Why is anarcho-capitalism associated with libertarianism?

[Howard_Roark]

I definitley consider myself a hardcore libertarian who wants a very small government that only does policing, courts and defence and stays away from education, health care, drug prohibition, world policing etc. What I don't get though is why aracho-capitalism is associated with libertarian and not its own seperate movement which it clearly seems to be to me. Whenever I watch a libertarian on say CNN, the first criticism they always have of is calling them anarchists. Its a very powerful criticism and turns off mainstream americans from libertarian ideas. This isn't an attack on anarcho capitalism, I just don't see why its part of libertarian umbrella. If you want to see anarchy, go to Somalia that is what anarchy is.

This is Ayn Rand talking about Libertarians http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians

Q: What do you think of the Libertarian movement? [FHF: “The Moratorium on Brains,” 1971]

AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.

[Truth Warrior]

Murray Rothbard.

[sailor]

A better question would be; why is Objectivism associated with Libertarianism? Seeing how Objectivists are murderous, immoral kooks. Nuke Venezuela! :rolleyes:

[Pennsylvania]

AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.

Anarcho-Capitalism cannot be a mockery because it is the only system which can exist which does not violate itself in principle. "Absolute objective law" means nothing anyway.

[Pennsylvania]

Murray Rothbard.

I was thinking of typing those exact words as my response :D

[Truth Warrior]

I definitley consider myself a hardcore libertarian who wants a very small government that only does policing, courts and defence and stays away from education, health care, drug prohibition, world policing etc. What I don't get though is why aracho-capitalism is associated with libertarian and not its own seperate movement which it clearly seems to be to me. Whenever I watch a libertarian on say CNN, the first criticism they always have of is calling them anarchists. Its a very powerful criticism and turns off mainstream americans from libertarian ideas. This isn't an attack on anarcho capitalism, I just don't see why its part of libertarian umbrella. If you want to see anarchy, go to Somalia that is what anarchy is.

This is Ayn Rand talking about Libertarians http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians

Q: What do you think of the Libertarian movement? [FHF: “The Moratorium on Brains,” 1971]

AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.

As a "hardcore libertarian", what's your INDIVIDUAL take on the NAP? ;) http://common-law.net/nap.html

Thanks Howard! :)

[Truth Warrior]

I was thinking of typing those exact words as my response :D ;) :D Murray, an ex-Randian. :)

[sailor]

I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect..

That`s because they`re murderous scum just like many Objectivists. Objectivism is the other side of the coin of Marxism. Different goals, the same murderous methods, the same results.

[Howard_Roark]

I believe that objectivism came up with alot of the ideas of libertarianism before there ever was anything called libertarian and it was Ayn Rands books who created alot of libertarians that its associated with it.

[sailor]

I believe that objectivism came up with alot of the ideas of libertarianism before there ever was anything called libertarian and it was Ayn Rands books who created alot of libertarians that its associated with it.

That`s a fairly tale originating from Any Rand herself. She did nothing of the sort. Libertarianism is an outgrowth of Classical Liberalism which is way older.

[Elwar]

If you want to see anarchy, go to Somalia that is what anarchy is.


The difference between anarchy and anarcho-capitalist is property rights. Somalia has no property rights, thus is not anarcho-capitalism, just straight anarchy.

[Unspun]

If you want to see anarchy, go to Somalia that is what anarchy is.

Post state Somalia has actually been doing quite well if you compare it to statist Somalia. A rise in the standard of living and free trade would be a wonderful thing to have.

[Unspun]

The difference between anarchy and anarcho-capitalist is property rights. Somalia has no property rights, thus is not anarcho-capitalism, just straight anarchy.

I don't know where you get this information from, but from my understanding and based on this report by the Independent Institute (http://www.independent.org/pdf/working_papers/64_somalia.pdf) property rights are pretty well respected.

Also, from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia#cite_note-powell-11):


Anthropologist Spencer MacCallum has identified the rule of law during the period as that of the Xeer, a customary law indigenous to Somalia. The law permits practices such as safe travel, trade, and marriage , which survives "to a significant degree" throughout Somalia, particularly in rural Somalia where it is "virtually unaffected".[1] MacCallum credits the Xeer with "Somalia's success without a central government, since it provides an authentic rule of law to support trade and economic development."[1] In the Xeer, law and crime are defined in terms of property rights; consequently the criminal justice system is compensatory rather than the punitive system of the majority of states, and the Xeer is "unequivocal in its opposition" to any form of taxation. Powell et. al (2006) find that the existence of the common law dispute resolution system in Somalia makes possible basic economic order.[12] MacCallum compares the Xeer to the common law in 6th century Scotland, and notes that there is no monopoly of either police nor judicial services,[1] a condition of polycentric law.

