshit and is probably the only reason why our system is still standing. If we had an oligarchy, they would be thrown out on their asses a long time ago. Today, because we think the People have the power, we sit smug on our asses.

I'm sick of this shit.

[Pennsylvania]

http://social.bureaucrash.com

[MsDoodahs]

It happened to you, as it happened to me....

[torchbearer]

Move to somalia, I hear the lack of a constitutional government has done wonders for them.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I would like to first apologize to those I lambasted over believing in anarchism. I was wrong. I am convinced no system of government work. None. Obama has spent over $36 billion a DAY since his inauguration and is asking for an additional $3.55 TRILLION in his budget request which includes $1 trillion tax increases. All of this is happening in a Republic, the supposed optimal form of government. Turns out the fallacy of "Taxation WITH representation" being a better alternative to oligarchical rape and pillage systems we used to live under. This shit Obama is doing would never have been dreamt of by Kings or Emperors...and it's happening right in front of us!!

If anything, a Republic is the worst form of government to live under. If Democracies are "tyrannies of the majority", then what the fuck are Republics? They're nothing more than tyrannies of the minority!! You have 435 members of congress + 1 president + 9 justices who all legislate, execute, and adjudicate for 300+ million??? A republic is an oligarchy!! Not only that but the false sense of "representation and freedom" is complete horseshit and is probably the only reason why our system is still standing. If we had an oligarchy, they would be thrown out on their asses a long time ago. Today, because we think the People have the power, we sit smug on our asses.

I'm sick of this shit.

Wow you bring up a good point.<IMHO> ;)

[FreedomFighter8008]

You're way off the mark man. What you see today is not a Republic -- it's a total bastardization of everything our Founding Fathers intended.

[Mini-Me]

Thinking back on older threads, I think my head just exploded from disbelief. :eek:

[torchbearer]

You're way off the mark man. What you see today is not a Republic -- it's a total bastardization of everything our Founding Fathers intended.

true.

[Conza88]

SO what exactly convinced you?

Just seeing Obama be bad? Yeaaaaaaah, umm Bush was the same if not worse.

What we currently have, the Constitution allowed to happen (Power corrupts and it wasn't able to chain men down, as was intended) It could be improved, like the Articles of Confederation, but ultimately they would be subverted. And STATE judges are inevitably going to find in favor more to the STATE. Not exactly rocket science..

"This shit Obama is doing would never have been dreamt of by Kings or Emperors...and it's happening right in front of us!!"

Yes. Probably. But for some reason I don't think you came to that conclusion through Hoppe's Democracy: The God that Failed.

Convince me this is genuine. Better yet don't, I don't care - just don't identify yourself as one.

It's like Hannity calling himself a Libertarian.

For the record: if you actually converted, for reals, you a non-archist then, or are you an anarchist, as you described and associate yourself with every other traditional socialist out there?

Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'? by Murray N. Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html)

[sdczen]

Welcome to the Anarcho-Capitalist club. :cool:

Hopefully more people will realize that ANY government is inherently bad and takes away liberties. The fact is we can Dress our government up anyway we want to, but in the end it will continue to grow corrupt, steal individuals wealth, murder, rape and pillage with it's one-size-fits-all hammer.

[sdczen]

Move to somalia, I hear the lack of a constitutional government has done wonders for them.

Why go all the way to Somalia to get controlled by their defacto government. The Somali warlords/government may not have a seat in the UN, but they receive aid money and control their population through force just the same as any other 5th world country (with, or without a 'technical' government). It's semantics

What would happen if the Somali populous was armed and agreed to a Non-aggression pact, private property and free trade?

[zach]

Our government today is like Walmart's version of good, home-cooked food.

[pcosmar]

What we have today is the result of people NOT holding the Elected officials responsible. It is the fault of people long before my lifetime and all through it.
Had the people gone and dragged Wilson and the whole crowd in Washington out into the street and publicly hanged them there would be No Federal Reserve today.
There would likely not have been a depression.
There would be no Firearms act of 1934
There would be no Income tax.
We very well could have stayed out of WW1

The power was supposed to be in the hands of the people.
The people have dropped the ball. :mad:

[sdczen]

The power was supposed to be in the hands of the people.
The people have dropped the ball. :mad:

It all started with the Civil War and Lincoln. "The People" were acting responsibly and within the rights to secede from an overly tyrannical federal government. Unfortunately, the government killed them all and scared the remaining generations into complacency.

[sdczen]

Our government today is like Walmart's version of good, home-cooked food.

Yeah it looks good when you're eating it, except it doesn't digest so well.

Government = Irritable Bowel Syndrome

[pcosmar]

It all started with the Civil War and Lincoln. "The People" were acting responsibly and within the rights to secede from an overly tyrannical federal government. Unfortunately, the government killed them all and scared the remaining generations into complacency.

I would generally agree with that too
The point is, The people allowed this by not holding the government in check.
The examples I used relates to today's issues directly.
But I agree that it started even sooner.

I used Wilson because he was manipulated be the same Fabian Society that is quite active and in control today.

[ChaosControl]

I've nearly become an anarcho-capitalist myself, but I haven't quite made the jump yet.

[eOs]

Lol @ anarchy. I'll just form a government in your society and you won't be able to stop me beotch!

[emazur]

What we have today is the result of people NOT holding the Elected officials responsible. It is the fault of people long before my lifetime and all through it.
Had the people gone and dragged Wilson and the whole crowd in Washington out into the street and publicly hanged them there would be No Federal Reserve today.
There would likely not have been a depression.
There would be no Firearms act of 1934
There would be no Income tax.
We very well could have stayed out of WW1

The power was supposed to be in the hands of the people.
The people have dropped the ball. :mad:

The Founders foresaw the potential problem:

As Benjamin Franklin was leaving the building where, after four months of hard work, the Constitution had been completed and signed, a lady asked him what kind of government did the convention create. A very old, very tired, and very wise Benjamin Franklin replied; "A Republic, ma’am if you can keep it."

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance - Thomas Jefferson

What caused the problem:

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” -Alexis de Tocqueville

[Josh_LA]

If anything, a Republic is the worst form of government to live under.

I agree, people are not against democracy or dictatorship, only when it's bad for them.

People want the dictatorship of the law in US, because they happen to agree with the law. People want dictatorship and religious worship of the US Constitution because they beleive it fits their idea of what God gave them.

[heavenlyboy34]

I would like to first apologize to those I lambasted over believing in anarchism. I was wrong. I am convinced no system of government work. None. Obama has spent over $36 billion a DAY since his inauguration and is asking for an additional $3.55 TRILLION in his budget request which includes $1 trillion tax increases. All of this is happening in a Republic, the supposed optimal form of government. Turns out the fallacy of "Taxation WITH representation" being a better alternative to oligarchical rape and pillage systems we used to live under. This shit Obama is doing would never have been dreamt of by Kings or Emperors...and it's happening right in front of us!!

If anything, a Republic is the worst form of government to live under. If Democracies are "tyrannies of the majority", then what the fuck are Republics? They're nothing more than tyrannies of the minority!! You have 435 members of congress + 1 president + 9 justices who all legislate, execute, and adjudicate for 300+ million??? A republic is an oligarchy!! Not only that but the false sense of "representation and freedom" is complete horseshit and is probably the only reason why our system is still standing. If we had an oligarchy, they would be thrown out on their asses a long time ago. Today, because we think the People have the power, we sit smug on our asses.

I'm sick of this shit.

I give you a hearty welcome to the club, brother! :D:)

[socialize_me]

SO what exactly convinced you?

Just seeing Obama be bad? Yeaaaaaaah, umm Bush was the same if not worse.

What we currently have, the Constitution allowed to happen (Power corrupts and it wasn't able to chain men down, as was intended) It could be improved, like the Articles of Confederation, but ultimately they would be subverted. And STATE judges are inevitably going to find in favor more to the STATE. Not exactly rocket science..

"This shit Obama is doing would never have been dreamt of by Kings or Emperors...and it's happening right in front of us!!"

Yes. Probably. But for some reason I don't think you came to that conclusion through Hoppe's Democracy: The God that Failed.

Convince me this is genuine. Better yet don't, I don't care - just don't identify yourself as one.

It's like Hannity calling himself a Libertarian.

For the record: if you actually converted, for reals, you a non-archist then, or are you an anarchist, as you described and associate yourself with every other traditional socialist out there?

Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'? by Murray N. Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html)

Get off your high-horse for once. I don't have to prove shit to you, or explain myself. Does everyone have to come to the conclusion of anarcho-capitalism the way you did? I don't understand...so because I used to be a "socialist" by anarcho-capitalists' standards, that makes me illegitimate to ever be "accepted" (as if I really give a shit what other anarchists think about my beliefs, let alone seek their approval)???

I'm damn sure you are not a life-long anarchist. Rothbard wasn't. Most, if not, every person born since we have had government were "socialists". The reasoning for "modern" anarchy arises from the fact that we see the flaws in the State that are consistent throughout any system, and are incompatible with freedom. I think the best way to become an anarchist is not to always have been one. Through my journey of ideological wandering, I've bounced around different theories and finally settled on anarchism after being disgusted with the rest. If you have always been an anarchist, then more power to ya. We all can't be as amazing as you. As I said before, Rothbard was not a life-long anarchist...I think it's impossible to be when you're in elementary school getting spoonfed American patriotism bullshit at every page turn. Unless you had the capacity to advocate Austrian Economics as a 10 year old, you were a socialist at one point. I'm damn sure Rothbard wasn't reading Mises when he was making his school lunch.

If you ever hope to win hearts/minds more than just one at a time, or a handful in your lifetime, Conza, then I suggest you change your attitude and the way you go about it. Your discontent for assimilation for newcoming anarchists, as if you're somehow the "Chairman" of the Anarchist "Party", will be counterproductive. If you think you have everything figured out politically and economically, then you can move onto adjusting the way you go about treating new converts or those leaning strongly in your direction. Your hostility isn't at all productive and is in many ways discriminatory. It's almost as if it's a form of intellectual racism. "You're not one of us, you'll never be like one of us, you're just a poser or a wanna-be."

Piss off until you can get over yourself.

[socialize_me]

I give you a hearty welcome to the club, brother! :D:)

Thanks. If only dickheads like Conza would bless me with their divine grace...

[heavenlyboy34]

Move to somalia, I hear the lack of a constitutional government has done wonders for them.

This has been debated already in the other anarcho capitalist threads. Statists/Archists like yourself lost that debate too. ;)

[socialize_me]

You're way off the mark man. What you see today is not a Republic -- it's a total bastardization of everything our Founding Fathers intended.

What I see is a Republic. It's genuine...these guys are protected in their power. The President enjoys, likely 8 years of uninterrupted rule. Senators, once elected, settle in with 6 consecutive years and are re-elected time and time again.

This is a Republic. Going into the November elections, Congress had an 8% approval rating...EIGHT FUCKING PERCENT--and we had a re-election rate of something like 87%!!! It's so easy to see why this happens too. Everyone in America hates Congress practically and thinks they could do a better job, yet the thing is THEIR own Congressmen/women don't suck. It's YOUR Congressmen/women that do, mine are cool because they're in my state. Fuck everyone else..

THAT'S the problem. We are a Republic. The fact that it operates like shit does not mean it's a different form of government, as if it really matters what form you have. They all end up heading towards the same goal: Socialism. They all seek more power regardless of the system. The titles like a "Republic" give the ILLUSION that it's a good government. ALL government progresses into tyranny. If we have a Second Amendment, and if Jefferson wrote that the "Tree of Liberty must be replenished with the blood of patriots and tyrants," then it's inevitable that EVERY government ever created or will be created, will eventually or has been destroyed and remade. This means every system devised of all different shapes, sizes, and color have failed, and the Founders knew this. They included the 2nd Amendment for this reason as they themselves knew the shit would hit the fan someday.

Tell me, why should I accept government that progressively kills the people and enslaves them?? If every government has collapsed in history, then it seems inhumane and completely immoral to try and defend, or create or replace, government! Because that means people along the way will suffer until the suffering becomes insufferable...why the hell should I accept THAT? Why should my family and friends undergo those evils for decades until we finally do something about it only to create a new government that will do it to our posterity??

[sdczen]

This has been debated already in the other anarcho capitalist threads. Statists/Archists like yourself lost that debate too. ;)

but but but, the government is so benevolent & pure! How can this be? // Sarcasm

[LibertyEagle]

Socialize_me, we are so far from the Republic that our Founders envisioned, that there is hardly any resemblance. For one, if we hadn't been such dumbasses and insisted on direct election of senators, our state reps could have yanked out any U.S. senator who started acting like an unconstitutional jackass.

Ron Paul wants us to reinstate the Constitution. That is far from what we have right now in our government.

You're right that government, any government, will always drift towards more power. That is why our Founders said we had to remain educated and vigilant and to hold them to the Constitution. We didn't and that's why we are where we are today.

[sdczen]

Lol @ anarchy. I'll just form a government in your society and you won't be able to stop me beotch!

That would be an interesting experiment. I'm guessing a society of well armed, freedom loving Anarcho-Capitalists would take issue with your attempt. I would also wager a guess that it wouldn't workout so well for anyone who attempted to establish a government. Magic 8-Ball sees them hanging from a tree (and not like a monkey) ;)

[socialize_me]

Socialize_me, we are so far from the Republic that our Founders envisioned, that there is hardly any resemblance. For one, if we hadn't been such dumbasses and insisted on direct election of senators, our state reps could have yanked out any U.S. senator who started acting like an unconstitutional jackass.

Ron Paul wants us to reinstate the Constitution. That is far from what we have right now in our government.

You're right that government, any government, will always drift towards more power. That is why our Founders said we had to remain educated and vigilant and to hold them to the Constitution. We didn't and that's why we are where we are today.

If we're so far from the Republic the Founders envisioned, I can understand that...but we are still a Republic nonetheless. The fact that it's more toxic than our mortgage backed securities doesn't mean it's somehow a different form of government. I don't even know why I'm still trying to classify things as a "republic" or an "oligarchy" as if they're any different. ALL government is the same. They seek more and more power and in the end it turns out to be shitty. We could have a benevolent dictator, but after years of his dynasty, it could be nothing that he envisioned. Who cares? The fact is, a "tolerable" Republic can only exist if it's abolished and rebuilt every generation. Only then can you have a Republic the Founders envisioned...I'm still not in favor of that system. It provides ambitious people with power and the means to carry out those desires. Who the fuck cares what type of government it is?

[Andrew-Austin]

Lol @ anarchy. I'll just form a government in your society and you won't be able to stop me beotch!

Stealing and coercion is wrong.

[inibo]

Move to somalia, I hear the lack of a constitutional government has done wonders for them.

Not saying I want to live there, but it is maybe not as bad as it's presented. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtGkTRnocZI) Boogiemen often aren't.

[UnReconstructed]

welcome to the table

I use volunatryist though when talking to people who may not know. then I point out how government is force and cannot be anything but force. government can only survive off the sweat and callous' of those it has enslaved. without taxes, government will fall on its face <insert evil laugh here>

[inibo]

Welcome to the Anarcho-Capitalist club. :cool:

Hopefully more people will realize that ANY government is inherently bad and takes away liberties. The fact is we can Dress our government up anyway we want to, but in the end it will continue to grow corrupt, steal individuals wealth, murder, rape and pillage with it's one-size-fits-all hammer.

Anarchy: Private property, no coercion. What is to fear? I finally crossed the line myself. Ron Paul taught me one final lesson: the effectiveness of political activity in defense of liberty.

[Conza88]

Get off your high-horse for once. I don't have to prove shit to you, or explain myself. Does everyone have to come to the conclusion of anarcho-capitalism the way you did? I don't understand...so because I used to be a "socialist" by anarcho-capitalists' standards, that makes me illegitimate to ever be "accepted" (as if I really give a shit what other anarchists think about my beliefs, let alone seek their approval)???

Of course you don't. I'm just wondering how you came to your conclusions. That way, I could hopefully be more effective at converting others.

Care, to share?

Btw, it has nothing to do with your statist positions previously. It has everything to do with your non-radicalism.

It'll make more sense if you read this: Do You Hate the State? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard75.html)

I have an amazing amount of respect for the past Minarchists / limited government folk. They TRULY hated the State, and saw it for what it was - a pack of thieves.

Do You Hate the State? by Murray N. Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard75.html)


It's not about minarchism (limited govt) vs anarcho capitalism. It's about radicalism vs conservatism. It's about gradualism vs abolition.

I'd take a Frederic Bastiat, Thomas Paine etc. over a utilitarian David Friedman (ancap) ANY day.


Furthermore, in contrast to what seems to be true nowadays, you don’t have to be an anarchist to be radical in our sense, just as you can be an anarchist while missing the radical spark. I can think of hardly a single limited governmentalist of the present day who is radical – a truly amazing phenomenon, when we think of our classical liberal forbears who were genuinely radical, who hated statism and the States of their day with a beautifully integrated passion: the Levellers, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine, Joseph Priestley, the Jacksonians, Richard Cobden, and on and on, a veritable roll call of the greats of the past. Tom Paine’s radical hatred of the State and statism was and is far more important to the cause of liberty than the fact that he never crossed the divide between laissez-faire and anarchism.

And closer to our own day, such early influences on me as Albert Jay Nock, H. L. Mencken, and Frank Chodorov were magnificently and superbly radical. Hatred of "Our Enemy, the State" (Nock’s title) and all of its works shone through all of their writings like a beacon star. So what if they never quite made it all the way to explicit anarchism? Far better one Albert Nock than a hundred anarcho-capitalists who are all too comfortable with the existing status quo.


I'm damn sure you are not a life-long anarchist. Rothbard wasn't. Most, if not, every person born since we have had government were "socialists". The reasoning for "modern" anarchy arises from the fact that we see the flaws in the State that are consistent throughout any system, and are incompatible with freedom. I think the best way to become an anarchist is not to always have been one. Through my journey of ideological wandering, I've bounced around different theories and finally settled on anarchism after being disgusted with the rest. If you have always been an anarchist, then more power to ya. We all can't be as amazing as you. As I said before, Rothbard was not a life-long anarchist...I think it's impossible to be when you're in elementary school getting spoonfed American patriotism bullshit at every page turn. Unless you had the capacity to advocate Austrian Economics as a 10 year old, you were a socialist at one point. I'm damn sure Rothbard wasn't reading Mises when he was making his school lunch.

Complete strawman and has nothing much to do with anything. I was a Chomskyite independent socialist up until a year and a half ago when I first discovered Ron Paul. Finally cottoned onto Austrian Economics about 6 months ago.. and that's when the real learning began. Up until then it was generalities, all well and good - but if you don't fully understand why you support something (It's "economic freedom", isn't actually enough) Just take a look at the fools who suddenly went for the Zeitgeist Addendum tripe, no understanding of economic theory at all. </side point>


If you ever hope to win hearts/minds more than just one at a time, or a handful in your lifetime, Conza, then I suggest you change your attitude and the way you go about it. Your discontent for assimilation for newcoming anarchists, as if you're somehow the "Chairman" of the Anarchist "Party", will be counterproductive. If you think you have everything figured out politically and economically, then you can move onto adjusting the way you go about treating new converts or those leaning strongly in your direction. Your hostility isn't at all productive and is in many ways discriminatory. It's almost as if it's a form of intellectual racism. "You're not one of us, you'll never be like one of us, you're just a poser or a wanna-be."

Piss off until you can get over yourself.

Lmao... There is a difference between me, here - online, in debates with fellow freedom fighters where I'll defend anarcho-capitalism. And outside publicly, with those who wouldn't know Freedom unless it hit them in the face.

The message needs to be tailored. But pretty much everyone here is a Ron Paul supporter. I'd go to the barricades with you lot. I just get pissed when people defend the State, and do it with a sense of moral righteousness. The oldschoolers never did that.

I guess to theorize on Rothbard's statement: "I can think of hardly a single limited governmentalist of the present day who is radical – a truly amazing phenomenon, when we think of our classical liberal forbears who were genuinely radical, who hated statism and the States of their day with a beautifully integrated passion"

Those who truly hate the state today, have an outlet or intellectual framework to adopt - anarcho-capitalism, structured by Rothbard and the Austrian School. That wasn't around back then... but I really have no doubt that if it was, they would probably have made the jump.. especially after seeing what the US has become.

So essentially, it's not that people aren't anarcho-capitalists that gets me, it's that they aren't radical. But what lays down confusion is that most radicals are anarcho-capitalists, and if not - but they are still radical... that's MORE than fine by me. But if there's a debate, I'm obviously going to defend my position - as I have kept an open mind always, I guess that also gets me - when others don't.

Meh. *shrugs* :)

[constituent]

The point is, The people allowed this by not holding the government in check.



yea, they were probably busy living their lives (as is their right).

[ ahhh "the people," like santa claus (or the easter bunny) for grown-ups. ]

[constituent]

For one, if we hadn't been such dumbasses and insisted on direct election of senators, our state reps could have yanked out any U.S. senator who started acting like an unconstitutional jackass.

funny, i don't remember that deal going down on my watch.



You're right that government, any government, will always drift towards more power. That is why our Founders said we had to remain educated and vigilant and to hold them to the Constitution. We didn't and that's why we are where we are today.

we?

[BuddyRey]

I would like to first apologize to those I lambasted over believing in anarchism. I was wrong. I am convinced no system of government work. None. Obama has spent over $36 billion a DAY since his inauguration and is asking for an additional $3.55 TRILLION in his budget request which includes $1 trillion tax increases. All of this is happening in a Republic, the supposed optimal form of government. Turns out the fallacy of "Taxation WITH representation" being a better alternative to oligarchical rape and pillage systems we used to live under. This shit Obama is doing would never have been dreamt of by Kings or Emperors...and it's happening right in front of us!!

If anything, a Republic is the worst form of government to live under. If Democracies are "tyrannies of the majority", then what the fuck are Republics? They're nothing more than tyrannies of the minority!! You have 435 members of congress + 1 president + 9 justices who all legislate, execute, and adjudicate for 300+ million??? A republic is an oligarchy!! Not only that but the false sense of "representation and freedom" is complete horseshit and is probably the only reason why our system is still standing. If we had an oligarchy, they would be thrown out on their asses a long time ago. Today, because we think the People have the power, we sit smug on our asses.

I'm sick of this shit.

Way to go, man!!! :D

[krazy kaju]

Move to somalia, I hear the lack of a constitutional government has done wonders for them.

I see the lack of a brain has done wonders to you.

[Andrew-Austin]

Well I would welcome you socialize_me, but we are not a club of any sort. I'm sure I have flamed you in the past when you taunted anarchy, and for that I apologize.


Move to somalia, I hear the lack of a constitutional government has done wonders for them.

lol, that is precisely the argument against anarcho-capitalism socialize_me used many many times.



Lol @ anarchy. I'll just form a government in your society and you won't be able to stop me beotch!

Stealing and coercion is wrong. These are the things that the government is required to do to be called a government. It would be wrong to not at least try out voluntarism.






You're right that government, any government, will always drift towards more power. That is why our Founders said we had to remain educated and vigilant and to hold them to the Constitution. We didn't and that's why we are where we are today.

"It can work so long as we try hard enough".

That is such an incredibly simplistic and naive sounding defense of government, at least try and analyze how the abandonment of constitutional government was somehow not inevitable on the part of the ruling and ruled classes.

Really we might as well dedicate a whole thread to this subject: who or what is responsible for the failure of the founding father's constitutional republic?

1. We can blame the constitution itself, but it would be naive to expect an inanimate object to control human behavior, to make sure people stay consistent with the principles that spawned its inception. If a system of government is to function within its very limited parameters, then it must completely take in to account all ways human nature can disrupt its function. And I very much believe that it is impossible for a government to be set up so perfectly and wisely, that the system limits itself. Suggesting that we can give anyone a monopoly on force and law in a manner that actually works to maintain liberty, puts the burden of proof on your shoulders. You must go against the history that says otherwise.

2. We can blame the people who actually make up the government, but it would be naive to expect them to selflessly limit government when it is very much in their own interests to expand it. To an honest and ignorant politician, expanding government is very much just a matter of saying "let us do our job". The see a problem, wait for the public reaction, and create a government 'solution' dance just seems so damn natural to them. They benefit from increased revenue/power, and the intellectual elite are always there to applaud their good intentioned power grabs. In fact Hans Herman Hoppe and Murray Rothbard have proven the point it is very much in the interests of intellectuals to act as courtiers of state power. The state employs them and protects them from the tumultuous free market. [1] (http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp) [2] (http://mises.org/etexts/intellectuals.asp)

3. We can blame not the actual system as created by a constitution, or the politicians who swear to protect it, but the hapless citizenry. Which is who you seem to have pointed the finger at.


We didn't and that's why we are where we are today.


When looking closely at this explanation, you must go past the useful abstract concept of "we", and blame the millions of individuals that make up "we". You must blame all individual citizens at all points throughout American history. At every point in American history where government has expanded past its good constitutional limitations, you must blame all those who did not do everything within their power to stop it.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington

Government is truly a monolithic fire. A fire that is ethereal and mysterious to the common man. It is backed by tradition, culture, religious justification, history, the education system that inculcated us, the mainstream media machine, majority opinion, special interest lobbying, the mighty force of government arms, and millions of intellectuals adding shrouds of legitimacy to the state's decrees. To expect any individual man to fight day in day out martyr style despite the enormous disincentives, is utopian. Must I make a list of all the disincentives, and analyze the countless ways it could be against a man's best interest to endlessly fight against a fire that can never be put out (never be put out if you don't want it to)?

[torchbearer]

Not saying I want to live there, but it is maybe not as bad as it's presented. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtGkTRnocZI) Boogiemen often aren't.

If you aren't muslim, you are killed.
If you are muslim and young male, you will be force into militia or you will be killed.

That isn't a joke.
People with most guns, dictate your 'rights'.
Enjoy your anarchy in somalia, don't force me to suffer it too.

[Andrew-Austin]

If you aren't muslim, you are killed.
If you are muslim and young male, you will be force into militia or you will be killed.

That isn't a joke.
People with most guns, dictate your 'rights'.
Enjoy your anarchy in somalia, don't force me to suffer it too.

The point anarchists make is that conditions in Somalia would be no better off with a government. The American government has the most guns right here at home, and they dictate our rights. Don't force the chaos that results in establishing a government on me.

And another thing, picture America in the 1700s with a very limited government. What would happen if the American people decided to give anarcho-capitalism a try instead of the republican experiment? The results most certainly would not look anything like Somalia, so do not imply that they would. With anarchism things would work as well as they possibly could based on the morality and intelligence of a particular society, give a monopoly on force to some of the people in that society and things get worse.

[torchbearer]

The point anarchists make is that conditions in Somalia would be no better off with a government. The American government has the most guns right here at home, and they dictate our rights. Don't force the chaos that results in establishing a government on me.

And another thing, picture America in the 1700s with a very limited government. What would happen if the American people decided to give anarcho-capitalism a try instead of the republican experiment? The results most certainly would not look anything like Somalia, so do not imply that they would. With anarchism things would work as well as they possibly could based on the morality and intelligence of a particular society, give a monopoly on force to some of the people in that society and things get worse.

Let's see. The U.S. has a system of law and order... though not free, i'm not worried about my neighbors rounding me up at gun point to do their bidding.
Somalia has no law and order, and it is total chaos with "law of the jungle" rules of might makes rights.
So no government is greater than some goverment? I don't think so.


WHy haven't you moved to Somalia yet? You can be "free" (until the mob finds you)

[krazy kaju]

Most of Somalia isn't anarchist. It has regional governments warring for control of the central government.

[PureCommonSense]

Frustration with government is understandable at times like these with the pork-filled stimulus package, but anarchy is not the answer! The private sector and free market can do pretty much anything more efficiently, but you need a state to have a monopoly on the legitimate, non self-defensive use of force and to protect citizens against coercion, as well as have courts, treaties, bankruptcy laws and essential common infrastructure.

[krazy kaju]

Nope, free markets provide more efficient protection and legal services (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html).

[Conza88]

Let's see. The U.S. has a system of law and order... though not free, i'm not worried about my neighbors rounding me up at gun point to do their bidding.
Somalia has no law and order, and it is total chaos with "law of the jungle" rules of might makes rights.
So no government is greater than some goverment? I don't think so.


WHy haven't you moved to Somalia yet? You can be "free" (until the mob finds you)

A system of law, with Judges funded by the State.

Who... will systematically, overall - rule in favor of it.

[torchbearer]

Most of Somalia isn't anarchist. It has regional governments warring for control of the central government.

Yeah, that's what I stated earlier...
anarchy is a temporary period between one tyranny to the next.
A government collapses... anarchy is born... 5 seconds later El Whoppo has his gang together and the next tyranny has been born.

Not many times in history has one tyranny been over-thrown and a free society has been put in its place...
And any chance to get such a government is subverted by talks of lawless anarchy.
Anarchy is not your friend.

[Josh_LA]

A system of law, with Judges funded by the State.

Who... will systematically, overall - rule in favor of it.

As if private courts and private judges and private punishments would rule in favor of somebody who didn't pay them.

[torchbearer]

A system of law, with Judges funded by the State.

Who... will systematically, overall - rule in favor of it.

The state as it is today, or the state as it was in 1780, or the state as it could be with Ron Paul's in it?
Our government is a reflection of the virtues of its people.
What does that say about the majority?

[krazy kaju]

Nope, your analysis is completely wrong (http://mises.org/etexts/longanarchism.pdf).

[PureCommonSense]

Nope, free markets provide more efficient protection and legal services (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html).

Try your theoretical utopia and see how long it lasts before crumbling into tyranny. There are only two kinds of stable government: republic-good and oligarchy-bad. Anarchy gives room for the strong to dominate the weak.

[krazy kaju]

As if private courts and private judges and private punishments would rule in favor of somebody who didn't pay them.

Private courts are paid by consumers. Government courts are paid by government. Private courts need to serve the consumer in order to remain in business. Government courts need to serve the government.

[Josh_LA]

The state as it is today, or the state as it was in 1780, or the state as it could be with Ron Paul's in it?
Our government is a reflection of the virtues of its people.
What does that say about the majority?

An anarchist of any stripe should not see the distinction, because there is no good state in an anarchist's view.

[Josh_LA]

Private courts are paid by consumers. Government courts are paid by government. Private courts need to serve the consumer in order to remain in business. Government courts need to serve the government.

Exactly, what's your point?

[torchbearer]

Nope, your analysis is completely wrong (http://mises.org/etexts/longanarchism.pdf).

Nope, your is as utopian as communism. Try again with the real world as your model.

[krazy kaju]

Try your theoretical utopia and see how long it lasts before crumbling into tyranny. There are only two kinds of stable government: republic-good and oligarchy-bad. Anarchy gives room for the strong to dominate the weak.

Are you sure about that statement? There have been many historical examples of anarchism. (http://www.insolitology.com/simplyanarchy/studies.htm#H0)

[Josh_LA]

Try your theoretical utopia and see how long it lasts before crumbling into tyranny. There are only two kinds of stable government: republic-good and oligarchy-bad. Anarchy gives room for the strong to dominate the weak.

yeah, seriously, how did we get to unfree market if market was free in the beginning and could sustain itself?

How did people remain silent when the IRS was founded?

[krazy kaju]

Nope, your is as utopian as communism. Try again with the real world as your model.

Okay, how about Medieval Iceland (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html)?

[Josh_LA]

Are you sure about that statement? There have been many historical examples of anarchism. (http://www.insolitology.com/simplyanarchy/studies.htm#H0)

yeah, and how long did they last?

I'll grant you the Amish and Native Americans are still lasting today in this country, that's about it.

Of course Somalia worked so well they didn't need to hijack any ships, right?

[torchbearer]

Okay, how about Medieval Iceland (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html)?

Oh, you are one of those people who think there is a difference between a private government and any other government.

See this line here from your link:

Laws were made by a "parliament," seats in which were a marketable commodity.

Not anarchy. Try again.

[Andrew-Austin]

WHy haven't you moved to Somalia yet? You can be "free" (until the mob finds you)

"If you don't like the government's decrees you can just move elsewhere."

Man I respect you and everything, but how many times have statists left and right asked/said that?

Well friends and family live here, I don't speak whatever language they do in Somalia nor do I understand their culture, the anarchic free market is more refined here and offers greater prospects for me, etc etc. I guess I have just enough freedom to be happy, the state is not powerful enough to take away any happiness I might achieve here. All in all there is no incentive for me to move anywhere, to any state or country that might have a less corrupt government. That I don't move elsewhere does not mean I approve what the American government is doing or its very existence. I do not live here for political or philosophical reasons, and I will not move because of them.

And it may be up for grabs if Somalia is an example of anarchy, looking at krazy kaju's posts.

[Josh_LA]

Okay, how about Medieval Iceland (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html)?

If you're willing to live in Medieval times, or Iceland, you can move to Amish regions, or Iceland today, or Detroit (oh wait, you're there).

[krazy kaju]

lol wut?

A marketable commodity and voluntarism isn't "anarchism." Okay, whatever you say genius.

[krazy kaju]

If you're willing to live in Medieval times, or Iceland, you can move to Amish regions, or Iceland today, or Detroit (oh wait, you're there).

(oh wait you're a dumbass)

[Josh_LA]

"If you don't like the government's decrees you can just move elsewhere."

Man I respect you and everything, but how many times have statists left and right asked/said that?


I say it too.




Well friends and family live here, I don't speak whatever language they do in Somalia nor do I understand their culture, the anarchic free market is more refined here and offers greater prospects for me, etc etc. I guess I have just enough freedom to be happy, the state is not powerful enough to take away any happiness I might achieve here.


Exactly, you believe you can give up some freedoms for the convenience and happiness you have and depend on today.



All in all there is no incentive for me to move anywhere, to any state or country that might have a less corrupt government. That I don't move elsewhere does not mean I approve what the American government is doing or its very existence.


Yes, but talk is cheap, it'd be like me saying murder is wrong but just saying it.



I do not live here for political or philosophical reasons, and I will not move because of them.

And it may be up for grabs if Somalia is an example of anarchy, looking at krazy kaju's posts.

In other words, this country doesn't suck enough to force you to move, I thought so.

[torchbearer]

"If you don't like the government's decrees you can just move elsewhere."

Man I respect you and everything, but how many times have statists left and right asked/said that?

Well friends and family live here, I don't speak whatever language they do in Somalia nor do I understand their culture, the anarchic free market is more refined here and offers greater prospects for me, etc etc. I guess I have just enough freedom to be happy, the state is not powerful enough to take away any happiness I might achieve here. All in all there is no incentive for me to move anywhere, to any state or country that might have a less corrupt government. That I don't move elsewhere does not mean I approve what the American government is doing or its very existence. I do not live here for political or philosophical reasons, and I will not move because of them.

And it may be up for grabs if Somalia is an example of anarchy, looking at krazy kaju's posts.

You might miss out on such things as A/C, hot water heaters, ample food, electricity. etc.
All the things that anarchy can't provide because there is no protection of property against the mobs.

[Josh_LA]

(oh wait you're a dumbass)

nothing better to say? Conza will love you. Learn to say FAIL next time.

[torchbearer]

lol wut?

A marketable commodity and voluntarism isn't "anarchism." Okay, whatever you say genius.

Any form of government is not anarchy. Genius.

[krazy kaju]

Any form of government is not anarchy. Genius.

Nope. Iceland had a completely voluntary system - not a state as we commonly know it.

[Josh_LA]

You might miss out on such things as A/C, hot water heaters, ample food, electricity. etc.
All the things that anarchy can't provide because there is no protection of property against the mobs.

Conza would disagree with you, he believes that private courts will prevent bad things and when bad things happen, they'll take care of it fine.

Don't complain about not having AC, clean water and healthy food, FREEDOM IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. Hasn't our father Henry taught you anything?

[krazy kaju]

nothing better to say? Conza will love you. Learn to say FAIL next time.

No dipshit, you dismissed a historical example of anarchism by telling me I can go to an Amish town if I want to live in medieval times. How fucking stupid do you have to be to even think that? Seriously. You're a troll; you should be banned.

[Josh_LA]

Nope. Iceland had a completely voluntary system - not a state as we commonly know it.

how did it stop working?

stupidity? force?

[torchbearer]

I don't see how you can compare minarchy to facism (they are both "statist").
You call us statist as if we are all the same.

You have no rights if there is no protection from tyranny of the mightiest.

see... what we think the only purpose for a government is
to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

[Josh_LA]

No dipshit, you dismissed a historical example of anarchism by telling me I can go to an Amish town if I want to live in medieval times. How fucking stupid do you have to be to even think that? Seriously. You're a troll; you should be banned.

I didn't dismiss it, I said Amish today are perfectly fine in their anarchist system, you're better off moving to a place that works than living in a place not ready to change towards that.

[krazy kaju]

how did it stop working?

stupidity? force?

Maybe you should learn how to read. (http://libertariannation.org/a/f13l1.html)

[torchbearer]

Nope. Iceland had a completely voluntary system - not a state as we commonly know it.

Government can be voluntary. Oops.

[Josh_LA]

I don't see how you can compare minarchy to facism (they are both "statist").
You call us statist as if we are all the same.

You have no rights if there is no protection from tyranny of the mightiest.

see... what we think the only purpose for a government is

I agree with you.

[Josh_LA]

Maybe you should learn how to read. (http://libertariannation.org/a/f13l1.html)

The Icelandic Free Commonwealth's downfall was not that it was too anarchistic, but rather that it was not anarchistic enough!


Meaning it wasn't anarchist enough when it worked? I thought so.

[torchbearer]

If government was local, it would be easily voluntary.
And a minarchist government would be voluntary.
I'd love to see 50 competing states in a confederacy.
You could have one state in complete lawlessness, so all you anarchist lover can see what you are asking for...
I don't want to keep you from your lawlessness.

[krazy kaju]

I didn't dismiss it, I said Amish today are perfectly fine in their anarchist system, you're better off moving to a place that works than living in a place not ready to change towards that.

Good job asswipe, they aren't anarchist. You dismissed it and then made fun of my Marxist hometown (how is it remotely anarchist?), a shithole in Africa plagued with civil war (not anarchism), and then you told me to move to an Amish town if I want to live in the middle ages.

You're trolling is incessant on these forums. You NEVER contribute to discussions, you are an absolute troll. Seriously. Congratulations. You got me mad, and I never get mad over stupid little fucks like you. This is my first time.

There is no doubt in my mind you should be banned for trolling.

[Josh_LA]

lol wut?

A marketable commodity and voluntarism isn't "anarchism." Okay, whatever you say genius.

I agree.

[krazy kaju]

The Icelandic Free Commonwealth's downfall was not that it was too anarchistic, but rather that it was not anarchistic enough!


Meaning it wasn't anarchist enough when it worked? I thought so.

Ahh, there's nothing like taking quotes out of context. Congratulations, another trolling technique.

[Josh_LA]

Any form of government is not anarchy. Genius.

You need to understand, when people say anarchy, just like when people say atheist, they usually don't mean "ALL government, ANY government" or "all Gods, any God", they mean "just not this one"

[Josh_LA]

Ahh, there's nothing like taking quotes out of context. Congratulations, another trolling technique.

No, please explain to me how something worked perfectly stopped working?

Was it not anarchist enough? Then that means when it was working, it wasn't anarchistic.

Was it slowly losing its anarchism? Then that's proof it can't protect itself from corruption.

[krazy kaju]

I'm going to start a study about the cognitive dissonance in calling a system of competitive protection not anarchist.

[Josh_LA]

If government was local, it would be easily voluntary.
And a minarchist government would be voluntary.
I'd love to see 50 competing states in a confederacy.
You could have one state in complete lawlessness, so all you anarchist lover can see what you are asking for...
I don't want to keep you from your lawlessness.

exactly, segregation.

Only imperialists want to impose their "one size fits all" on other people, other states, and other nations.