[Pennsylvania]

I don't know where you get this information from, but from my understanding and based on this report by the Independent Institute (http://www.independent.org/pdf/working_papers/64_somalia.pdf) property rights are pretty well respected.

Also, from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia#cite_note-powell-11):

Oh man that wiki quote is awesome.

[Howard_Roark]

Well I see most of your posts are pro-anarchist. Being as that this is the ron paul forums, I have to ask? Is Ron Paul an anarchist?

[Invalid]

A lot of Obama's supporters are probably communists, but that doesn't mean he's one.

[Master]

Well I see most of your posts are pro-anarchist. Being as that this is the ron paul forums, I have to ask? Is Ron Paul an anarchist?

What's with the questions? What are you DEA? FBI? CIA? ATF? :p

Do you think an anarchist would be a politician?

[Howard_Roark]

A lot of Obama's supporters are probably communists, but that doesn't mean he's one.

Agreed.

[fedup100]

The really, REALLY big question is why these threads are put on this forum every day?

It must be very important to keep the "A" word on this forum right, it acts as a beacon for the roving watchers that can associate this forum with the unsavory.

[Unspun]

Well I see most of your posts are pro-anarchist. Being as that this is the ron paul forums, I have to ask? Is Ron Paul an anarchist?

I would say he doesn't seem to be an anarchist, but anarchists seem to have embraced many of his principles or rather he has embraced many anarchist principles. Either way anarchists and Ron Paul (and his conservative/libertarian/minarchist/etc supporters) have seemed to find a lot of common ground.

[LibertyEagle]

I would say he doesn't seem to be an anarchist, but anarchists seem to have embraced many of his principles or rather he has embraced many anarchist principles. Either way anarchists and Ron Paul (and his conservative/libertarian/minarchist/etc supporters) have seemed to find a lot of common ground.

Yeah, now if we could actually work together, instead of incessantly insulting and beating the shit out of each other. :(

[Truth Warrior]

I believe that objectivism came up with alot of the ideas of libertarianism before there ever was anything called libertarian and it was Ayn Rands books who created alot of libertarians that its associated with it.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/nabat/nabat1.html (http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/nabat/nabat1.html)

;) :)

[Truth Warrior]

Well I see most of your posts are pro-anarchist. Being as that this is the ron paul forums, I have to ask? Is Ron Paul an anarchist?

Ron Paul: A Most Unusual Politician by Murray N. Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard187.html)

[TurtleBurger]

"Anarchist" is a misnomer. We anarcho-capitalists are generally more panarchists than anarchists. We believe that government (small g) is a necessity. We are just opposed to a monopolistic State claiming the authority of government. The free market is the best provider of government services (e.g. police protection, dispute arbitration, regional defense, etc).

[danberkeley]

"Anarchist" is a misnomer. We anarcho-capitalists are generally more panarchists than anarchists. We believe that government (small g) is a necessity. We are just opposed to a monopolistic State claiming the authority of government. The free market is the best provider of government services (e.g. police protection, dispute arbitration, regional defense, etc).

An individual is self-governing by default, however, he may choose to delegate certain functions to others. Example: an individual has the right to defend himself, therefore, he has the right to delegate his right to defense to others. This is how a government could be properly formed. Several individuals could agree to defend each other from others. Thus, what an-caps reject is the state; a government that violates those rights that are self obvious or, Rothbard put it, a band of criminals writ large.


A lot of Obama's supporters are probably communists, but that doesn't mean he's one.

Obama is as communist as RP is libertarian. Obama fights for more state power while RP fights for less state power.

[Chosen]

Anarcho Capitalists are simply extremists who reject minarchy in favor of lawlessness and chaos. It is nothing more than purely theoretical vanity which has no historical basis or connection to any rule of law system.

[heavenlyboy34]

The really, REALLY big question is why these threads are put on this forum every day?

It must be very important to keep the "A" word on this forum right, it acts as a beacon for the roving watchers that can associate this forum with the unsavory.

I think it's a catalyst for getting the statists to come out of the closet and admit their pro-state agenda. ;) LOL!!

[heavenlyboy34]

"anarchist" is a misnomer. We anarcho-capitalists are generally more panarchists than anarchists. We believe that government (small g) is a necessity. We are just opposed to a monopolistic state claiming the authority of government. the free market is the best provider of government services (e.g. Police protection, dispute arbitration, regional defense, etc).

qft!! :d

[tremendoustie]

The really, REALLY big question is why these threads are put on this forum every day?