[torchbearer]

You need to understand, when people say anarchy, just like when people say atheist, they usually don't mean "ALL government, ANY government" or "all Gods, any God", they mean "just not this one"

I do believe that the anarchy movement is an over-reaction to the severe tyranny we are witnessing today.
Then some have a semantics problem.
They talk about anarchy, but in the same breathe they talk of private government bodies. That is a contradiction, I don't care how many lew links and mises links you post.

[Josh_LA]

I'm going to start a study about the cognitive dissonance in calling a system of competitive protection not anarchist.

competitive protection?

competition of enterprises protecting the market?

Or competition protecting property?

Please explain, I'd like to hear you out.

[torchbearer]

I'm going to start a study about the cognitive dissonance in calling a system of competitive protection not anarchist.

That would be more honest.
You might find yourself roaming in minarchy again.

[Andrew-Austin]

I say it too.

You live here, so you agree with the government's decrees? Wow.





Exactly, you believe you can give up some freedoms for the convenience and happiness you have and depend on today.


No, I'm not agreeing that that trade off needs to be made at all for me to achieve happiness. Don't put thoughts in my head.



Yes, but talk is cheap, it'd be like me saying murder is wrong but just saying it.

What the fuck? I can say murder is wrong, and I can back that up by not murdering people. Its not cheap talk. I can say government coercion is wrong, and I can back that up by declining to set up my own government or have anything to do with government. If I live in town X, I'm not somehow mystically approving of the shit other people do there.




In other words, this country doesn't suck enough to force you to move, I thought so.

And your proving something grand here? The country still fucking sucks.

The city I live in does not suck enough for me to move, doesn't mean I think its great compared to other cities.

[Josh_LA]

I do believe that the anarchy movement is an over-reaction to the severe tyranny we are witnessing today.
Then some have a semantics problem.
They talk about anarchy, but in the same breathe they talk of private government bodies. That is a contradiction, I don't care have many lew links and mises links you post.

Oh, I totally hear you, I'm not known to post links either.

I do agree anarchism can be considered and over-reaction, but I am not an anarchist reacting to today, I am an anarchist at heart and I actually believe it with sincerity (so far for now). I DO believe that might makes right (which many anarchists are not willing to admit).

And I agree, a lot of it is semantics, not practical, I'm VERY anti-Semantic.

[Josh_LA]

So you agree with the government's decrees? Wow.


If I didn't murder people who work for the government because I fear they'll throw me in jail, yes, I am consenting to it.

I follow the law because I am forced to, and it SUCKS.



No, I'm not agreeing that trade off needs to be made at all for me to achieve happiness.

What the fuck? I can say murder is wrong, and I can back that up by not murdering people. Its not cheap talk. I can say government coercion is wrong, and I can back that up by declining to set up my own government or have anything to do with government. If I live in town X, I'm not somehow mystically approving of the shit other people do there.


Ok, so you do whatever is in your power, fair enough.



And your proving something grand here? The country still fucking sucks.

The city I live in does not suck enough for me to move, doesn't mean I think its great compared to other cities.

Complain all you want about this country, see who cares.

Yes, a lot of it is comparison relativity.

[Andrew-Austin]

If I didn't murder people who work for the government because I fear they'll throw me in jail, yes, I am consenting to it.

Fail.


Complain all you want about this country, see who cares.

Yes, a lot of it is comparison relativity.


Comparative judgment is show how useless because???

[Josh_LA]

Fail.



Comparative judgment is show how useless because???

Please clarify what you're asking.

[Conza88]

Conza would disagree with you, he believes that private courts will prevent bad things and when bad things happen, they'll take care of it fine.

Don't complain about not having AC, clean water and healthy food, FREEDOM IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. Hasn't our father Henry taught you anything?

I am not an anarchist.

I'm a non-archist or anarcho-capitalist.

Try again retard.

For all new comers: Read sig.

I'm largely going to ignore this thread. I might come back if I feel like dealing with bullshit theatrics from anarchists (traditional socialist) like Josh.

Krazy, Austin, Ancaps = correct.

Torch and others = need to read some Austrian Economics. i.e Rothbard + anyone after.

Josh = certifiably insane.

[Josh_LA]

I am not an anarchist.

I'm a non-archist or anarcho-capitalist.


I never said you were an anarchist. What's with the defensiveness?

How about answering "he believes that private courts will prevent bad things and when bad things happen, they'll take care of it fine."?

True or not true?




Try again retard.

For all new comers: Read sig.


Your turn to read and learn,
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1987762&postcount=85




I'm largely going to ignore this thread. I might come back if I feel like dealing with bullshit theatrics from anarchists (traditional socialist) like Josh.


I am not socialist, I don't believe in any collective nor do I put others before myself.



Krazy, Austin, Ancaps = correct.

Torch and others = need to read some Austrian Economics. i.e Rothbard + anyone after.

Josh = certifiably insane.
Reading doesn't mean you'll agree, I do read, and I understand most of it, I just don't agree it'll either work, or be the best way to live.

[Mini-Me]

If government was local, it would be easily voluntary.
And a minarchist government would be voluntary.
I'd love to see 50 competing states in a confederacy.
You could have one state in complete lawlessness, so all you anarchist lover can see what you are asking for...
I don't want to keep you from your lawlessness.

torch, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist (I'm a minarchist like yourself), but I think you're probably getting too caught up on the actual word "anarchy" to give the anarcho-capitalists' actual arguments a fair shot. They're not advocating a state of lawlessness, unless you consider medieval Iceland to be "lawless." You might say that medieval Iceland wasn't really "anarchy" by your own definition, and that's all fine and dandy, but it's pretty close to their definition...so is your beef with the system they're advocating, or is it nothing but a semantic argument against the words "anarchy" or "anarcho-capitalism" themselves? In a nutshell, all that the anarcho-capitalists really want is to live under a system of justice that does not hold any one centralized group (or the will of any democratic majority) to be so morally superior to everyone else that it's somehow morally deserving of the authority to initiate force against individuals.

[RedStripe]

Anarchy is nothing more than the belief that no special group of people has the exclusive right to enforce or establish the rules of ethics and behavior that form the basis of interaction in a given society.

The state is a monopoly, and like the monopolies created by the state to dominate one industry or another, the state fails to adequately perform the primary services it monopolizes: justice and security. In fact, it represents just the opposite.

[Josh_LA]

torch, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist (I'm a minarchist like yourself), but I think you're probably getting too caught up on the actual word "anarchy" to give the anarcho-capitalists' actual arguments a fair shot. They're not advocating a state of lawlessness, unless you consider medieval Iceland to be "lawless." You might say that medieval Iceland wasn't really "anarchy" by your own definition, and that's all fine and dandy, but it's pretty close to their definition...so is your beef with the system they're advocating, or just with the words "anarchy" or "anarcho-capitalism" themselves?

with all due respect, I think you drifted into semantics.

but thanks again, I asked Conza to read what you wrote me in the Holocaust thread, take care.

[Mini-Me]

with all due respect, I think you drifted into semantics.

but thanks again, I asked Conza to read what you wrote me in the Holocaust thread, take care.

Of course I drifted into semantics - the whole point of my post was to mention that the thread has drifted into semantics. :D I feel that torchbearer's disagreements sound like they are more over linguistic semantics than they are over philosophical substance, although I'm sure some substantive differences remain. Anyway, I'll check out the other thread (and uh, you're welcome? ;)).

Anyway, in response to your "might makes right" comment further above: You may be right that "might makes happen," and I suppose that statement is pretty obvious. Power of some sort always wins in the physical sense (although who has power, how centralized it's allowed to become, and how heavily or delicately people handle it can still be affected in the long term by moral arguments). However, that does not inherently provide any evidence for the moral notion that "might makes right." Justice and morality are abstract concepts about what kind of treatment human beings deserve from each other, and so they are not as unfailingly self-enforcing as the laws of physics. The way I see it, "whose will prevails" and "who actually did right by their fellow human beings in the moral sense" are entirely different questions...and currently, I do not believe the answers to the questions coincide.

[danberkeley]

Whenever Josh brings up the "semantics" defense, it is usually because he was unclear in his previous post.


Oh, you are one of those people who think there is a difference between a private government and any other government.

As Dr. Block would say, "Oh noe! You caught me." lol

For the record, anarcho-capitalist =/= anarchy. The general understanding of "anarchy" is the absence of laws. Anarcho-capitalism pertains laws. Voluntary governments could exist in anarcho-capitalism. Sort of how a corporation has a corporate governence. And, for the record, the State = non-volunatary government = criminal organiation.

[Josh_LA]

Whenever Josh brings up the "semantics" defense, it is usually because he was unclear in his previous post.


I agree. Thus I ask for clarification.

[Josh_LA]

Anyway, in response to your "might makes right" comment further above: You may be right that "might makes happen," and I suppose that statement is pretty obvious. Power of some sort always wins in the physical sense (although who has power, how centralized it's allowed to become, and how heavily or delicately people handle it can still be affected in the long term by moral arguments).


Therefore, merely talking about what is right or wrong is cheap without the ability to enforce it.



However, that does not inherently provide any evidence for the moral notion that "might makes right." Justice and morality are abstract concepts about what kind of treatment human beings deserve from each other, and so they are not as unfailingly self-enforcing as the laws of physics. The way I see it, "whose will prevails" and "who actually did right by their fellow human beings in the moral sense" are entirely different questions...and currently, I do not believe the answers to the questions coincide.

I agree, if we were to sit down, I'd give up in arguing what is right or wrong. But in the sad real world, people don't need to win a debate to win. That's why I remind people that talk is cheap and might makes HAPPEN (right or wrong takes a back seat).

[Mini-Me]

Therefore, merely talking about what is right or wrong is cheap without the ability to enforce it.



I agree, if we were to sit down, I'd give up in arguing what is right or wrong. But in the sad real world, people don't need to win a debate to win. That's why I remind people that talk is cheap and might makes HAPPEN (right or wrong takes a back seat).

I agree, but in the sad real world, sending such a message won't inspire people to take back power for themselves anyway...and it might just help them rationalize and justify their own oppression. Only moral outrage and indignation at the way they're being treated will really convince people to stand up for themselves and take power back from centralized government...and that's where moral arguments come in. Sound strategy, even better tactics, and gunpowder won the revolutionary war and drove back the British...but the reason enough men and muskets showed up for each battle came down to the righteous indignation people felt about their oppression after reading such works as Thomas Paine's Common Sense. Without the influence that one pamphlet had on public opinion, who knows how much longer the American colonies would have remained under British rule? In other words, power does always win the fight...but that includes manpower, and the moral arguments of today will ultimately decide which side of this ideological battle will have manpower behind it tomorrow. Besides, the feeling of fighting for a just cause helps to empower and embolden people, especially once they have enough like minds around them that it doesn't feel so hopeless. :)

[gilliganscorner]

Well, I've read this thread. A couple of points.

1) Anarchy = Someone who believes in less government than you do. ;)
2) Somalia is falsely labeled as anarchic. What is really going on there is you have multiple groups competing to be the NEW government! The spoils are huge!. Here is how you create your own country (http://fskrealityguide.blogspot.com/2008/09/reader-mail-65-dealing-with-scum.html):


Establish of monopoly of violence in an area. Eliminate all your competition.
Collect taxes/tribute from your victims.
Establish a monopoly of money. Replace free market money (gold and silver) with your unbacked paper. Inflate at a carefully controlled rate, so that people's savings are stolen, but not so fast that they get disgusted and boycott your money. Make it illegal to use gold or silver as money.
Brainwash your victims to believe that your theft is morally just.
Establish a system of fake justice, so that your arbitrary decrees are enforced and given an appearance of legitimacy. Make up a Constitution, so that people have the illusion that their rights are protected - you can't contain a predatory tiger in a paper cage.
Establish a monopoly of information, via control of TV and newspapers. Require mandatory schooling/brainwashing for all children.
Establish universities, where biased researchers proclaim the brilliance of your leadership.
Now that you have a monopoly of information, allow people to elect their own rulers. Since you control the media, only candidates you approve can be elected. You may rule without anyone being consciously aware of your power.
Pretend to have wars with other leaders, so you can proclaim to your slaves how you are better than all other masters. In times of peace, excessively hype pro-State activities, such as the Olympics. People think they are celebrating the success of an athlete, when what they are really doing is subliminally legitimizing their government.
Make sure that all workers have most of their productivity drained by taxes. This way, they won't have the resources to oppose and overthrow you.
Establish corporations that control each industry. If any of the people you assign to manage them misbehave, then it is easy to discredit them.
- I added a few things into FSK's list, in bold.

To paraphrase the late Robert Lefevre:



If men are intrinsically good, we don't need government. If men are inherently bad or apathetic, we dare not form one.

If .01% - I made that up, but it does not nullify the point - of society is filled with people who desire control over others, they gravitate towards power centers such as the State or State subsidized corporations where they can exercise their wet dreams, how would that percentage increase the closer you got to the higher echelons of power? Nuff said.

Overcoming pro-State indoctrination from the cradle is very traumatic for people. It takes work to overthrow the outpost the State has planted in our minds. In the absence of the State, this indoctrination will create a vacuum for most people to seek to subjugate themselves to the wills of others, unless proper education and morality is proliferate throughout a given social group - something the State seeks to subvert immediately.

From the same blog (http://fskrealityguide.blogspot.com/2009/02/reader-mail-78.html), I found a pretty good explanation how an agorist "Rule of Law" differs from a pro-State troll's "Rule of Law":


You're referring to "Rule of Law" as "natural/common law". This covers things like

1. the Non-Aggression Principle
2. You may do whatever you want as long as you don't injure someone else.
3. Individuals have a right to own property.
4. Individuals have a right to make and enforce contracts.
5. Individuals own their own labor.
6. Nobody should have a monopoly of anything, including violence/police/defense/justice.

When a pro-State troll refers to "Rule of Law", he's referring to "The rules of the current corrupt system must be respected!" or "The bad guys should be allowed to keep what they already stole!" I already wrote a post on the Rule of Law Scam.

When a pro-State troll refers to "Rule of Law", he means:

1. Pay taxes without resisting!
2. A debt contract with a bank is a valid contract!
3. People who lose their homes due to the Compound Interest Paradox should be forcibly evicted! People must be evicted for not paying their mortgage!
4. People must be evicted from their homes for not paying property taxes! If a State agent declares "Eminent domain!", then the victim must be forcibly evicted from their land!
5. Respect the State ban on marijuana!
6. Respect the State ban on owning guns!
7. Respect the State ban on manufacturing incandescent light bulbs!
8. Don't work as a doctor/lawyer/accountant/etc. without a State license!
9. Respect the ban on using gold and silver as money!

When "Rule of Law" refers to "natural/common law", then it makes sense. When "Rule of Law" refers to a corrupt system, then "Rule of Law" is pro-State trolling.

[eOs]

Lol @ anarchy. I'll just form a government in your society and you won't be able to stop me beotch!
Stealing and coercion is wrong.


Stealing and coercion is wrong.


So is killing someone, cheating on a test, lying to your mom. Look, in a dream world it could work. But the people WILL sacrifice some of their liberty for protection. They will see it as in their best interest as to not have to worry as much about which guns they have to own, or which groups are forming, because, they will form. Just like you see the mafia today, imagine hundreds of thousands of those types springing up looking out for the best intererests of eachother, effectively making them stronger. Just remember this: things exist, and things will happen.

[Kraig]

So is killing someone, cheating on a test, lying to your mom. Look, in a dream world it could work. But the people WILL sacrifice some of their liberty for protection. They will see it as in their best interest as to not have to worry as much about which guns they have to own, or which groups are forming, because, they will form. Just like you see the mafia today, imagine hundreds of thousands of those types springing up looking out for the best intererests of eachother, effectively making them stronger. Just remember this: things exist, and things will happen.

In the real world it WOULD work and be BETTER. Nationalizing security and protection are no different than nationalizing anything else, there will always be more corruption, less quality service, and far less efficiency. The main problem with anarchy is that the vast majority of people from day 1 in school are taught the values of having a government, and there is no voice for the values of anarchy.

The police are NO DIFFERENT than a mafia, other than being far more powerful. They hold a MONOPOLY on force and they use FORCE to maintain it.

If you are robbed in a free society, would be able to choose who to best use to recover your goods or even do it yourself. In a state society, the police will insist you use them and if you use someone else and they find out, they will use force against you. That is NO DIFFERENT than any organized crime. It is NO DIFFERENT than the mob threatening a shop keeper to pay protection services or they'll break all his windows. Our protection money is simply called "taxes".

[heavenlyboy34]

In the real world it WOULD work and be BETTER. Nationalizing security and protection are no different than nationalizing anything else, there will always be more corruption, less quality service, and far less efficiency. The main problem with anarchy is that the vast majority of people from day 1 in school are taught the values of having a government, and there is no voice for the values of anarchy.

The police are NO DIFFERENT than a mafia, other than being far more powerful. They hold a MONOPOLY on force and they use FORCE to maintain it.

If you are robbed in a free society, would be able to choose who to best use to recover your goods or even do it yourself. In a state society, the police will insist you use them and if you use someone else and they find out, they will use force against you. That is NO DIFFERENT than any organized crime. It is NO DIFFERENT than the mob threatening a shop keeper to pay protection services or they'll break all his windows. Our protection money is simply called "taxes".

+99999 :D Nicely said, sir! :)

[torchbearer]

Blackwater. Your private government that you don't control.

[Xenophage]

Do we have to keep having this argument? Its getting tired.

[Kraig]

Do we have to keep having this argument? Its getting tired.

Do we have to? No. Will we? Yes.

Obviously it is working because this entire thread is here because someone converted to the "dark side". :D

A few months ago it worked on me too, reason has a way of convincing you. In my quest to discover the ultimate form of limited government I realized it wasn't possible.

[torchbearer]

Do we have to? No. Will we? Yes.

Obviously it is working because this entire thread is here because someone converted to the "dark side". :D

A few months ago it worked on me too, reason has a way of convincing you. In my quest to discover the ultimate form of limited government I realized it wasn't possible.

Law of the Jungle is all you have left.
Me and my gang will be at your property as soon as the government is removed.
What is your will be ours, because we out number you.


If only the founding father had your wisdom. :rolleyes:
Wild west lawlessness for all!
Weeeeeee! No rights unless you have your own private militia...(then who controls the militia? another governing body?)

[danberkeley]

Blackwater. Your private government that you don't control.

... which happens to be empowered by the federal government of the United States of America via laws and subsidies.

EDIT: torchbeaer fails to understand the difference between the State and private government.

[Xenophage]

Read "The Law" by Bastiat. He quite eloquently describes the difference between just and unjust government.

I've argued this before, but I don't care what FORM of government you have - any society will reflect the prevailing philosophic attitudes. This is why, when a society predominately favors collectivism, even the greatest constitutional republic will turn despotic. This is also why, even under an anarchy, when people are predominately collectivist, tyrannical government will form.

The real problem is philosophy, not government.

[torchbearer]

... which happens to be empowered by the federal government of the United States of America via laws and subsidies.

And when the government disappears, you think blackwater disappears?
You have a whole armed militia at your command, each person in that group can gain by pillaging others with their superior might.
Some will not, Some will...
You deal with... just don't FORCE me to live in your nightmare utopia.
Pick a state, preferably a square one we can fence in with a 100ft tall metal fence.
And you can live "free" with the abuse of the mobs.

[torchbearer]

... which happens to be empowered by the federal government of the United States of America via laws and subsidies.

EDIT: torchbeaer fails to understand the difference between the State and private government.

all governments are private governments. public and private is no different.
Unless you mean its a government owned by a handful of individuals.. and then, oh well, you are shit out of luck if you don't give "protection" money to the mafia.

[Kraig]

Law of the Jungle is all you have left.
Me and my gang will be at your property as soon as the government is removed.
What is your will be ours, because we out number you.


If only the founding father had your wisdom. :rolleyes:
Wild west lawlessness for all!
Weeeeeee! No rights unless you have your own private militia...(then who controls the militia? another governing body?)