It must be very important to keep the "A" word on this forum right, it acts as a beacon for the roving watchers that can associate this forum with the unsavory.

No kidding, can't we PLEASE use the word voluntaryist? I mean, that is the point, isn't it? Voluntary interactions, no initiation of violence?

Does any anarcho-capitalist here have a problem with that term? Because I really wish these threads were about voluntaryism. Not "anarcho-capitalism" or especially "anarchy".

[heavenlyboy34]

No kidding, can't we PLEASE use the word voluntaryist? I mean, that is the point, isn't it? Voluntary interactions, no initiation of violence?

Does any anarcho-capitalist here have a problem with that term? Because I really wish these threads were about voluntaryism. Not "anarcho-capitalism" or especially "anarchy".

Works for me. I prefer "autarchist" myself. :):cool:

[danberkeley]

Anarcho Capitalists are simply extremists who reject minarchy in favor of lawlessness and chaos. It is nothing more than purely theoretical vanity which has no historical basis or connection to any rule of law system.

We favor neither lawlessness nor chaos. Btw, favoring a little statism over no statism makes you a statist.

[mediahasyou]

Because no state is the logical conclusion of an anti-state philosophy.

[idiom]

Favouring a little law over no law makes you a statist.

[danberkeley]

Favouring a little law over no law makes you a statist.

???? An-caps believe in law. Laws do not require a state. Try again.

[LibertyEagle]

Favouring a little law over no law makes you a statist.

Who gives a flying F***!!! Some of you guys keep insulting the very thing that Ron Paul advocates. Reinstating the Constitution. And then you come over here and start lobbing your insults towards anyone that agrees with him. What's your deal? :mad: If you hate so much what Ron Paul stands for, there are plenty of other forums out there to go to.

[tremendoustie]

Works for me. I prefer "autarchist" myself. :):cool:

Sure, just anything to get away from the anarchist stigma. If you say "anarchist" most people picture a bomb wielding rioter. The point of language is communcation, so why on earth do we keep using these terms?

We are trying to convince people to interact voluntarily. Thus, voluntaryist.

I mean, can we please refrain from driving people away in obviously avoidable ways?

[idiom]

???? An-caps believe in law. Laws do not require a state. Try again.

Well If you define a 'state' as being anything more than what Rothbard believed in then, yes, you are right by definition.

If a state is something that governs a group of people then a common law is a state.

Its pretty classic Rothbard though to have an argument by definitions. "Why do humans have Human rights? Because Humans always have human rights! If it didn't have human rights it would just be regular property So of course humans must have human rights silly."

"We are going to enforce law on you, but its not force because we derive our right to do it from the NAP which defines us as not being statist. So there!"

[danberkeley]

Who gives a flying F***!!! Some of you guys keep insulting the very thing that Ron Paul advocates. Reinstating the Constitution. And then you come over here and start lobbing your insults towards anyone that agrees with him. What's your deal? :mad: If you hate so much what Ron Paul stands for, there are plenty of other forums out there to go to.

It has already been established that we all favor less government than what we have now. Obviously, this thread goes beyond that and tackles the issue of government at a deeper level. Stop thinking that us an-caps are insulting anyone. Actually, it has been the minarchist that have been lobbing falsehoods in this thread.

[idiom]

Who gives a flying F***!!! Some of you guys keep insulting the very thing that Ron Paul advocates. Reinstating the Constitution. And then you come over here and start lobbing your insults towards anyone that agrees with him. What's your deal? :mad: If you hate so much what Ron Paul stands for, there are plenty of other forums out there to go to.

Me, I am fine with Ron Pauls positions. I am not in fact arguing for a dissolution of society.

If I saw someone being raped I would intervene even though I have no right to do so under the NAP. I am just a big statist going around enforcing my morality which is bad because my morality is not Rothbards.

[danberkeley]

Well If you define a 'state' as being anything more than what Rothbard believed in then, yes, you are right by definition.

If a state is something that governs a group of people then a common law is a state.

Its pretty classic Rothbard though to have an argument by definitions. "Why do humans have Human rights? Because Humans always have human rights! If it didn't have human rights it would just be regular property So of course humans must have human rights silly."

"We are going to enforce law on you, but its not force because we derive our right to do it from the NAP which defines us as not being statist. So there!"

If we do not agree on definitions, we cannot get anywhere.

[danberkeley]

Me, I am fine with Ron Pauls positions. I am not in fact arguing for a dissolution of society.