So you have no problem supporting those that deprive my and others freedom? I do not consent to be governed and taxed and you choose to use force on me to make it happen? Rationality is greater than force, morality is greater than evil. If man kind is to have any long term hope, they will learn to live in peaceful anarchy.

It's also easy to act like the state is nice and cozy when you live inside the united states and don't see and FEEL the LARGE SCALE suffering and destruction caused by the same united states. People try to pick apart anarchy acting like it would have to be completely violence free when in reality it would NEVER reach the MASSIVE levels of violence committed by the state. I'll take my chances of a group of idiots trying to rob me, I'm a pretty good shot, over getting drafted and having to go fight a war in Pakistan (or go to jail).

And if the founding fathers were so great their ideas would not have completely fallen apart by 1913. Even from day 1 the republic was only good if you were a white male, sorry slaves and women but you have no rights. They did a GREAT THING considering the time period in history, but it is still history and we can still learn from and improve it. They understood that the state had to be restricted but they did not take it far enough.

People need to stop acting like the founding fathers were near perfect and start thinking for themselves. People need to recognize how flawed the republic was from day one.

[Kraig]

just don't FORCE me to live in your nightmare utopia

Yet ANY state REQUIRES forced to be used to ensure me and others live in it. Nice contradiction.

[torchbearer]

So you have no problem supporting those that deprive my and others freedom? I do not consent to be governed and taxed and you choose to use force on me to make it happen? Rationality is greater than force, morality is greater than evil. If man kind is to have any long term hope, they will learn to live in peaceful anarchy.

It's also easy to act like the state is nice and cozy when you live inside the united states and don't see and FEEL the LARGE SCALE suffering and destruction caused by the same united states. People try to pick apart anarchy acting like it would have to be completely violence free when in reality it would NEVER reach the MASSIVE levels of violence committed by the state. I'll take my chances of a group of idiots trying to rob me, I'm a pretty good shot, over getting drafted and having to go fight a war in Pakistan (or go to jail).

And if the founding fathers were so great their ideas would not have completely fallen apart by 1913. Even from day 1 the republic was only good if you were a white male, sorry slaves and women but you have no rights. They did a GREAT THING considering the time period in history, but it is still history and we can still learn from and improve it. They understood that the state had to be restricted but they did not take it far enough.

People need to stop acting like the founding fathers were near perfect and start thinking for themselves. People need to recognize how flawed the republic was from day one.


I do not endorse the governments we have today.
Fail.

[Kraig]

I do not endorse the governments we have today.
Fail.

But you endorse "government" and ANY government will use force on me to remain being the government.

A government can't exist without holding a monopoly on force and in turn using force to maintain that monopoly.

[torchbearer]

Yet ANY state REQUIRES forced to be used to ensure me and others live in it. Nice contradiction.

I do not endorse the governments we have today.
Fail.
Anyone else?

It is a simpletons view that because I don't want Chaos that I endorse tyranny.
You all sound like Bush and his simpleton "you are either with us or against us".

Expand your thinking beyond the two absolutes.

[torchbearer]

But you endorse "government" and ANY government will use force on me to remain being the government.

A government can't exist without holding a monopoly on force and in turn using force to maintain that monopoly.

No a government can't exist without the support of the people unless it is a mafia style government.
We have today a mafia style government.
And what you are creaming for are a bunch of mafia style governments.

[Kraig]

I do not endorse the governments we have today.
Fail.
Anyone else?

It is a simpletons view that because I don't want Chaos that I endorse tyranny.
You all sound like Bush and his simpleton "you are either with us or against us".

Expand your thinking beyond the two absolutes.

Gladly. Here is a simple example.

I get robbed. The state (and this can be ANY form of government) wishes that I use their police force to report the crime and attempt recovery of my goods.

I know of a better way to get my goods back.

I use that better way of getting my goods back, the state finds out.

The state now has two options:

1. Leave me in peace with my choice, at that point they will cease being the state and simply become an "alternate security service".

2. Use force on me to punish me exercise of free will, and to ensure they maintain their monopoly on force and security services.

[danberkeley]

And when the government disappears, you think blackwater disappears?
You have a whole armed militia at your command, each person in that group can gain by pillaging others with their superior might.
Some will not, Some will...
You deal with... just don't FORCE me to live in your nightmare utopia.
Pick a state, preferably a square one we can fence in with a 100ft tall metal fence.
And you can live "free" with the abuse of the mobs.

Blackwater doesnt only kill people in Iraq. They also provide protection and training services. Link me to a story where Blackwater killed innocent people without the support of the US government.

[Kraig]

No a government can't exist without the support of the people unless it is a mafia style government.
We have today a mafia style government.
And what you are creaming for are a bunch of mafia style governments.

Yes but support of the people does not mean support of ALL people. At that point it becomes tyranny of the majority for the few who don't want it.

All governments are already mafia style, that is easily proven.

[danberkeley]

all governments are private governments. public and private is no different.
Unless you mean its a government owned by a handful of individuals.. and then, oh well, you are shit out of luck if you don't give "protection" money to the mafia.

My bad. I meant voluntary governments.

[torchbearer]

Gladly. Here is a simple example.

I get robbed. The state (and this can be ANY form of government) wishes that I use their police force to report the crime and attempt recovery of my goods.

I know of a better way to get my goods back.

I use that better way of getting my goods back, the state finds out.

The state now has two options:

1. Leave me in peace with my choice, at that point they will cease being the state and simply become an "alternate security service".

2. Use force on me to punish me exercise of free will, and to ensure they maintain their monopoly on force and security services.


Do you not understand the fallacy of vigilantism?
You may be just in recovery... but that makes you the judge and the jury.

I may feel like that fact you cut me off in traffic is a crime... and I seek retribution.

My neighbor thinks it a crime because I pile up my leaves in my yard and don't remove them.. so he burns them down(along with my house)

I get pissed and burn down his house.

The whole point is the remove retribution from the heated actors and have a neutral third party settle the dispute.
A voluntary court wouldn't work, no one would show up...

Either you have law and order(protection of rights) or you don't.

[Kraig]

It is a simpletons view that because I don't want Chaos that I endorse tyranny.

It is not the simpletons view it is the rational and true view.

Governments CANNOT exist without tyranny, therefore you are endorsing it even if you don't want to.

I have always respected you, so lets try to discuss this without petty name calling?

[torchbearer]

My bad. I meant voluntary governments.

I am for voluntary governments.
These are more likely to happen when they are local and when they are small and have few functions. Like my first signature quote exclaims.

[torchbearer]

Governments CANNOT exist without tyranny, therefore you are endorsing it even if you don't want to.

Simpleton is a factual description of the information you are presenting.
You feel insulted because it is true.

Paulville would definitely have a voluntary government.
A neighborhood watch brigade against outside threats.

Your premise is wrong.
All you can see if government tyranny of today. Use your abstract thinking a bit more.

[Kraig]

Do you not understand the fallacy of vigilantism?
You may be just in recovery... but that makes you the judge and the jury.

I may feel like that fact you cut me off in traffic is a crime... and I seek retribution.

My neighbor thinks it a crime because I pile up my leaves in my yard and don't remove them.. so he burns them down(along with my house)

I get pissed and burn down his house.

The whole point is the remove retribution from the heated actors and have a neutral third party settle the dispute.
A voluntary court wouldn't work, no one would show up...

Either you have law and order(protection of rights) or you don't.

Do you really know anyone who would burn a house down over some leaves?

People are far more rational than you are giving them credit for in that post. At the same time I am not saying that anarchy would be perfect just that it would be better for all involved. (how many houses has the US blown up?)

A neutral 3rd party is not possible. They state will NEVER remain neutral.

[Kraig]

All you can see if government tyranny of today. Use your abstract thinking a bit more.

No, if I choose that I don't want to be governed and taxed, I don't want to pay for and use your protection - no matter how great you say it is - I still don't want it.

It will still be forced on me, and that will - by definition - be tyranny.

[Kraig]

Simpleton is a factual description of the information you are presenting.

Simpleton would be more along the lines of saying the earth is flat or the gods make it rain. Would you waste your time arguing with such nonsense? If you are so sure it is simpleton why are you wasting your time arguing with me?

[torchbearer]

Do you really know anyone who would burn a house down over some leaves?

People are far more rational than you are giving them credit for in that post. At the same time I am not saying that anarchy would be perfect just that it would be better for all involved. (how many houses has the US blown up?)

A neutral 3rd party is not possible. They state will NEVER remain neutral.

Let me give you real world examples from the farm community I grew up in... (we had no government, no law enforcement.. only long time families in one area)

A neighbor is deer hunting from a deer stand.
Another neighbor is hunting nearby with hunting dogs.

The hunting dogs scare away the deer from the hunter into the direction of the other hunter.
This probably happens quite a few times until finally the first hunter blows the head off of one the hunting dogs.

The owner of the hunting dogs gets pissed and slashes the tires on the other guys truck.

The original hunter then burns down the other guys barn.

Now, how do you like that justice?

[torchbearer]

Simpleton would be more along the lines of saying the earth is flat or the gods make it rain. Would you waste your time arguing with such nonsense? If you are so sure it is simpleton why are you wasting your time arguing with me?

No simpleton is saying no government can exist unless it is tyrannical.

[danberkeley]

It has already been established that we an-caps are refering to a coercive government (the State), not any voluntary government such as a voluntary minarchy or a voluntary communism.

Torchbearer, Blackwater doesnt only kill people in Iraq. They also provide protection and training services. Link me to a story where Blackwater killed innocent people without the support of the US government.

[Kraig]

Let me give you real world examples from the farm community I grew up in... (we had no government, no law enforcement.. only long time families in one area)

A neighbor is deer hunting from a deer stand.
Another neighbor is hunting nearby with hunting dogs.

The hunting dogs scare away the deer from the hunter into the direction of the other hunter.
This probably happens quite a few times until finally the first hunter blows the head off of one the hunting dogs.

The owner of the hunting dogs gets pissed and slashes the tires on the other guys truck.

The original hunter then burns down the other guys barn.

Now, how do you like that justice?

Sounds so much worse than WWII. :rolleyes: You "proved" anarchy isn't perfect? So what? I never said it was.

[Kraig]

No simpleton is saying no government can exist unless it is tyrannical.


No, if I choose that I don't want to be governed and taxed, I don't want to pay for and use your protection - no matter how great you say it is - I still don't want it.

It will still be forced on me, and that will - by definition - be tyranny.

I already answered this and you are ignoring it.

[torchbearer]

It has already been established that we an-caps are refering to a coercive government (the State), not any voluntary government such as a voluntary minarchy or a voluntary communism.

Torchbearer, Blackwater doesnt only kill people in Iraq. They also provide protection and training services. Link me to a story where Blackwater killed innocent people without the support of the US government.

Well how can you call it anarchy if you are for minarchy?

[torchbearer]

I already answered this and you are ignoring it.

NO, I didn't ignore it, I just didn't want to "insult" you again.
Taxation doesn't have to be forced, it can be voluntary.

[danberkeley]

Sounds so much worse than WWII. :rolleyes: You "proved" anarchy isn't perfect? So what? I never said it was.

Hence, why anarcho-capitalism cant be described as utopian. But try explaining that to Torchbearer.

[Kraig]

It has already been established that we an-caps are refering to a coercive government (the State), not any voluntary government such as a voluntary minarchy or a voluntary communism.

Torchbearer, Blackwater doesnt only kill people in Iraq. They also provide protection and training services. Link me to a story where Blackwater killed innocent people without the support of the US government.

No government will ever be "voluntary" until 100% of the people living under it want it. What you consider voluntary is really just tyranny of the masses.

[torchbearer]

Hence, why anarcho-capitalism cant be described as utopian. But try explaining that to Torchbearer.

It is far from utopian... but the idea of thinking it will work is utopian.
You live in the comforts of law and order.. so you don't know what it is to live without it.
Try explaining that to yourself.

[torchbearer]

No government will every be "voluntary" until 100% of the people living under it want it. What you consider voluntary is really just tyranny of the masses.

A voluntary tax means you don't pay unless you want to...
If you money is your vote. And you don't like the current government, you don't pay for it.
Is it really that hard to understand?

[Kraig]

NO, I didn't ignore it, I just didn't want to "insult" you again.
Taxation doesn't have to be forced, it can be voluntary.

So taxes are voluntary? What else? What about security? If I own land and do not want to use your government's police to protect and defend it are you going to let me?

If you do, you are not a state, you are an optional security service.

If you don't, then you will have to use force to stop me, and that will be tyranny.

[danberkeley]

Well how can you call it anarchy if you are for minarchy?

You do undertand that there is a difference between anarchy and anarcho-capitalism, right?


No government will ever be "voluntary" until 100% of the people living under it want it. What you consider voluntary is really just tyranny of the masses.

You and I could voluntarily form a minarchy were I am king and you are my subject.


It is far from utopian... but the idea of thinking it will work is utopian.

And you thinking that your alternative will work is also utopian. :rolleyes:


You live in the comforts of law and order.. so you don't know what it is to live without it.
Try explaining that to yourself.

Yes. That is why government cops kill innocent civilians on the subway stations near where I live. :rolleyes: That is why Berkeley HUD was involved in a huge corruption scandal. :rolleyes:

[Josh_LA]

No government will ever be "voluntary" until 100% of the people living under it want it. What you consider voluntary is really just tyranny of the masses.

Tyranny by everybody against everybody else.

Sounds like communism to me.

[torchbearer]

You do undertand that there is a difference between anarchy and anarcho-capitalism, right?



You and I could voluntarily form a minarchy were I am king and you are my subject.



And you thinking that your alternative will work is also utopian. :rolleyes:



Yes. That is why government cops kill innocent civilians on the subway stations near where I live. :rolleyes: That is why Berkeley HUD was involved in a huge corruption scandal. :rolleyes:

Yes, please use example from our fascist government to disprove the validity of a small minarchist constitutional republic.

YOu simpletons keep going back to proving your anarchy with saying minarchist are the same statist as the fascist.
This has been covered earlier in this thread.

I was debate anarchy versus order. not anarcho-capitalist.

In an anarchy, most of you would be dead before the end of the year. You wouldn't submit to your local mafia, and they would kill you. Yes, just like our current mafia government.
What you want is the same as we have now... just on the local level.

What I want is what we had briefly in 1776, but on a more local level.
Sorta like.. umm, Thomas Jefferson.
Who, in the opinion of anarchist, must be a totalitarian statist dictator. :rolleyes:

[Kraig]

You do undertand that there is a difference between anarchy and anarcho-capitalism, right?


Actually know, I have heard the terms but that's about it. I am new to this, a few months ago I would have been arguing torchbearer's side.



You and I could voluntarily form a minarchy were I am king and you are my subject.


Could perhaps but not going to happen. :D



And you thinking that your alternative will work is also utopian. :rolleyes:


Absolutely. Just like utopian thinking says that socialism can stop starvation/poverty, the same type of utopian thinking says that government can stop violence. Just as socialism only makes starvation/poverty worse, government only makes violence worse! People need to give up the idea that these things can be completely eliminated, and realized that absolute freedom is the best option.

[Josh_LA]

You do undertand that there is a difference between anarchy and anarcho-capitalism, right?


Yes, and I am an anarchist.



You and I could voluntarily form a minarchy were I am king and you are my subject.

Si Se Peude



And you thinking that your alternative will work is also utopian. :rolleyes:

I don't, just because I & torchbearer may find an alternative to be more preferable does not mean we believe it's utopian.



Yes. That is why government cops kill innocent civilians on the subway stations near where I live. :rolleyes: That is why Berkeley HUD was involved in a huge corruption scandal. :rolleyes:

That's the price you pay for the other things they offer (and I know you'd rather have neither). If some corruption justifies abolition of all government, then some crimes justify the imprisonment of all citizens.

Government and freedom are not inherently good or bad, each has its price.

[Josh_LA]

It has already been established that we an-caps are refering to a coercive government (the State), not any voluntary government such as a voluntary minarchy or a voluntary communism.

Torchbearer, Blackwater doesnt only kill people in Iraq. They also provide protection and training services. Link me to a story where Blackwater killed innocent people without the support of the US government.

Blackwater kills for money, if citizens had money, they'd hire them too.

In other words, you don't oppose all government, just the ones you disagree with. I agree & like that, I don't oppose all murder and oppression, just ones I don't benefit from.

[torchbearer]

Yes, and I am an anarchist.


Si Se Peude


I don't, just because I & torchbearer may find an alternative to be more preferable does not mean we believe it's utopian.



That's the price you pay for the other things they offer (and I know you'd rather have neither). If some corruption justifies abolition of all government, then some crimes justify the imprisonment of all citizens.

Government and freedom are not inherently good or bad, each has its price.

Pragmatic view that I can live with...
If government were local, we could all live in a town that shared our views of government.

[Kraig]

I was debate anarchy versus order. not anarcho-capitalist.


Its a debate between anarchy vs. the state, not anarchy vs. order. Order does not originate from the state. :)



What I want is what we had briefly in 1776, but on a more local level.
Sorta like.. umm, Thomas Jefferson.
Who, in the opinion of anarchist, must be a totalitarian statist dictator. :rolleyes:

His writings are very good but once he came to power he was quite statist and even made use of the powers he thought the president shouldn't have beforehand.

[Josh_LA]

Do you really know anyone who would burn a house down over some leaves?

People are far more rational than you are giving them credit for in that post. At the same time I am not saying that anarchy would be perfect just that it would be better for all involved. (how many houses has the US blown up?)

A neutral 3rd party is not possible. They state will NEVER remain neutral.

Again, Conza believes that private courts are going to be either neutral or just, or serving the interest of money (which is probably his definition of justice).

Do I know anybody who'd burn a house over some leaves? No, but I've heard ghetto homies killing over a can of beer or a joint.

[Josh_LA]

Its a debate between anarchy vs. the state, not anarchy vs. order. Order does not originate from the state. :)



His writings are very good but once he came to power he was quite statist and even made use of the powers he thought the president shouldn't have beforehand.

I agree, order does not originate from the state, but it CAN.

Order arises from cooperation or force, pick one.

[Josh_LA]

Pragmatic view that I can live with...
If government were local, we could all live in a town that shared our views of government.

I agree, how many of us are willing to say that forcing integration and racial equality down Americans' throats is wrong? Not that separation SHOULD be based on ONLY race, but anything, however stupid, should be allowed. Only socialists believe all humans are equally deserving of the same rights and entitled to the same property.

[danberkeley]

Yes, please use example from our fascist government to disprove the validity of a small minarchist constitutional republic.

Fail. I dont mind a small minarchist constitutional republic as long as it is formed voluntarily.



YOu simpletons keep going back to proving your anarchy with saying minarchist are the same statist as the fascist.

Yes. But only if the are coervice. Like the kind which you onviously advocate.


This has been covered earlier in this thread.

You have proven wrong and debunked countless times in other threads.


In an anarchy, most of you would be dead before the end of the year. You wouldn't submit to your local mafia, and they would kill you. Yes, just like our current mafia government.
What you want is the same as we have now... just on the local level.

Therefore, we need a coercive government that will pillage us? :rolleyes:



I don't, just because I & torchbearer may find an alternative to be more preferable does not mean we believe it's utopian.

Likewise, just because may find anarcho-capialism to be more preferable, it does not mean we believe it is utopian.


Blackwater kills for money, if citizens had money, they'd hire them too.

In theory, sure. But I want proof that Blackwater has murdered without support from the US government. For all we know, you could a psychopath murderer, but I wont accuse you of being one since I have no proof. But in theory, you could be one and because you could be one, it doesnt mean the should eliminate you.


In other words, you don't oppose all government, just the ones you disagree with. I agree & like that, I don't oppose all murder and oppression, just ones I don't benefit from.

I'm not going there with you. You and your copyrights... :P

[Josh_LA]

Likewise, just because may find anarcho-capialism to be more preferable, it does not mean we believe it is utopian.


And I respect that, I never said you said it's utopian



In theory, sure. But I want proof that Blackwater has murdered without support from the US government. For all we know, you could a psychopath murderer, but I wont accuse you of being one since I have no proof. But in theory, you could be one and because you could be one, it doesnt mean the should eliminate you.

Because citizens have no money to hire them and benefit from having people murdered, so it's unlikely it's happened. I am not excusing or defending anybody, just saying that the government is no worse than citizens, they just do what they believe is best for their own interests.



I'm not going there with you. You and your copyrights... :P

Oh c'mon, don't be a dodger! I agree though, it is very much semantics, it can be simplified to this : we are not against anything, just what we disagree with (so nothing is inherently bad or wrong, except for what is bad or wrong) Gotta love double speak, that's what happens if you have to go back and explain yourself.

[Xenophage]

Sigh. I'm inclined to put my 2 cents in, yet again.

Anarchists like Murray Rothbard are keen to take Ayn Rand's Non-Aggression Principle and turn it into what they call the "Non-Aggression Axiom," irrationally attributing to it some form of a priori knowledge that is self-evident and doesn't need to be defended. This is weak mysticism. If you do not understand why the Non-Aggression Principle is logically correct, then don't pretend you really believe in it. To add insult to injury, they then misconstrue its full implications.

The Non-Aggression Principle states, per Ayn Rand: "It is immoral to initiate or threaten to initiate any form of coercive force against another individual."

If you fully examine this statement, you will realize that it does not say all coercive force is immoral. Only the initiation of coercive force. An act of coercion in self-defense is perfectly rational. An act of coercion in defense of someone else can also be perfectly rational, provided that this is a person who warrants your defense (i.e. he is not himself an aggressor).

Ultimately, the NAP relates to ethical behavior in a society. It is completely irrelevant outside of a societal context. When there are two people on an island, this does not constitute a society. Therefore the NAP does not dictate universal morality. To understand why this is, you would have to understand why the NAP is important: the NAP is important because it is essential a rational person's value of living within a society where he and everyone around him is free to engage in the fullest and most unhindered use of his faculties, including both his mind and body. The resulting social condition is called capitalism. It is a system whereby people engage each other in the free trade of values, rather than in violence. It is under this system that productivity and, consequently, life and happiness, flourish best.

To achieve the application of the NAP throughout a society, there must be a mechanism in place to discourage the natural tendency of humans to resolve disputes using violence. If you disagree that humans tend to engage in violence against one another, that's another discussion. In absence of SOME mechanism, capitalism cannot exist. Obviously this mechanism cannot itself violate the NAP. The mechanism therefore has to be objective and strictly defined. You cannot have it apply retaliatory force in some cases, and in others not. To be just, it cannot be biased.

The anarchist claims that all governments are tyrannical. They claim this because any violation of the Non-Aggression Principle equates to tyranny, and all governments must violate the NAP in order to be governments. But when the law is confined only to a defensive role, when government acts only as an agent of retaliatory force, where is the NAP violated? It is not. In fact, it is impossible for a government so constrained to violate the NAP.

Then the anarchists claim, "But such a government has to maintain a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force." This silly statement is intended to imply that government is bad because competition in a free market is good. The statement fails to recognize that free market competition is the result of the ensuing social order under a proper government. Free market competition cannot exist in absence of a universal, objective mechanism of retaliatory force to protect property rights, so there should be no fantasy of engaging in "free market competition" in the absence of government. Since the term "monopoly" only makes sense in contrast to the natural state of free-market competition, it is contradictory to call the source of free-market competition a "monopoly." That is akin to saying there is a monopoly of free-markets!

The anarchist also says that all governments tend toward tyranny throughout history, and as a result of this historical precedent we learn that government is always evil. Even the least tyrannical government in all of history, the United States in the late 18th and early 19th century, ultimately became the monstrosity we have today. This is all true, but if you are going to say that history proves non-tyrannical government is impossible and this makes a case for no-government, then you must apply your historical analysis to anarchy as well. When, in all of history, has anarchy ever lead to unadulterated capitalism? Always has it led to tyranny! Therefore we have two opposing historical political states: one of anarchy, and one of government. The former has never led to capitalism, but the latter has. Upon which side of history should the capitalist be?

The term "anarcho-capitalism" is a complete contradiction.

[Conza88]

Sigh. I'm inclined to put my 2 cents in, yet again.

Anarchists like Murray Rothbard are keen to take Ayn Rand's Non-Aggression Principle and turn it into what they call the "Non-Aggression Axiom," irrationally attributing to it some form of a priori knowledge that is self-evident and doesn't need to be defended. This is weak mysticism. If you do not understand why the Non-Aggression Principle is logically correct, then don't pretend you really believe in it. To add insult to injury, they then misconstrue its full implications.

The Non-Aggression Principle states, per Ayn Rand: "It is immoral to initiate or threaten to initiate any form of coercive force against another individual."

If you fully examine this statement, you will realize that it does not say all coercive force is immoral. Only the initiation of coercive force. An act of coercion in self-defense is perfectly rational. An act of coercion in defense of someone else can also be perfectly rational, provided that this is a person who warrants your defense (i.e. he is not himself an aggressor).

Ultimately, the NAP relates to ethical behavior in a society. It is completely irrelevant outside of a societal context. When there are two people on an island, this does not constitute a society. Therefore the NAP does not dictate universal morality. To understand why this is, you would have to understand why the NAP is important: the NAP is important because it is essential a rational person's value of living within a society where he and everyone around him is free to engage in the fullest and most unhindered use of his faculties, including both his mind and body. The resulting social condition is called capitalism. It is a system whereby people engage each other in the free trade of values, rather than in violence. It is under this system that productivity and, consequently, life and happiness, flourish best.

To achieve the application of the NAP throughout a society, there must be a mechanism in place to discourage the natural tendency of humans to resolve disputes using violence. If you disagree that humans tend to engage in violence against one another, that's another discussion. In absence of SOME mechanism, capitalism cannot exist. Obviously this mechanism cannot itself violate the NAP. The mechanism therefore has to be objective and strictly defined. You cannot have it apply retaliatory force in some cases, and in others not. To be just, it cannot be biased.

The anarchist claims that all governments are tyrannical. They claim this because any violation of the Non-Aggression Principle equates to tyranny, and all governments must violate the NAP in order to be governments. But when the law is confined only to a defensive role, when government acts only as an agent of retaliatory force, where is the NAP violated? It is not. In fact, it is impossible for a government so constrained to violate the NAP.

Then the anarchists claim, "But such a government has to maintain a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force." This silly statement is intended to imply that government is bad because competition in a free market is good. The statement fails to recognize that free market competition is the result of the ensuing social order under a proper government. Free market competition cannot exist in absence of a universal, objective mechanism of retaliatory force to protect property rights, so there should be no fantasy of engaging in "free market competition" in the absence of government. Since the term "monopoly" only makes sense in contrast to the natural state of free-market competition, it is contradictory to call the source of free-market competition a "monopoly." That is akin to saying there is a monopoly of free-markets!

The anarchist also says that all governments tend toward tyranny throughout history, and as a result of this historical precedent we learn that government is always evil. Even the least tyrannical government in all of history, the United States in the late 18th and early 19th century, ultimately became the monstrosity we have today. This is all true, but if you are going to say that history proves non-tyrannical government is impossible and this makes a case for no-government, then you must apply your historical analysis to anarchy as well. When, in all of history, has anarchy ever lead to unadulterated capitalism? Always has it led to tyranny! Therefore we have two opposing historical political states: one of anarchy, and one of government. The former has never led to capitalism, but the latter has. Upon which side of history should the capitalist be?

The term "anarcho-capitalism" is a complete contradiction.

Rothbard is not an anarchist. He's an anarcho-capitalist / non archist.

Try again. Actual references to what Rothbard said would actually help. Pity I don't see any forth coming. :rolleyes: And if you do, please keep it in context. ;)
Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'? by Murray Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html)

Fcken pwnd.

Edit: OH btw everyone, I was out last night.. good chats with this lady, anyway it eventually came out, she said she was a socialist. I smiled and then asked if she was a voluntary or coercive socialist. She ignored that and said she was an ANARCHIST.

Anyone calling them selves an anarchist is asking to be associated with those property destroying scum. Learn to drop the habit. Non-archy is ftw. Anarchy is ftl. Try make the distinction, or fail uselessly in the esoteric agenda, which you get handicapped on in a debate because of the bullshit socialist baggage that is associated with it. Be smart.

For those interested she thought humans were inherently good, I said both good and bad. I asked if she thought people would ever give up their property. She said she had doubts, lol..

[danberkeley]

From: http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella15.html


What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalistby N. Stephan Kinsella

Butler Shaffer’s recent LRC article, What is Anarchy?, prompted discussion on the Reason blog and inspired me to set down a few ideas I’ve also had along these lines.

Libertarian opponents of anarchy are attacking a straw man. Their arguments are usually utilitarian in nature and amount to "but anarchy won’t work" or "we need the (things provided by the) state." But these attacks are confused at best, if not disingenuous. To be an anarchist does not mean you think anarchy will "work" (whatever that means); nor that you predict it will or "can" be achieved. It is possible to be a pessimistic anarchist, after all. To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It’s quite simple, really. It’s an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses utilitarians.

Accordingly, anyone who is not an anarchist must maintain either: (a) aggression is justified; or (b) states (in particular, minimal states) do not necessarily employ aggression.

Proposition (b) is plainly false. States always tax their citizens, which is a form of aggression. They always outlaw competing defense agencies, which also amounts to aggression. (Not to mention the countless victimless crime laws that they inevitably, and without a single exception in history, enforce on the populace. Why minarchists think minarchy is even possible boggles the mind.)

As for (a), well, socialists and criminals also feel aggression is justified. This does not make it so. Criminals, socialists, and anti-anarchists have yet to show how aggression – the initiation of force against innocent victims – is justified. No surprise; it is not possible to show this. But criminals don’t feel compelled to justify aggression; why should advocates of the state feel compelled to do so?

Conservative and minarchist-libertarian criticism of anarchy on the grounds that it won’t "work" or is not "practical" is just confused. Anarchists don’t (necessarily) predict anarchy will be achieved – I for one don’t think it will. But that does not mean states are justified.

Consider an analogy. Conservatives and libertarians all agree that private crime (murder, robbery, rape) is unjustified, and "should" not occur. Yet no matter how good most men become, there will always be at least some small element who will resort to crime. Crime will always be with us. Yet we still condemn crime and work to reduce it.

Is it logically possible that there could be no crime? Sure. Everyone could voluntarily choose to respect others’ rights. Then there would be no crime. It’s easy to imagine. But given our experience with human nature and interaction, it is safe to say that there will always be crime. Nevertheless, we still proclaim crime to be evil and unjustified, in the face of the inevitability of its recurrence. So to my claim that crime is immoral, it would just be stupid and/or insincere to reply, "but that’s an impractical view" or "but that won’t work," "since there will always be crime." The fact that there will always be crime – that not everyone will voluntarily respect others’ rights – does not mean that it’s "impractical" to oppose it; nor does it mean that crime is justified. It does not mean there is some "flaw" in the proposition that crime is wrong.

Likewise, to my claim that the state and its aggression is unjustified, it is disingenuous and/or confused to reply, "anarchy won’t work" or is "impractical" or "unlikely to ever occur."1 The view that the state is unjustified is a normative or ethical position. The fact that not enough people are willing to respect their neighbors’ rights to allow anarchy to emerge, i.e., the fact that enough people (erroneously) support the legitimacy of the state to permit it to exist, does not mean that the state, and its aggression, are justified.2

Other utilitarian replies like "but we need a state" do not contradict the claim that states employ aggression and that aggression is unjustified. It simply means that the state-advocate does not mind the initiation of force against innocent victims – i.e., he shares the criminal/socialist mentality. The private criminal thinks his own need is all that matters; he is willing to commit violence to satisfy his needs; to hell with what is right and wrong. The advocate of the state thinks that his opinion that "we" "need" things justifies committing or condoning violence against innocent individuals. It is as plain as that. Whatever this argument is, it is not libertarian. It is not opposed to aggression. It is in favor of something else – making sure certain public "needs" are met, despite the cost – but not peace and cooperation. The criminal, gangster, socialist, welfare-statist, and even minarchist all share this: they are willing to condone naked aggression, for some reason. The details vary, but the result is the same – innocent lives are trampled by physical assault. Some have the stomach for this; others are more civilized – libertarian, one might say – and prefer peace over violent struggle.

As there are criminals and socialists among us, it is no surprise that there is a degree of criminal-mindedness in most people. After all, the state rests upon the tacit consent of the masses, who have erroneously accepted the notion that states are legitimate. But none of that means the criminal enterprises condoned by the masses are justified.

It’s time for libertarians to take a stand. Are you for aggression, or against it?

Notes

Another point: in my view, we are about as likely to achieve minarchy as we are to achieve anarchy. I.e., both are remote possibilities. What is striking is that almost every criticism of "impracticality" that minarchist hurl at anarchy is also true of minarchy itself. Both are exceedingly unlikely. Both require massive changes in views among millions of people. Both rest on presumptions that most people simply don't care much about.
Though the case for anarchy does not depend on its likelihood or "feasibility," any more than the case against private crime depends on there never being any acts of crime, anarchy is clearly possible. There is anarchy among nations, for example. There is also anarchy within government, as pointed out in the seminal and neglected JLS article by Alfred G. Cuzán, "Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy?" Cuzán argues that even the government itself is in anarchy, internally – the President does not literally force others in government to obey his comments, after all; they obey them voluntarily, due to a recognized, hierarchical structure. Government's (political) anarchy is not a good anarchy, but it demonstrates anarchy is possible – indeed, that we never really get out of it. And Shaffer makes the insightful point that we are in "anarchy" with our neighbors. If most people did not already have the character to voluntarily respect most of their neighbors’ rights, society and civilization would be impossible. Most people are good enough to permit civilization to occur, despite the existence of some degree of public and private crime. It is conceivable that the degree of goodness could rise – due to education or more universal economic prosperity, say – sufficient to make support for the legitimacy of states evaporate. It’s just very unlikely.
January 20, 2004

Stephan Kinsella [send him mail] is an attorney in Houston. His website is www.StephanKinsella.com.

Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com

[Josh_LA]

Sigh. I'm inclined to put my 2 cents in, yet again.

Anarchists like Murray Rothbard are keen to take Ayn Rand's Non-Aggression Principle and turn it into what they call the "Non-Aggression Axiom," irrationally attributing to it some form of a priori knowledge that is self-evident and doesn't need to be defended. This is weak mysticism. If you do not understand why the Non-Aggression Principle is logically correct, then don't pretend you really believe in it. To add insult to injury, they then misconstrue its full implications.


Axioms ARE usually indefensible ideas that need to be taken for granted, or else they'd just be justified by something else (and have an explanation, not an axiom)

[Josh_LA]

Anyone calling them selves an anarchist is asking to be associated with those property destroying scum. Learn to drop the habit. Non-archy is ftw. Anarchy is ftl. Try make the distinction, or fail uselessly in the esoteric agenda, which you get handicapped on in a debate because of the bullshit socialist baggage that is associated with it. Be smart.


And anybody who does not believe might makes right is imposing his will on other people and has no respect for freedom of thought. Anybody who does not believe in anarchism is a statist and socialist (just a matter to what degree). Anarchists like me don't believe in destroying property, unless you believe slavery is property worth protecting.




For those interested she thought humans were inherently good, I said both good and bad. I asked if she thought people would ever give up their property. She said she had doubts, lol..

Wow, you actually believe people are good and bad. Yet you call me an animal?

[Conza88]

And anybody who does not believe might makes right is imposing his will on other people and has no respect for freedom of thought. Anybody who does not believe in anarchism is a statist and socialist (just a matter to what degree). Anarchists like me don't believe in destroying property, unless you believe slavery is property worth protecting.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=176567


Wow, you actually believe people are good and bad. Yet you call me an animal?

It entirely depends on actions of the individual. You don't believe people can do bad, evil, immoral actions? And some can do good, pure ones? :rolleyes:

[Xenophage]

Axioms ARE usually indefensible ideas that need to be taken for granted, or else they'd just be justified by something else (and have an explanation, not an axiom)

Axioms are by DEFINITION DEFENSIBLE. They are UNDENIABLE.

[Xenophage]

Rothbard is not an anarchist. He's an anarcho-capitalist / non archist.

Try again. Actual references to what Rothbard said would actually help. Pity I don't see any forth coming. :rolleyes: And if you do, please keep it in context. ;)
Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'? by Murray Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html)

Fcken pwnd.

Edit: OH btw everyone, I was out last night.. good chats with this lady, anyway it eventually came out, she said she was a socialist. I smiled and then asked if she was a voluntary or coercive socialist. She ignored that and said she was an ANARCHIST.

Anyone calling them selves an anarchist is asking to be associated with those property destroying scum. Learn to drop the habit. Non-archy is ftw. Anarchy is ftl. Try make the distinction, or fail uselessly in the esoteric agenda, which you get handicapped on in a debate because of the bullshit socialist baggage that is associated with it. Be smart.

For those interested she thought humans were inherently good, I said both good and bad. I asked if she thought people would ever give up their property. She said she had doubts, lol..

And? Did you even read my post?

[Xenophage]

From: http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella15.html

My own post destroys this one. My argument against anarchy is not utilitarian. Its based on individual freedom and the NAP, both of which anarchy (or 'anarcho-capitalism') contradict.

[Xenophage]

There is no such thing as anarcho-capitalism except in your head. Calling yourself an anarcho-capitalist is like calling yourself a Socialist Libertarian. In the real world, you can either have anarchy, or you can have capitalism. Pick and choose.

[Conza88]

Axioms are by DEFINITION DEFENSIBLE. They are UNDENIABLE.

Yes. Josh is a complete tool who doesn't understand what self evident means.

The only reason he poses a bullshit definition of axiom is that he needs it to try justify to himself that his fallacious and illogical belief in 'Might makes right' is some how correct, when it's blatantly obvious it's not.


And? Did you even read my post?

I did. And it's FULL of strawman.

Did you read mine? Go back up your claims with references, you know - PROOF. And I'm talking about what you attribute to the "anarchists" / "anarcho-capitalists."


There is no such thing as anarcho-capitalism except in your head. Calling yourself an anarcho-capitalist is like calling yourself a Socialist Libertarian. In the real world, you can either have anarchy, or you can have capitalism. Pick and choose.

False dichotomy.

And I'll just through this in for fun: http://www.isil.org/ayn-rand/childs-open-letter.html

Btw, what value theory do you ascribe to? ;)

[Josh_LA]

Axioms are by DEFINITION DEFENSIBLE. They are UNDENIABLE.

WRONG, axioms are taken for granted either because they are well established (thus not axioms in the literal sense), or unbacked, true for its own sake (circular reasoning), it may violate its own rule (I am my own exception).

Axioms can be denied, just like I can deny the sun exists and murder is correct.

[Josh_LA]

There is no such thing as anarcho-capitalism except in your head. Calling yourself an anarcho-capitalist is like calling yourself a Socialist Libertarian. In the real world, you can either have anarchy, or you can have capitalism. Pick and choose.

I agree to a certain extent, but I disagree there are only 2 options.

However, it is true most people think in these dichotomies
private vs public
capitalist vs socialist
individual vs collective
voluntary vs involuntary
violent vs civil
anarchist vs statist
rule by mob vs rule by agreement (law)

[Josh_LA]

It entirely depends on actions of the individual. You don't believe people can do bad, evil, immoral actions? And some can do good, pure ones? :rolleyes:

Ok, thanks. Yes, I DO believe people can do evil, I just don't have a problem with it.

[Carole]

I would like to first apologize to those I lambasted over believing in anarchism. I was wrong. I am convinced no system of government work. None. Obama has spent over $36 billion a DAY since his inauguration and is asking for an additional $3.55 TRILLION in his budget request which includes $1 trillion tax increases. All of this is happening in a Republic, the supposed optimal form of government. Turns out the fallacy of "Taxation WITH representation" being a better alternative to oligarchical rape and pillage systems we used to live under. This shit Obama is doing would never have been dreamt of by Kings or Emperors...and it's happening right in front of us!!