If I saw someone being raped I would intervene even though I have no right to do so under the NAP. I am just a big statist going around enforcing my morality which is bad because my morality is not Rothbards.

If the person being raped was yelling "help!", then you havent violated any rights.

[mediahasyou]

Who gives a flying F***!!! Some of you guys keep insulting the very thing that Ron Paul advocates. Reinstating the Constitution. And then you come over here and start lobbing your insults towards anyone that agrees with him. What's your deal? :mad: If you hate so much what Ron Paul stands for, there are plenty of other forums out there to go to.

idiom was just stating a fact...

[tremendoustie]

Well If you define a 'state' as being anything more than what Rothbard believed in then, yes, you are right by definition.

If a state is something that governs a group of people then a common law is a state.

Its pretty classic Rothbard though to have an argument by definitions. "Why do humans have Human rights? Because Humans always have human rights! If it didn't have human rights it would just be regular property So of course humans must have human rights silly."

"We are going to enforce law on you, but its not force because we derive our right to do it from the NAP which defines us as not being statist. So there!"

I do think there is such a thing as natural law. I believe it comes from God, but I know many do not.

You can observe it simply by seeing how people interact. If I intentionally kick your shin, you are quite aware that I have broken some sort of rule, and are probably a great deal more angry than if I just bump you accidentally.

You see it when people argue: "No, I am not cutting in line, I was here before, I just left to get something". Why would such an excuse need to be made if the only rule was might makes right?

It's only because people have agreed to a set of basic rules, which they feel obligated to justify themselves in relation to, that people have arguments at all, and it's why people feel violeted when agressed upon, or cheated, but not so much if they bump their own shin or accidentally drop money down the storm grate.

I think the easiest way to describe this natural law, is the NAP. I think it covers it fairly well. I don't think most sane people consider themselves agressed upon, or violated in some way, if someone smokes weed in their own apartment, or decides they don't want to register their car. They may think these laws are necessary "to preserve order", but I think most of them would have a hard time convincing themselves that you have violated their rights.

[sailor]

Who gives a flying F***!!! Some of you guys keep insulting the very thing that Ron Paul advocates. Reinstating the Constitution. And then you come over here and start lobbing your insults towards anyone that agrees with him. What's your deal? :mad: If you hate so much what Ron Paul stands for, there are plenty of other forums out there to go to.

You`re talking about anarchists but you`re quoting a non-anarchist. So now even non-anarchists saying something is a reason to get pissed at anarchists??

And you may want to look who started the topic and what was in the original post. But you`d sooner rave on about the reaction than the source. :rolleyes:

Do you ever ever get pissed at non-anarchists for talking crap about anarchy, or is everything just an excuse to go on about anarchists to you?

[LibertyEagle]

idiom was just stating a fact...

In yours and some others' opinions, yes.

[LibertyEagle]

You`re talking about anarchists but you`re quoting a non-anarchist. So now even non-anarchists saying something is a reason to get pissed at anarchists??

And you may want to look who started the topic and what was in the original post. But you`d sooner rave on about the reaction than the source. :rolleyes:

Do you ever ever get pissed at non-anarchists for talking crap about anarchy, or is everything just an excuse to go on about anarchists to you?

Perhaps you should do a review and then you would know.

I wish everyone would stop taking pot shots at each other and focus on the things that brought us together in this movement. Instead of doing everything in their power to divide us into little splinters. That means EVERYONE. There are people here who do not even support Ron Paul or his movement. Do you realize that? If we allow ourselves to be divided, we can offer very little opposition to this communistic POS cabal who has taken over our government. Get it? I am starting to wonder if that is in fact the goal of some around here.

[danberkeley]

...

I wish everyone would stop taking pot shots at each other and focus on the things that brought us together in this movement. Instead of doing everything in their power to divide us into little splinters. That means EVERYONE. There are people here who do not even support Ron Paul or his movement. Do you realize that? If we allow ourselves to be divided, we can offer very little opposition to this communistic POS cabal who has taken over our government. Get it? I am starting to wonder if that is in fact the goal of some around here.

I dont feel divided. I welcome the debate. Polishing my skillz. Btw, I thought mods could put other members on the ignore list.

[danberkeley]

Looks like LE derailed another thread.

[TurtleBurger]

Perhaps you should do a review and then you would know.

I wish everyone would stop taking pot shots at each other and focus on the things that brought us together in this movement. Instead of doing everything in their power to divide us into little splinters. That means EVERYONE. There are people here who do not even support Ron Paul or his movement. Do you realize that? If we allow ourselves to be divided, we can offer very little opposition to this communistic POS cabal who has taken over our government. Get it? I am starting to wonder if that is in fact the goal of some around here.