If anything, a Republic is the worst form of government to live under. If Democracies are "tyrannies of the majority", then what the fuck are Republics? They're nothing more than tyrannies of the minority!! You have 435 members of congress + 1 president + 9 justices who all legislate, execute, and adjudicate for 300+ million??? A republic is an oligarchy!! Not only that but the false sense of "representation and freedom" is complete horseshit and is probably the only reason why our system is still standing. If we had an oligarchy, they would be thrown out on their asses a long time ago. Today, because we think the People have the power, we sit smug on our asses.

I'm sick of this shit.
I think our form of government could have been the best were it not for some creeping incremental policies that have overtaken it, such as:

Abandoning the Constitution
Federal Reserve
Lobbyists
Lack of term limits

[ArrestPoliticians]

I dont care what you call yourself, as long as come campaign-time you are suited up and ready to go. Just don't turn into a sniveling, lazy nihilist regarding the rEVOLution as anarchists are bound to do.

[Standing Like A Rock]

If anything, a Republic is the worst form of government to live under. If Democracies are "tyrannies of the majority", then what the fuck are Republics? They're nothing more than tyrannies of the minority!! You have 435 members of congress + 1 president + 9 justices who all legislate, execute, and adjudicate for 300+ million??? A republic is an oligarchy!! Not only that but the false sense of "representation and freedom" is complete horseshit and is probably the only reason why our system is still standing. If we had an oligarchy, they would be thrown out on their asses a long time ago. Today, because we think the People have the power, we sit smug on our asses.

I'm sick of this shit.


This is why a few months ago I said that even though ideally, a republic is better than a monarchy, a monarchy is actually better because if it ever gets too powerful, the people will revolt and abolish it, while if a republic gets too powerful, people don't do anything about it.

[Gosmokesome]

Hey I'm an anarcho-capitalist too! http://www.freedomainradio.com was what brought me from minarchism to anarchism.

And that one dude saying I can't have both anarchism and capitalism, wut? They're practically one and the same in my mind.

[Conza88]

I dont care what you call yourself, as long as come campaign-time you are suited up and ready to go. Just don't turn into a sniveling, lazy nihilist regarding the rEVOLution as anarchists are bound to do.

No that is what "liberals" do, or whatever the hell Kludge calls himself.

We're the exact opposite if by "anarchists" you mean Non-archists / anarcho-capitalists.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Just goes to show you and the Ancient Greeks are an example... Freedom and Liberties are so precious and ANY TYPE of GOVERNMENT will abuse and take advantage of the People.

The Income Tax, was all a scam to TAX the Wealthy Magnates now destroys the backbone of America attacking almost all classes.

The AMT Tax, another scheme sold on the people, to TAX only the Wealthy Philanthropists now destroys most of the middle classes.

Social Security, the people's retirement, used by government to make money, to borrow against, to manipulate Federal Debts/Deficits, to steal money from, and use as a collection Agency for people who are accused of owning Money, penalties, fines, and dues to government.

The Banksters, which the founding fathers warned us about and their puppets, government, will control and steal from the people. The PONZI/PYRAMID schemes for decades and the people have to pay for government collusion/conspiring for the two, to control and rule.

The Corporations, the other warning, of today's biggest receivers of entitlements through a maze of conjured fraud with government.

Never have the facts show the truth of Totalitarianism and Tyranny of this government, upon the People, Free Enterprise and the World.

Never have I been so disappointed, disgusted, aggravated, and pissed at the Citizens of this country for their Ignorance, Stupidity, and Programming.

At a very large dinner party yesterday, it's starting to sink in to even the most foolish left and right mouth that government and corporations have gone to far.

The horror now is... it may be to late. Government has their Oppressive Communist Stalin like militant ruling control, with the Fascist Nazi Propaganda, all backed to protect themselves and Wealth Dictators.

Yes, it's coming close for a Revolution in this country! Just be aware of the Black Stormtroopers.

These times are getting sickening.



I would like to first apologize to those I lambasted over believing in anarchism. I was wrong. I am convinced no system of government work. None. Obama has spent over $36 billion a DAY since his inauguration and is asking for an additional $3.55 TRILLION in his budget request which includes $1 trillion tax increases. All of this is happening in a Republic, the supposed optimal form of government. Turns out the fallacy of "Taxation WITH representation" being a better alternative to oligarchical rape and pillage systems we used to live under. This shit Obama is doing would never have been dreamt of by Kings or Emperors...and it's happening right in front of us!!

If anything, a Republic is the worst form of government to live under. If Democracies are "tyrannies of the majority", then what the fuck are Republics? They're nothing more than tyrannies of the minority!! You have 435 members of congress + 1 president + 9 justices who all legislate, execute, and adjudicate for 300+ million??? A republic is an oligarchy!! Not only that but the false sense of "representation and freedom" is complete horseshit and is probably the only reason why our system is still standing. If we had an oligarchy, they would be thrown out on their asses a long time ago. Today, because we think the People have the power, we sit smug on our asses.

I'm sick of this shit.

PS: Who was the guess band, when Jay Leno had Ron Paul on? A video clip of that performance would be great right here!

[danberkeley]

Sigh. I'm inclined to put my 2 cents in, yet again.

Anarchists like Murray Rothbard are keen to take Ayn Rand's Non-Aggression Principle and turn it into what they call the "Non-Aggression Axiom," irrationally attributing to it some form of a priori knowledge that is self-evident and doesn't need to be defended. This is weak mysticism. If you do not understand why the Non-Aggression Principle is logically correct, then don't pretend you really believe in it. To add insult to injury, they then misconstrue its full implications.

The Non-Aggression Principle states, per Ayn Rand: "It is immoral to initiate or threaten to initiate any form of coercive force against another individual."

If you fully examine this statement, you will realize that it does not say all coercive force is immoral. Only the initiation of coercive force. An act of coercion in self-defense is perfectly rational. An act of coercion in defense of someone else can also be perfectly rational, provided that this is a person who warrants your defense (i.e. he is not himself an aggressor).

Ultimately, the NAP relates to ethical behavior in a society. It is completely irrelevant outside of a societal context. When there are two people on an island, this does not constitute a society. Therefore the NAP does not dictate universal morality. To understand why this is, you would have to understand why the NAP is important: the NAP is important because it is essential a rational person's value of living within a society where he and everyone around him is free to engage in the fullest and most unhindered use of his faculties, including both his mind and body. The resulting social condition is called capitalism. It is a system whereby people engage each other in the free trade of values, rather than in violence. It is under this system that productivity and, consequently, life and happiness, flourish best.

To achieve the application of the NAP throughout a society, there must be a mechanism in place to discourage the natural tendency of humans to resolve disputes using violence. If you disagree that humans tend to engage in violence against one another, that's another discussion. In absence of SOME mechanism, capitalism cannot exist. Obviously this mechanism cannot itself violate the NAP. The mechanism therefore has to be objective and strictly defined. You cannot have it apply retaliatory force in some cases, and in others not. To be just, it cannot be biased.

The anarchist claims that all governments are tyrannical. They claim this because any violation of the Non-Aggression Principle equates to tyranny, and all governments must violate the NAP in order to be governments. But when the law is confined only to a defensive role, when government acts only as an agent of retaliatory force, where is the NAP violated? It is not. In fact, it is impossible for a government so constrained to violate the NAP.

Then the anarchists claim, "But such a government has to maintain a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force." This silly statement is intended to imply that government is bad because competition in a free market is good. The statement fails to recognize that free market competition is the result of the ensuing social order under a proper government. Free market competition cannot exist in absence of a universal, objective mechanism of retaliatory force to protect property rights, so there should be no fantasy of engaging in "free market competition" in the absence of government. Since the term "monopoly" only makes sense in contrast to the natural state of free-market competition, it is contradictory to call the source of free-market competition a "monopoly." That is akin to saying there is a monopoly of free-markets!

The anarchist also says that all governments tend toward tyranny throughout history, and as a result of this historical precedent we learn that government is always evil. Even the least tyrannical government in all of history, the United States in the late 18th and early 19th century, ultimately became the monstrosity we have today. This is all true, but if you are going to say that history proves non-tyrannical government is impossible and this makes a case for no-government, then you must apply your historical analysis to anarchy as well. When, in all of history, has anarchy ever lead to unadulterated capitalism? Always has it led to tyranny! Therefore we have two opposing historical political states: one of anarchy, and one of government. The former has never led to capitalism, but the latter has. Upon which side of history should the capitalist be?

The term "anarcho-capitalism" is a complete contradiction.

Actually, I think wikipedia destroyed the entire basis for your argument.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_axiom
"Murray Rothbard derived the principle from self-ownership. Ayn Rand derived it from the right to life."

[RedStripe]

Anyone else here read up on some mutualism? I'm leaning that way more and more....

Left-libertarian anarchy has it's good points.

[Xenophage]

Actually, I think wikipedia destroyed the entire basis for your argument.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_axiom
"Murray Rothbard derived the principle from self-ownership. Ayn Rand derived it from the right to life."

LOL!

What the hell is the difference, exactly? Bear in mind Rothbardianism and Objectivism are 99.8% in agreement on everything.

Ok, so Rothbard has a basis for the NAP and its based on self-ownership and Lockean property rights. I get that, that's fine, I shouldn't have used his name. What I should have said instead is "most libertarians," or "most anarcho-capitalists." The NAP is the basic "axiom" of libertarianism - libertarianism doesn't specify how you arrive at the NAP, just that its there and its valid. That means you can be a libertarian who is a Rothbardian, a Randian, a Christian Conservative, or whatever. Libertarianism is essentially amoral. It is just a political philosophy. It starts with a basic moral principle, but that principle is not specifically derived from any other moral argument or understanding, and it is not founded upon any sort of epistemology. The basic PROBLEM is that many people accept the NAP unquestioningly in the manner that I described, and I run into this mostly when I speak to anarcho-capitalists. I believe that the NAP is valid, but I do not believe it is being correctly interpreted or applied by many libertarians.

Regardless, that wasn't the basic PREMISE of my argument, it was merely the first thing I brought up in my post. Posts on here are not essays for me, more train-of-thought. The basic PREMISE of my argument was missed: that is, that government makes possible capitalism, and that you cannot have anarchy AND capitalism.

[danberkeley]

LOL!

What the hell is the difference, exactly?

Ask whoever edited that Wiki entry.
But since you asked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_life
EDIT: The point is that Wiki contradicts your statement that Rothbard took the NAP/NAA from Rand.

[Xenophage]

Ask whoever edited that Wiki entry.
But since you asked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_life
EDIT: The point is that Wiki contradicts your statement that Rothbard took the NAP/NAA from Rand.

The right to life and the principle of self-ownership are intertwined. You could not have one without implying the other.

Rothbard spent a great deal of his time around Rand before he "came out" so to speak. I believe his first introduction to the NAP, formalized AS the "non-aggression principle" rather than just some vague idea, was with Objectivism. Its an older idea, for SURE - Jefferson espoused it, Bastiat espoused it, Locke espoused. But it hadn't been called the NAP. It hadn't been formally constructed.

[Mini-Me]

The right to life and the principle of self-ownership are intertwined. You could not have one without implying the other.

That's true if we first assume a libertarian perspective, but from a collectivist's perspective, the phrase "right to life" can be twisted to mean the "right to be supported by everyone else, who are all obligated to keep you alive by feeding you and protecting you from all harm, never allowing death to befall you...oh, and you have no other rights, because we need to cage you like an animal to keep you safe." Obviously, such a twisted socialist interpretation of the right to life implies collective rights only, to the exclusion of individual rights...well, either that or the lopsided notion that "some" individuals have rights that are not reciprocal, because they require unequal individual rights and responsibilities among human beings. In any case, the collectivist interpretation of the "right to life" is entirely incompatible with other people's self-ownership. The fundamental difference here is that from the perspective that leads to collectivism, someone's "right to life" can be violated by nature itself, and every other human is guilty for letting it happen. From the libertarian perspective, someone's right to life is only violated when another human being takes their life.

That's why the principle of self-ownership - and the language used - is a more precise building block for the NAP and libertarian principles in general. After all, from a libertarian perspective, the right to life itself derives from the principle of self-ownership, and it basically means the right to not have your life taken away from you by someone else (because your life is yours, not theirs).

Anyway, just wanted to throw my two cents in there... ;)


Rothbard spent a great deal of his time around Rand before he "came out" so to speak. I believe his first introduction to the NAP, formalized AS the "non-aggression principle" rather than just some vague idea, was with Objectivism. Its an older idea, for SURE - Jefferson espoused it, Bastiat espoused it, Locke espoused. But it hadn't been called the NAP. It hadn't been formally constructed.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

While it's good to see another join the ranks, you're missing something here. If all that's driven you to anarchism is Obama making one blunder, then the framework is still there for you to be roped back into statism.

You can run around quoting statistics and history all day long, but all that does is reinforce the notion that the statist has a leg to stand on to begin with. It's as silly, masochistic, and destructive as allowing a creationist into a scientific debate.

It's important to solidify yourself with the understanding that the existence of a government is fundamentally immoral, and philosophically self-detonating.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/72/molyneux/molyneux4.html

[Xenophage]

That's true if we first assume a libertarian perspective, but from a collectivist's perspective, the phrase "right to life" can be twisted to mean the "right to be supported by everyone else, who are all obligated to keep you alive by feeding you and protecting you from all harm, never allowing death to befall you...oh, and you have no other rights, because we need to cage you like an animal to keep you safe." Obviously, such a twisted socialist interpretation of the right to life implies collective rights only, to the exclusion of individual rights...well, either that or the lopsided notion that "some" individuals have rights that are not reciprocal, because they require unequal individual rights and responsibilities among human beings. In any case, the collectivist interpretation of the "right to life" is entirely incompatible with other people's self-ownership. The fundamental difference here is that from the perspective that leads to collectivism, someone's "right to life" can be violated by nature itself, and every other human is guilty for letting it happen. From the libertarian perspective, someone's right to life is only violated when another human being takes their life.

That's why the principle of self-ownership - and the language used - is a more precise building block for the NAP and libertarian principles in general. After all, from a libertarian perspective, the right to life itself derives from the principle of self-ownership, and it basically means the right to not have your life taken away from you by someone else (because your life is yours, not theirs).

Anyway, just wanted to throw my two cents in there... ;)

You're partially right, but I think everyone involved in this discussion is of the opinion that rights are individual, not collective.

I say "partially" because I think that a "right to life" would be a misnomer for an entirely different idea, if you came at it from a collectivist point of view. We all generally agree on a definition of what a right is around here, and I think its important not to put up with the word being hijacked. A right by definition cannot be collective. From my standpoint, a right is a moral principle, and morality only pertains to living creatures that can make choices and place value. For some others on here, a right is by definition a property of an individual because they are granted by God, or because of our status as self-owned (and a collective cannot own itself).

Regardless of how we come to the conclusion that rights are individual, we should be quick to shut down the collectivists in asserting that there is any such thing as a collective right. Obviously a collective right would contradict an individual right. If the human race had a "right to life" then no individual human would have a right to their own life. It would be OK to sacrifice one for the many.

[danberkeley]

Xeno, so in reality your beef with anarcho-capitalism is with the term itself, not the it describes? You believe "anarcho-capitalism" is a misnomer for whatever it is it stands for?

[Xenophage]

Xeno, so in reality your beef with anarcho-capitalism is with the term itself, not the it describes? You believe "anarcho-capitalism" is a misnomer for whatever it is it stands for?

No, no no.

I'm saying that it can't exist. Is a square triangle a misnomer? Its a contradiction in terms. Anarchy and Capitalism are opposing states of society. Capitalism should be the goal, or if not, at least the elimination of coercion should be the goal (capitalism is a product of this). I'm saying that the law does not need to be proactive, merely reactive. There is no way in which a government, enforcing only laws to punish those who would infringe upon life, liberty and property, can be a coercive government. It becomes coercive when it assumes other powers (and this is always a threat, but even an anarchy does not eliminate the threat of coercive collective groups - in fact it encourages them). And there has to be only ONE ultimate law. The law has to unequivocal, and it has to supersede any private mediation, any private security force: that the infringement upon someone's rights will be punished.

Ultimately, any anarcho-capitalist recognizes that somehow or other the rights to life, liberty and property have to respected in order for an anarcho-capitalist society to function and to achieve the intended result of unfettered capitalism. This means that the society has to voluntarily agree to a code of morality that historically the human race has always been opposed to. Humans like to commit violence against one another.

The anarcho-capitalist will say, "But that defeats your argument. Any government simply attracts the worst of a society and any government simply operates by means of force." The difference is in the application of force, and the misunderstanding is that all force is evil. Even the most ardent anarcho-capitalist believes strongly in the use of defensive, retaliatory force. Ultimately, only the application of retaliatory force can ensure the protection of human rights because humans tend to want to oppress one another.

The question becomes: how is the force applied? How are the weak supposed to match the force of the mighty? In an anarcho-capitalist scenario, the weak sign up with a protection agency, or they have their family help them, or a community of good Samaritans steps in to help. Is this practical for the low wage earner, for the orphaned, for the isolated homesteader? The other problem is that you assume the aggressor doesn't also have his own group of thugs who have a different interpretation of what a 'right' is, or who owns what. You're also assuming that there are no crimes of passion. Everything is NOT dispute resolution. Sometimes murderers just like to kill people. Who is going to retaliate against the murder of the widowed old lady who didn't sign a protection contract because she trusted her dog better than any organization? Maybe someone will, maybe they won't. Maybe their act of retaliation will be construed as an act of aggression by another security force. What is justice? This non-uniform, confusing application of justice will ultimately lead only to tyranny and rival turf warfare.

Now, I don't support taxes. When a society is formed under the pretense of a universal, objectively-defined application of retaliatory force against rights-infringers, it TOO has to be voluntary. The difference is that you are setting up the game plan. You are saying, in advance of engaging in any social cooperation with other humans: we will respect one another's rights, and if anyone doesn't, this voluntarily funded government will retaliate against them. Justice will be served. A constitution is necessary, but the ultimate protector of the rights of the individual will come from the individuals themselves, no matter what. If the society turns overwhelmingly collectivist, there is no preexisting social condition that will prevent tyranny from unfolding.

A minarchist constitutional republic doesn't preclude private courts or private security forces. It simply places, above them hierarchically, a standard understanding of human rights and an ultimate source of justice and a higher court. A law. If a private security force never commits an act of aggression, if it only acts in a retaliatory fashion, it can't be said to be in 'competition' with the police, who's sole purpose is retaliation.

If you want to argue about how to fund such a government, we can do that too.

[Conza88]

I'm saying that it can't exist. Is a square triangle a misnomer? Its a contradiction in terms. Anarchy and Capitalism are opposing states of society. Capitalism should be the goal, or if not, at least the elimination of coercion should be the goal (capitalism is a product of this). I'm saying that the law does not need to be proactive, merely reactive. There is no way in which a government, enforcing only laws to punish those who would infringe upon life, liberty and property, can be a coercive government. It becomes coercive when it assumes other powers (and this is always a threat, but even an anarchy does not eliminate the threat of coercive collective groups - in fact it encourages them). And there has to be only ONE ultimate law.

You're a statist. Why should the state have a monopoly on justice? A monopoly on violence? Why can't the free market deal with it? Do you know anything about PDA's?

Natural Law. Ever heard of it? Murray Rothbard actually addresses your concern. I'll try find it. Best start here. You've never read it, maybe you should.

Chapter 12: The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts (http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp#p215)

There is also an audiobook.


The law has to unequivocal, and it has to supersede any private mediation, any private security force: that the infringement upon someone's rights will be punished.

Why? That is EXACTLY what happens now. The victim has no choice in the matter. They may choose to not prosecute, they may think the offender has learnt their lesson. At the moment, the State doesn't care. They will throw the offender in jail where the VICTIM is FURTHER PUNISHED by having to pay for his incarceration. The taxpayer foots the bill.

Where's the justice? :rolleyes:


Ultimately, any anarcho-capitalist recognizes that somehow or other the rights to life, liberty and property have to respected in order for an anarcho-capitalist society to function and to achieve the intended result of unfettered capitalism. This means that the society has to voluntarily agree to a code of morality that historically the human race has always been opposed to. Humans like to commit violence against one another.

Humans seem pretty well set on agreeing on private property. The only way they'll ever give it up is through violence and force being bestowed upon them.

That's the problem the ANARCHISTS (traditional SOCIALISTS) have. They hate the State for they think it PROTECTS property. LMFAO. :rolleyes: Apparently, you do do. :confused:


The anarcho-capitalist will say, "But that defeats your argument. Any government simply attracts the worst of a society and any government simply operates by means of force." The difference is in the application of force, and the misunderstanding is that all force is evil. Even the most ardent anarcho-capitalist believes strongly in the use of defensive, retaliatory force. Ultimately, only the application of retaliatory force can ensure the protection of human rights because humans tend to want to oppress one another.

You support coercion in the establishment / maintenance of that government. PDA's will do the job.

"because humans tend to want to oppress one another." Collectivist. A lot of people want to be left the fck alone. Pretty much all here are evidence of it.


The question becomes: how is the force applied? How are the weak supposed to match the force of the mighty? In an anarcho-capitalist scenario, the weak sign up with a protection agency, or they have their family help them, or a community of good Samaritans steps in to help. Is this practical for the low wage earner, for the orphaned, for the isolated homesteader?

No, they get insurance. And how hard is it going to be to pay, when there are no taxes? DURRRRRRR. And if you CAN'T pay that minimal fee (MASSIVE competition in the market place) you OBVIOUSLY have NO PROPERTY TO PROTECT.

And wtf are you talking about? How do individuals protect themselves now? Ever heard of the second amendment? :confused:


The other problem is that you assume the aggressor doesn't also have his own group of thugs who have a different interpretation of what a 'right' is, or who owns what. You're also assuming that there are no crimes of passion. Everything is NOT dispute resolution. Sometimes murderers just like to kill people. Who is going to retaliate against the murder of the widowed old lady who didn't sign a protection contract because she trusted her dog better than any organization? Maybe someone will, maybe they won't. Maybe their act of retaliation will be construed as an act of aggression by another security force. What is justice? This non-uniform, confusing application of justice will ultimately lead only to tyranny and rival turf warfare.

Strawman.


Now, I don't support taxes. When a society is formed under the pretense of a universal, objectively-defined application of retaliatory force against rights-infringers, it TOO has to be voluntary. The difference is that you are setting up the game plan. You are saying, in advance of engaging in any social cooperation with other humans: we will respect one another's rights, and if anyone doesn't, this voluntarily funded government will retaliate against them. Justice will be served. A constitution is necessary, but the ultimate protector of the rights of the individual will come from the individuals themselves, no matter what. If the society turns overwhelmingly collectivist, there is no preexisting social condition that will prevent tyranny from unfolding.


Ohh ok, you don't support theft of property. You just support an institution that historically has never remain limited and will inevitably, due to some crisis, like a war, NEED money to DEFEND everyone, so they implement the state, for the greater good. :rolleyes: @ bold -No we're not.


A minarchist constitutional republic doesn't preclude private courts or private security forces. It simply places, above them hierarchically, a standard understanding of human rights and an ultimate source of justice and a higher court. A law. If a private security force never commits an act of aggression, if it only acts in a retaliatory fashion, it can't be said to be in 'competition' with the police, who's sole purpose is retaliation.

If you want to argue about how to fund such a government, we can do that too.

Wtf was the US back in the day? Practically a minarchist Constitutional Republic. Wth you on about. :rolleyes:

If you need the State, Monarchy > Republic. I suggest you read Hoppe's; Democracy the God that Failed. Or listen to the short interview, or lecture.

By the way, I asked and I don't think I got a response.

What theory of value do you subscribe too?

[Minarchy4Sale]

awesome. Welcome to being part of the problem. The answer to 1984 is 1776, not 476.

[Conza88]

awesome. Welcome to being part of the problem. The answer to 1984 is 1776, not 476.

Consider the universal status of the ethic of liberty, and of the natural right of person and property that obtains under such an ethic.

For every person, at any time or place, can be covered by the basic rules:
• ownership of one's own self,
• ownership of the previously unused resources which one has occupied and transformed; and
• ownership of all titles derived from that basic ownership —either through voluntary exchanges or voluntary gifts.

These rules —which we might call the “rules of natural ownership”— can clearly be applied, and such ownership defended, regardless of the time or place, and regardless of the economic attainments of the society. It is impossible for any other social system to qualify as universal natural law; for if there is any coercive rule by one person or group over another (and all rule partakes of such hegemony), then it is impossible to apply the same rule for all; only a rulerless, purely libertarian world can fulfill the qualifications of natural rights and natural law, or, more important, can fulfill the conditions of a universal ethic for all mankind.

—Murray Newton Rothbard
in The Ethics of Liberty

[Xenophage]

You're a statist. Why should the state have a monopoly on justice? A monopoly on violence? Why can't the free market deal with it? Do you know anything about PDA's?

Natural Law. Ever heard of it? Murray Rothbard actually addresses your concern. I'll try find it. Best start here. You've never read it, maybe you should.

Chapter 12: The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts (http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp#p215)

There is also an audiobook.



Why? That is EXACTLY what happens now. The victim has no choice in the matter. They may choose to not prosecute, they may think the offender has learnt their lesson. At the moment, the State doesn't care. They will throw the offender in jail where the VICTIM is FURTHER PUNISHED by having to pay for his incarceration. The taxpayer foots the bill.

Where's the justice? :rolleyes:



Humans seem pretty well set on agreeing on private property. The only way they'll ever give it up is through violence and force being bestowed upon them.

That's the problem the ANARCHISTS (traditional SOCIALISTS) have. They hate the State for they think it PROTECTS property. LMFAO. :rolleyes: Apparently, you do do. :confused:



You support coercion in the establishment / maintenance of that government. PDA's will do the job.

"because humans tend to want to oppress one another." Collectivist. A lot of people want to be left the fck alone. Pretty much all here are evidence of it.



No, they get insurance. And how hard is it going to be to pay, when there are no taxes? DURRRRRRR. And if you CAN'T pay that minimal fee (MASSIVE competition in the market place) you OBVIOUSLY have NO PROPERTY TO PROTECT.

And wtf are you talking about? How do individuals protect themselves now? Ever heard of the second amendment? :confused:



Strawman.



Ohh ok, you don't support theft of property. You just support an institution that historically has never remain limited and will inevitably, due to some crisis, like a war, NEED money to DEFEND everyone, so they implement the state, for the greater good. :rolleyes: @ bold -No we're not.



Wtf was the US back in the day? Practically a minarchist Constitutional Republic. Wth you on about. :rolleyes:

If you need the State, Monarchy > Republic. I suggest you read Hoppe's; Democracy the God that Failed. Or listen to the short interview, or lecture.

By the way, I asked and I don't think I got a response.

What theory of value do you subscribe too?

Despite your constant eye-rolling, you have a lot of good responses which I'll get to later when I have more time. And I read the link you provided.

I just want to answer the last question right now. Value is a concept that directly relates to free will. If you don't think we have free will, the idea of value is meaningless. I believe we have free will, but that's another discussion.

My ultimate value and the source of all of my other values is my own happiness. Happiness is an emotional state that some highly evolved biological organisms exhibit, and it serves to further propagate a species by providing valuable feedback to the organism. It is of no consequence to me that happiness serves to propagate a species. Its enough to say that it exists and the ability to experience happiness is my ultimate motivator. In humans, happiness is achieved and manifested in all sorts of complicated ways.

But the essential thing about happiness is that, in order to experience it, you must be alive. Therefore my own life is of tremendous value to me as well.

From these two base values, life and happiness, I postulate all the rest. Without getting to why, I also value reason, independence, productive achievement, human rights, intelligence, good conversation, coffee, Star Trek, and other things. The more fundamental of these I have thought out and can directly relate back to my primary values of life and happiness.

Now, if you're talking about value in an economic sense, ala "labor theory" etc, I believe that the value of anything is an individual consideration that is relevant both to the producer and the consumer, and it is up to them to determine what something is worth. Scarcity is the best indicator of the value of something. Supply and demand.

[Minarchy4Sale]

Consider the universal status of the ethic of liberty, and of the natural right of person and property that obtains under such an ethic.

For every person, at any time or place, can be covered by the basic rules:
• ownership of one's own self,
• ownership of the previously unused resources which one has occupied and transformed; and
• ownership of all titles derived from that basic ownership —either through voluntary exchanges or voluntary gifts.

These rules —which we might call the “rules of natural ownership”— can clearly be applied, and such ownership defended, regardless of the time or place, and regardless of the economic attainments of the society. It is impossible for any other social system to qualify as universal natural law; for if there is any coercive rule by one person or group over another (and all rule partakes of such hegemony), then it is impossible to apply the same rule for all; only a rulerless, purely libertarian world can fulfill the qualifications of natural rights and natural law, or, more important, can fulfill the conditions of a universal ethic for all mankind.

—Murray Newton Rothbard
in The Ethics of Liberty

Never. going. to. happen. You guys live in a fairy tale. An Ancap North America wouldnt last 5 minutes before it was divided up by anyone who could scrape together reasonable military forces.

Human beings are tribal animals. The only way to maintain individual ownership is through just enough collective action to make it sufficiently expensive for outsiders to take it, that it is no longer worthwhile to try. This cannot be done through anarchy. Which of course is why anarchy has never worked long enough for anyone to live in appreciable liberty due to it.

[Gosmokesome]

Never. going. to. happen. You guys live in a fairy tale. An Ancap North America wouldnt last 5 minutes before it was divided up by anyone who could scrape together reasonable military forces.

Human beings are tribal animals. The only way to maintain individual ownership is through just enough collective action to make it sufficiently expensive for outsiders to take it, that it is no longer worthwhile to try. This cannot be done through anarchy. Which of course is why anarchy has never worked long enough for anyone to live in appreciable liberty due to it.

The only way for me to maintain my property is to have it stolen from me by people to protect my property? Who are these 'outsiders' (mexicans?) that want to take my stuff and why should I be more afraid of them than the people who actually take me stuff to protect me from these outsiders? And why do you claim anarchy doesn't work? It's working right now, right here on this board. Noone is forcing anyone here to post or reply, all of are here not by coercion but of free will. Anarchy works.

[Minarchy4Sale]

The only way for me to maintain my property is to have it stolen from me by people to protect my property? Who are these 'outsiders' (mexicans?) that want to take my stuff and why should I be more afraid of them than the people who actually take me stuff to protect me from these outsiders? And why do you claim anarchy doesn't work? It's working right now, right here on this board. Noone is forcing anyone here to post or reply, all of are here not by coercion but of free will. Anarchy works.

No. It doesnt. It never has. It never will. Why? Because you have to sleep, and even if you have friends who will work with you, until you reach a critical mass of those friends, you will be run over roughshod by the next group stronger than you, who dont have to be nice to each other to cooperate.

If your 'voluntary' group gets big enough to fend off 'evil' collectivists, the diversity inherent in a group that size will require rules and divisions of labor or it will devolve, and then you will be vulnerable to being killed again.

Anarchy is an illusion.

edit: This board is not an 'anarchy'. It is a private system with rules which exists inside a system PROTECTED BY A GOVERNMENT.

[Conza88]

Despite your constant eye-rolling, you have a lot of good responses which I'll get to later when I have more time. And I read the link you provided.

:o Well, thanks for reading the link.

Here is the Literature on "Law" from LvMI (http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=subject&ID=122)

In particular:
- The Discovery of Law in a Free Society by N. Stephan Kinsella (http://mises.org/journals/jls/11_2/11_2_5.pdf)
- Anarchism and the Public Goods Issue: Law, Courts, and the Police by David Osterfeld (http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_3.pdf)
- Enforcement of Private Property Rights in Primitive Societies: Law without Government by Bruce L. Benson (http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_1.pdf)
- Justice Entrepreneurship In a Free Market* by George H. Smith (http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_4/3_4_4.pdf)
- Order Without Law: Where Will Anarchists Keep the MadMen? by John D. Sneed (http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_2/1_2_7.pdf)
- The "Right" to a Fair Trial by Patrick Grim (http://mises.org/journals/jls/2_2/2_2_3.pdf)
- The Role of Personal Justice in Anarcho-Capitalism by Karl T. Fielding (http://mises.org/journals/jls/2_3/2_3_5.pdf)


I just want to answer the last question right now. Value is a concept that directly relates to free will. If you don't think we have free will, the idea of value is meaningless. I believe we have free will, but that's another discussion.

My ultimate value and the source of all of my other values is my own happiness. Happiness is an emotional state that some highly evolved biological organisms exhibit, and it serves to further propagate a species by providing valuable feedback to the organism. It is of no consequence to me that happiness serves to propagate a species. Its enough to say that it exists and the ability to experience happiness is my ultimate motivator. In humans, happiness is achieved and manifested in all sorts of complicated ways.

But the essential thing about happiness is that, in order to experience it, you must be alive. Therefore my own life is of tremendous value to me as well.

From these two base values, life and happiness, I postulate all the rest. Without getting to why, I also value reason, independence, productive achievement, human rights, intelligence, good conversation, coffee, Star Trek, and other things. The more fundamental of these I have thought out and can directly relate back to my primary values of life and happiness.

Ok, so self interest I guess?


Now, if you're talking about value in an economic sense, ala "labor theory" etc, I believe that the value of anything is an individual consideration that is relevant both to the producer and the consumer, and it is up to them to determine what something is worth. Scarcity is the best indicator of the value of something. Supply and demand.

I was. Ah good, you subscribe to the SUBJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE. :)

[Conza88]

Never. going. to. happen. You guys live in a fairy tale. An Ancap North America wouldnt last 5 minutes before it was divided up by anyone who could scrape together reasonable military forces.

Fairy tale? You mean like Utopian? Negative. The pinko's require a change in Human nature. All we need is to convince people it's in their self interest. Then the deck of cards collapses. The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude by Etienne de la Boetie (pdf) (http://mises.org/rothbard/boetie.pdf)(audio) (http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=116)

The Anarchist Society vs. the Military State: The Insignificance of the Free Rider by Vedrun Vuk (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/Vuk.mp3)

Private Defense: Now More Than Ever by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/RadicalScholarship/SS-Hoppe.mp3)


Human beings are tribal animals. The only way to maintain individual ownership is through just enough collective action to make it sufficiently expensive for outsiders to take it, that it is no longer worthwhile to try. This cannot be done through anarchy. Which of course is why anarchy has never worked long enough for anyone to live in appreciable liberty due to it.

If by "anarchy" you mean "non-archy" or "anarcho-capitalism":


“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” ~ Herbert Spencer

[Minarchy4Sale]

Fairy tale? You mean like Utopian? Negative. The pinko's require a change in Human nature. All we need is to convince people it's in their self interest. Then the deck of cards collapses. The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude by Etienne de la Boetie (pdf) (http://mises.org/rothbard/boetie.pdf)(audio) (http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=116)

The Anarchist Society vs. the Military State: The Insignificance of the Free Rider by Vedrun Vuk (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/Vuk.mp3)

Private Defense: Now More Than Ever by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/RadicalScholarship/SS-Hoppe.mp3)

You can throw writings out all day long. It doesnt change the fact that Anarchy doesnt work for the same reason that Socialism doesn't work. It simply does not take into consideration human nature. It also fails to realize that the self ownership doctrine does not apply to the earth. Even if you COULD get EVERYONE to agree that all people own THEMSELVES, there is no way to solve the issue of limited physical resources without a system of artificial property rights, otherwise known as law, that cannot exist in a vacuum.


If by "anarchy" you mean "non-archy" or "anarcho-capitalism":


“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” ~ Herbert Spencer

You only differ from post-communists in that you refuse to admit that anarchy has been tried, instead of insisting that it just hasnt been tried by the right people. Humans love power far to much for anarchy to be more than a temporary state between rulers. The question is what kind of rulers will there be? How many will there be? Will they compete with each other? Will they have incentives to protect liberty, or incentives to seek personal gain, etc.?

[danberkeley]

And minarchy doesnt work either. :rolleyes:

[eOs]

In the real world it WOULD work and be BETTER. Nationalizing security and protection are no different than nationalizing anything else, there will always be more corruption, less quality service, and far less efficiency. The main problem with anarchy is that the vast majority of people from day 1 in school are taught the values of having a government, and there is no voice for the values of anarchy.

The police are NO DIFFERENT than a mafia, other than being far more powerful. They hold a MONOPOLY on force and they use FORCE to maintain it.

If you are robbed in a free society, would be able to choose who to best use to recover your goods or even do it yourself. In a state society, the police will insist you use them and if you use someone else and they find out, they will use force against you. That is NO DIFFERENT than any organized crime. It is NO DIFFERENT than the mob threatening a shop keeper to pay protection services or they'll break all his windows. Our protection money is simply called "taxes".

Not for everyone it wouldn't. Not everyone has time to not only protect themsevles, but to protect the old people that live on their street too. It's too unrealistic, and you aren't looking at all the variables. And who said anything about nationalizing police.

So tell me, who's going to protect the people that truly cannot protect themselves? Or let me put it this way, since this whole theory revolves around *Me* and *I*. Who's going to protect you when you're 95 years old and someone come's in with a gun to steal all of your wealth? Looks like the entire society would have to shift into sticking extremely close to their family members. No more moving to California without Grandpop.

[Kraig]

Not for everyone it wouldn't. Not everyone has time to not only protect themsevles, but to protect the old people that live on their street too. It's too unrealistic, and you aren't looking at all the variables. And who said anything about nationalizing police.

So tell me, who's going to protect the people that truly cannot protect themselves? Or let me put it this way, since this whole theory revolves around *Me* and *I*. Who's going to protect you when you're 95 years old and someone come's in with a gun to steal all of your wealth? Looks like the entire society would have to shift into sticking extremely close to their family members. No more moving to California without Grandpop.

Better for those who earn it, better for mankind overall. In the same way that capitalism is better than socialism for those who work. :)

The police already are "nationalized". I was pointing that out because most of us here strictly oppose nationalization, except when it goes in reverse.

So you are going to tax someone else and use force to make sure they pay to take care of your loved ones? How is it "ok" to do that for physical protection, but wrong for financial protection?

Who's going to protect your 95 year old grandpop from a bad retirement that leads to poverty? The SS administration? lol

[RevolutionSD]

I would like to first apologize to those I lambasted over believing in anarchism. I was wrong. I am convinced no system of government work. None. Obama has spent over $36 billion a DAY since his inauguration and is asking for an additional $3.55 TRILLION in his budget request which includes $1 trillion tax increases. All of this is happening in a Republic, the supposed optimal form of government. Turns out the fallacy of "Taxation WITH representation" being a better alternative to oligarchical rape and pillage systems we used to live under. This shit Obama is doing would never have been dreamt of by Kings or Emperors...and it's happening right in front of us!!

If anything, a Republic is the worst form of government to live under. If Democracies are "tyrannies of the majority", then what the fuck are Republics? They're nothing more than tyrannies of the minority!! You have 435 members of congress + 1 president + 9 justices who all legislate, execute, and adjudicate for 300+ million??? A republic is an oligarchy!! Not only that but the false sense of "representation and freedom" is complete horseshit and is probably the only reason why our system is still standing. If we had an oligarchy, they would be thrown out on their asses a long time ago. Today, because we think the People have the power, we sit smug on our asses.

I'm sick of this shit.

GREAT post!!

Welcome to the movement of TRUE FREEDOM!

A monarchy would actually be BETTER than a republic or democracy (not that a monarchy is good). In a monarchy, there is no ILLUSION that we actually rule ourselves, there is a king or queen that is clearly ruling over everyone else.

[Theocrat]

I would like to first apologize to those I lambasted over believing in anarchism. I was wrong. I am convinced no system of government work. None. Obama has spent over $36 billion a DAY since his inauguration and is asking for an additional $3.55 TRILLION in his budget request which includes $1 trillion tax increases. All of this is happening in a Republic, the supposed optimal form of government. Turns out the fallacy of "Taxation WITH representation" being a better alternative to oligarchical rape and pillage systems we used to live under. This shit Obama is doing would never have been dreamt of by Kings or Emperors...and it's happening right in front of us!!

If anything, a Republic is the worst form of government to live under. If Democracies are "tyrannies of the majority", then what the fuck are Republics? They're nothing more than tyrannies of the minority!! You have 435 members of congress + 1 president + 9 justices who all legislate, execute, and adjudicate for 300+ million??? A republic is an oligarchy!! Not only that but the false sense of "representation and freedom" is complete horseshit and is probably the only reason why our system is still standing. If we had an oligarchy, they would be thrown out on their asses a long time ago. Today, because we think the People have the power, we sit smug on our asses.

I'm sick of this shit.

A republic only works to the benefit of everyone when the public officials and the people who elect them are moral. Today, our American culture is immoral, and this can be seen everywhere around us. Thanks to the curriculum of our school system, we now are training generations of kids who do not believe in any moral absolutes. We have older generations who have squandered our nation's future on empty promises and printing presses. We work daily to remove God from every single institution we can get our hands on (thanks to organizations like the ACLU). Is it any wonder our republic is failing? Surely, we need to recall the wise words of John Adams when he stated,


[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

If we don't understand that, then our republic will continue to crumble until it's an ash heap.

By the way, if you think anarchy is the best way to live, then I suggest you move to Somalia and take your chances there. Good luck, and be sure you bring a gun with you. :)

[Brian4Liberty]

Wow, another Rothtard (Anarchist) vs. Paultard (Minarchist) debate... :rolleyes:

[danberkeley]

Wow, another Rothtard (Anarchist) vs. Paultard (Minarchist) debate... :rolleyes:

Except Xeno is a Randtard (Randian). :D

[Brian4Liberty]

Except Xeno is a Randtard (Randian).

In that case, he can be on either side. They can rationalize anything... ;)

[heavenlyboy34]

In that case, he can be on either side. They can rationalize anything... ;)

lol!!! ;)

[RevolutionSD]

A republic only works to the benefit of everyone when the public officials and the people who elect them are moral. Today, our American culture is immoral, and this can be seen everywhere around us. Thanks to the curriculum of our school system, we now are training generations of kids who do not believe in any moral absolutes. We have older generations who have squandered our nation's future on empty promises and printing presses. We work daily to remove God from every single institution we can get our hands on (thanks to organizations like the ACLU). Is it any wonder our republic is failing? Surely, we need to recall the wise words of John Adams when he stated,


If we don't understand that, then our republic will continue to crumble until it's an ash heap.

By the way, if you think anarchy is the best way to live, then I suggest you move to Somalia and take your chances there. Good luck, and be sure you bring a gun with you. :)

For the millionth time, comparing today's America to today's Somalia is apples to oranges. Somalia was a hell hole ages before it lost it's government.

And if you're interested in the facts, you would find out that Somalia is actually BETTER off now without a government than it was when it had a government.

Freedom works.

[Theocrat]

For the millionth time, comparing today's America to today's Somalia is apples to oranges. Somalia was a hell hole ages before it lost it's government.

And if you're interested in the facts, you would find out that Somalia is actually BETTER off now without a government than it was when it had a government.

Freedom works.

I await Somalia's progress in the years to come. Just give it some time before another military regime comes in there and takes over.

By the way, when are you moving to Somalia? I have yet to hear of any anarchist on this forum who is excited about that venture.

[heavenlyboy34]

I await Somalia's progress in the years to come. Just give it some time before another military regime comes in there and takes over.

By the way, when are you moving to Somalia? I have yet to hear of any anarchist on this forum who is excited about that venture.

Stateless in Somalia and loving it (http://www.mises.org/story/2066) ;):D

[danberkeley]

I await Somalia's progress in the years to come. Just give it some time before another military regime comes in there and takes over.

By the way, when are you moving to Somalia? I have yet to hear of any anarchist on this forum who is excited about that venture.

Likewise, all the minarchist should leave the USA and go somewhere where minarchy runs freely. I'll even throw in a bunchies. :rolleyes:

[RevolutionSD]

I await Somalia's progress in the years to come. Just give it some time before another military regime comes in there and takes over.

By the way, when are you moving to Somalia? I have yet to hear of any anarchist on this forum who is excited about that venture.

Why would I move to Somalia? The mentality there is tribalism. You are refusing to see the facts. Somalia post-government is better off than Somalia with government. Did I say it's a paradise of freedom?

You are trying to compare apples to oranges. Let's think logically for a second.

According to you, minarchy works. Ok, if that is true, tell me a minarchist country that is working successfully and I will up and move there!

Government, by nature, is violent force. As long as you hold the idea that we need to grant a small group of elites the monopoly on violent force in order to have freedom, the further off from freedom we will be.

[danberkeley]

For those of you who say that minarchy is better than anarchy because it lasted longer, well, monarchy lasted longer than minarchy, therefore, monarchy is better. :rolleyes:

[Theocrat]

Likewise, all the minarchist should leave the USA and go somewhere where minarchy runs freely. I'll even throw in a bunchies. :rolleyes:

No, we "minarchists" are comfortable staying here, trying to minimze the jurisdiction of our state and federal governments. Besides, our nation was founded on the principles of limited civil government, not no government at all or the principle that "Civil government is evil." You anarchists need to take that nonsense over to places like Somalia, where it belongs. Maybe the Muslims will accept your view of there being no government at all, but I don't think Allah will be too happy about that one. He might have to send in some "ambassadors" to set things straight. ;)

[danberkeley]

No, we "minarchists" are comfortable staying here, trying to minimze the jurisdiction of our state and federal governments. Besides, our nation was founded on the principles of limited civil government, not no government at all or the principle that "Civil government is evil." You anarchists need to take that nonsense over to places like Somalia, where it belongs. Maybe the Muslims will accept your view of there being no government at all, but I don't think Allah will be too happy about that one. He might have to send in some "ambassadors" to set things straight. ;)

Likewise, we "anarchists" are comfortable staying here, trying to minimize the jurisdiction of our state and federal governments. Besides, do you actually expect this country to return to a minarchy?

[Theocrat]

Why would I move to Somalia? The mentality there is tribalism. You are refusing to see the facts. Somalia post-government is better off than Somalia with government. Did I say it's a paradise of freedom?

You are trying to compare apples to oranges. Let's think logically for a second.

According to you, minarchy works. Ok, if that is true, tell me a minarchist country that is working successfully and I will up and move there!

Government, by nature, is violent force. As long as you hold the idea that we need to grant a small group of elites the monopoly on violent force in order to have freedom, the further off from freedom we will be.

The success of a civil government (like our republic) is dependent upon its people, not the institution itself. When good people are involved in the process of electing good statemen, then the civil government will be good. When evil people are involved, then evil people will be elected, and the civil government will be bad. We are experiencing the latter today in our American republic. The failure of the system is to be blamed on the general public who is increasingly becoming more immoral and unintelligent when it comes to civil matters. Sadly, we have many of those same people here on Liberty Forest. :(

[Theocrat]

Likewise, we "anarchists" are comfortable staying here, trying to minimize the jurisdiction of our state and federal governments. Besides, do you actually expect this country to return to a minarchy?

Yes, with God's blessing and the diligence of faithful Americans, we can return our country back to a "minarchy." It will take a few generations, but I'm confident we can get there...if we, first, return to the God Who established our republic in the first place.

[danberkeley]

The success of a civil government (like our republic) is dependent upon its people, not the institution itself. When good people are involved in the process of electing good statemen, then the civil government will be good. When evil people are involved, then evil people will be elected, and the civil government will be bad. ... The failure of the system is to be blamed on the general public who is increasingly becoming more immoral and unintelligent when it comes to civil matters. ...:(

That's what the commies said... :D

[Conza88]

Theocrat - 10 commandments.

"You shall not steal."

Now since taxation is theft..... :rolleyes:

[Theocrat]

That's what the commies said... :D

Could you provide me some citations of communists who stated what I've said?

[Theocrat]

Theocrat - 10 commandments.

"You shall not steal."

Now since taxation is theft..... :rolleyes:

Not all taxation is theft. There are some taxes which are just, and the money collected from them goes toward things we need in society, such as a military, courts, and legislatures. These are legitimate functions of civil government.

I do agree with you that there are many taxes which are just plain robbery. The income tax and inheritance tax immediately come to my mind. But just because we have unjust taxes does not rationally deduce that we should get rid of all taxes. That is just overreaction, a trait which is common amongst anarchists.

[danberkeley]

Not all taxation is theft. There are some taxes which are just, and the money collected from them goes toward things we need in society, such as a military, courts, and legislatures. These are legitimate functions of civil government.

What about food and shelter?

[Theocrat]

What about food and shelter?

No, of course not. Those are items which should be left to the private sector, either through competitive markets or charity organizations (like churches).

[danberkeley]

No, of course not. Those are items which should be left to the private sector, either through competitive markets or charity organizations (like churches).

Why? Couldnt the government provide those better than the capitalist pigs in the private sector?

[Conza88]

Not all taxation is theft. There are some taxes which are just, and the money collected from them goes toward things we need in society, such as a military, courts, and legislatures. These are legitimate functions of civil government.

I do agree with you that there are many taxes which are just plain robbery. The income tax and inheritance tax immediately come to my mind. But just because we have unjust taxes does not rationally deduce that we should get rid of all taxes. That is just overreaction, a trait which is common amongst anarchists.

"overreaction" = CONSISTENCY and no compromise on the non aggression principle and private property rights.

No. It IS THEFT. It is taken with force, through coercion. Property is stolen.

You support a system that uses sin to exist.

Jesus isn't pleased.

[Theocrat]

Why? Couldnt the government provide those better than the capitalist pigs in the private sector?

No, and also, they have no jurisdiction in those areas of society. God has not given the civil government the task of providing food and shelter to its citizens. That's why private property is important. It is the citizens' responsibility to grow and sell their own food in markets and build homes on their own property.

[RevolutionSD]

Not all taxation is theft. There are some taxes which are just, and the money collected from them goes toward things we need in society, such as a military, courts, and legislatures. These are legitimate functions of civil government.

I do agree with you that there are many taxes which are just plain robbery. The income tax and inheritance tax immediately come to my mind. But just because we have unjust taxes does not rationally deduce that we should get rid of all taxes. That is just overreaction, a trait which is common amongst anarchists.

All taxation is theft.

If I disagree with you that we need a military, can I opt out of paying for it?

What happens then?

[RevolutionSD]

No, and also, they have no jurisdiction in those areas of society. God has not given the civil government the task of providing food and shelter to its citizens. That's why private property is important. It is the citizens' responsibility to grow and sell their own food in markets and build homes on their own property.

You speak for "God" now?

In that case you are delusional and this conversation is over.

[Theocrat]

"overreaction" = CONSISTENCY and no compromise on the non aggression principle and private property rights.

No. It IS THEFT. It is taken with force, through coercion. Property is stolen.

You support a system that uses sin to exist.

Jesus isn't pleased.

No, I believe in the principle of "giving to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." God gives us the principles and the legitimacy for taxation, just as He does for taking the lives of certain capital offenses. Just because you claim taxation is theft does not make it so, Conza. That is simply your opinion.

[Theocrat]

You speak for "God" now?

In that case you are delusional and this conversation is over.

No. God has already spoken in His word. Read it, and see for yourself where I'm getting these principles from.

[Josh_LA]

Not all taxation is theft. There are some taxes which are just, and the money collected from them goes toward things we need in society, such as a military, courts, and legislatures. These are legitimate functions of civil government.

I do agree with you that there are many taxes which are just plain robbery. The income tax and inheritance tax immediately come to my mind. But just because we have unjust taxes does not rationally deduce that we should get rid of all taxes. That is just overreaction, a trait which is common amongst anarchists.


WOW, never thought we'd agree on something, not sure who's more insulted.

Not all taxation is theft just as not all property is theft, it depends on what you consider just property, just rights. Not all crime is wrong either.

[Josh_LA]

Why? Couldnt the government provide those better than the capitalist pigs in the private sector?

Better? Maybe or maybe not, you should be willing to pay the price should either of the options' downside hurts somebody.

That is to say, no matter if it's government or private sector monopolizing or starving people, it's the price you pay for allowing it to happen, neither system is perfect or abuse proof (at least not without a gun to their heads).

[Conza88]

No, I believe in the principle of "giving to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." God gives us the principles and the legitimacy for taxation, just as He does for taking the lives of certain capital offenses. Just because you claim taxation is theft does not make it so, Conza. That is simply your opinion.

Sorry it's not opinion. It's self evident. A priori. Based on logic and reasoning.


WOW, never thought we'd agree on something, not sure who's more insulted.

Not all taxation is theft just as not all property is theft, it depends on what you consider just property, just rights. Not all crime is wrong either.

You're both wrong... which is nothing new.

All taxation is theft. Obviously not all property is obtained through coercion, see below. All crimes that violate natural law, are. In terms of man made laws (State imposed stuff. Say victimless crimes) The state is actually the criminal.


Consider the universal status of the ethic of liberty, and of the natural right of person and property that obtains under such an ethic.

For every person, at any time or place, can be covered by the basic rules:
• ownership of one's own self,
• ownership of the previously unused resources which one has occupied and transformed; and
• ownership of all titles derived from that basic ownership —either through voluntary exchanges or voluntary gifts.

These rules —which we might call the “rules of natural ownership”— can clearly be applied, and such ownership defended, regardless of the time or place, and regardless of the economic attainments of the society. It is impossible for any other social system to qualify as universal natural law; for if there is any coercive rule by one person or group over another (and all rule partakes of such hegemony), then it is impossible to apply the same rule for all; only a rulerless, purely libertarian world can fulfill the qualifications of natural rights and natural law, or, more important, can fulfill the conditions of a universal ethic for all mankind.

—Murray Newton Rothbard
in The Ethics of Liberty

Wait, wtf: "No, I believe in the principle of "giving to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." God gives us the principles and the legitimacy for taxation."

Did you just contend the STATE is GOD?

Complete non sequitur.

[danberkeley]

Better? Maybe or maybe not, you should be willing to pay the price should either of the options' downside hurts somebody.

That is to say, no matter if it's government or private sector monopolizing or starving people, it's the price you pay for allowing it to happen, neither system is perfect or abuse proof (at least not without a gun to their heads).

Anarcho-capitalism doesnt guarantee the prevention of crime.

[Josh_LA]

Anarcho-capitalism doesnt guarantee the prevention of crime.

I agree, and it'll pay the price of it. I'm sure you're willing.

[danberkeley]

The State mixed with God? I think Theocrat wants a monarchy.

[Josh_LA]

The State mixed with God? I think Theocrat wants a monarchy.

Obviously

Theocracy can only be anarchy (ruled by no men) or monarchy (ruled by few limited authority).

[Theocrat]

Sorry it's not opinion. It's self evident. A priori. Based on logic and reasoning.



Wait, wtf: "No, I believe in the principle of "giving to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." God gives us the principles and the legitimacy for taxation."

Did you just contend the STATE is GOD?

Complete non sequitur.

Yes, because Murray Rothbard is the final authority on liberty and logical reasoning. Oh, how could we ever have known about liberty and the principles of taxation before Rothbard was born?! We were in an economic abyss! :rolleyes:

Those principles which you claim are "self-evident" can only axiomatic if there is a God Who reveals them as such. In a worldview where the unierse is just random molecules in motion, there can be no such things as "private property" or "self-ownership" or anything else of that nature. There's just chemicals. Since according to naturalists we're nothing but random chemicals which got together millions of years ago and evolved from animals, then there is no "right to ownership." It's just "survival of the fittest." The strongest get to own whatever they want, even if it's another "evolved animal."

I wonder if Rothbard could even rationally prove his own existence.

[Theocrat]

WOW, never thought we'd agree on something, not sure who's more insulted.

Not all taxation is theft just as not all property is theft, it depends on what you consider just property, just rights. Not all crime is wrong either.

You lost me on your second proposition. Taxation is the act of taxing, and therefore, I can understand how you can say some taxing is theft. However, I don't understand how you can say "property is theft." Property is not the act of doing something.

Also, I get what you mean when you say that not all crime is wrong, but those "crimes" referred to are not really crimes to begin with.

[Josh_LA]

You lost me on your second proposition. Taxation is the act of taxing, and therefore, I can understand how you can say some taxing is theft. However, I don't understand how you can say "property is theft." Property is not the act of doing something.

Also, I get what you mean when you say that not all crime is wrong, but those "crimes" referred to are not really crimes to begin with.

"property is theft" is a common communist slogan, that nobody deserves private property. So to some people's standards, some people don't deserve to keep what they worked for, thus their property, even if they worked for it, is theft, this is of course semantics.

[Theocrat]

The State mixed with God? I think Theocrat wants a monarchy.

The State and God are two separate entities. The State receives its legitmacy from God, but it can never replace the role of God in all affairs of men.

A monarchy would be much better than anarchy. I prefer to live like a civilized human being under some general civil governance rather than an animal in the jungle without transcendent law. A republic is a better form of government than a civil monarchy, in my opinion.

[Josh_LA]

You're both wrong... which is nothing new.

All taxation is theft. Obviously not all property is obtained through coercion, see below. All crimes that violate natural law, are. In terms of man made laws (State imposed stuff. Say victimless crimes) The state is actually the criminal.



So murdering the State's workers as retaliation against their coercion and crimes is just? (I'll answer first, YES)

Yes, I agree, not all property is coercion, thus not all property is theft, thus not all taxation against property is injust.

[danberkeley]

The State and God are two separate entities. The State receives its legitmacy from God, but it can never replace the role of God in all affairs of men.

Yes. That is what I was implying.


A monarchy would be much better than anarchy. I prefer to live like a civilized human being under some general civil governance rather than an animal in the jungle without transcendent law. A republic is a better form of government than a civil monarchy, in my opinion.

Yes. Because being subjects of the King doesnt make us subhuman. Afterall, the King is the agent of God. Whatever he says goes. :rolleyes:

[danberkeley]

So murdering the State's workers as retaliation against their coercion and crimes is just?


That doesnt make any sense. It wouldnt be murder. Are we gonna have to get TW to post a link to an online dictionary?

[Conza88]

Yes, because Murray Rothbard is the final authority on liberty and logical reasoning. Oh, how could we ever have known about liberty and the principles of taxation before Rothbard was born?! We were in an economic abyss! :rolleyes:

Those principles which you claim are "self-evident" can only axiomatic if there is a God Who reveals them as such. In a worldview where the unierse is just random molecules in motion, there can be no such things as "private property" or "self-ownership" or anything else of that nature. There's just chemicals. Since according to naturalists we're nothing but random chemicals which got together millions of years ago and evolved from animals, then there is no "right to ownership." It's just "survival of the fittest." The strongest get to own whatever they want, even if it's another "evolved animal."

I wonder if Rothbard could even rationally prove his own existence.

Natural Law. You know nothing about it. :rolleyes:

[Conza88]

So murdering the State's workers as retaliation against their coercion and crimes is just? (I'll answer first, YES)

Yes, I agree, not all property is coercion, thus not all property is theft, thus not all taxation against property is injust.

Taxation is theft. The STATE NEVER owns anything rightfully to begin with.

Taking back property from someone, an individual, because it was rightfully yours to begin with - and they stole it. Is justified. The former is not.

Your reasoning fails.

;)

And your definitions are wrong. Try, try, try again.

[Brassmouth]

Move to somalia, I hear the lack of a constitutional government has done wonders for them.

http://mises.org/story/2066

http://mises.org/story/2212

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtGkTRnocZI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBuPECU0_P0

Read, watch, and learn.

If not, stfu.


And yes, I only read the first page of this thread. The Ron Paul "revolution" has been going on for over a year now. You people have been exposed to libertarian ideas for more than long enough. If you're not anarchists yet, you don't care about liberty. You have to try VERY hard to ignore the fact that the State is inherently violent and coercive. The bulk of the practical anarchist ideas have been developed and explained by Rothbard, Block, D. Friedman, Molyneux, etc. You cannot ignore this work, and retain even a micron of dignity.

To say you advocate a small government as a political end is like saying you advocate a lower gravitational pull.