I agree with this. Anarchists and libertarians/minarchists are on the same team right now; both groups want to reduce the size of government. The only difference is at what point each group would declare victory. Since we are far even from the minarchist goal, we need to work together. When minarchy is achieved, we can part ways there. :)

[heavenlyboy34]

I agree with this. Anarchists and libertarians/minarchists are on the same team right now; both groups want to reduce the size of government. The only difference is at what point each group would declare victory. Since we are far even from the minarchist goal, we need to work together. When minarchy is achieved, we can part ways there. :)

How nice of you! ~hug~ :)

[Truth Warrior]

I agree with this. Anarchists and libertarians/minarchists are on the same team right now; both groups want to reduce the size of government. The only difference is at what point each group would declare victory. Since we are far even from the minarchist goal, we need to work together. When minarchy is achieved, we can part ways there. :) A TOTALLY moot point, while the state still grows.

Step 1. STOP the growth, then we'll talk. ;)

[danberkeley]

A TOTALLY moot point, while the state still grows.

Step 1. STOP the growth, then we'll talk. ;)

Step 2. Stop LE from derailing threads. :D

[LibertyEagle]

Step 2. Stop LE from derailing threads. :D

Step 3. You grow up. :p

[Truth Warrior]

Step 2. Stop LE from derailing threads. :D "As usual, if killed or captured the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of you." :D

[LibertyEagle]

I dont feel divided. I welcome the debate. Polishing my skillz. Btw, I thought mods could put other members on the ignore list.

Unfortunately, NOT.

[TurtleBurger]

A TOTALLY moot point, while the state still grows.

Step 1. STOP the growth, then we'll talk. ;)

+1

[LibertyEagle]

A TOTALLY moot point, while the state still grows.

Step 1. STOP the growth, then we'll talk. ;)

Think you could help?

[danberkeley]

"As usual, if killed or captured the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of you." :D

"If we're going to Virginia why don't we drop by Fort Knox? I could fly a helicopter through the lobby and set it down right inside the vault. And it would be a hell of a lot easier than breaking into the goddamn CIA. "

[tremendoustie]

I agree with this. Anarchists and libertarians/minarchists are on the same team right now; both groups want to reduce the size of government. The only difference is at what point each group would declare victory. Since we are far even from the minarchist goal, we need to work together. When minarchy is achieved, we can part ways there. :)

+1!

[danberkeley]

People are agreeing with LE? What's this world coming to? :D
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v609/Kooshmeister/Movie Deaths/Goodfellas/goodfellas_spider06.jpg

[LibertyEagle]

People are agreeing with LE? What's this world coming to? :D


Yeah, amazing isn't it. It used to happen quite a bit back when this board was comprised of people who actually supported Ron Paul and the principles for which he stands. :p;)

[danberkeley]

Yeah, amazing isn't it. It used to happen quite a bit back when this board was comprised of people who actually supported Ron Paul and the principles for which he stands. :p;)

Too bad me and TW some of the very few RP supporters left. :D All some members do is derail threads with emotional posts. ;)

[Conza88]

I believe that objectivism came up with alot of the ideas of libertarianism before there ever was anything called libertarian and it was Ayn Rands books who created alot of libertarians that its associated with it.

She read Human Action, and used one sentence as the premise for her whole works.

If anything, she stole from Ludwig Von Mises. She was an egotistical cranky pants. Napoleon syndrome.

[Truth Warrior]

Think you could help?

My post was NOT addressed to, NOR a reply to you.

[heavenlyboy34]

Too bad me and TW some of the very few RP supporters left. :D All some members do is derail threads with emotional posts. ;)

lolz! ;):D

[LibertyEagle]

Too bad me and TW some of the very few RP supporters left. :D All some members do is derail threads with emotional posts. ;)

Interesting, but TW does not support this movement, or apparently think all that much of Ron Paul. :p

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j4/liberty_08/TruthWarrior-Imnothereforthemovemen.jpg

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j4/liberty_08/TruthWarriordissingRonPaul-1.jpg

Note: An as far as "emotional posts" are concerned, perhaps you should check your OWN post history. ;)

[Howard_Roark]

I have been reading through everyones posts. Clearly its obvious there are different factions under the libertarian umbrella that find common ground under limited government but seriously disagree on everything else.

I have done research and it doesn't appear Ron Paul is an anarcho-capitalist, though some people who he associates with like Lew Rockwell potentially are.

I know in the 1800s there was something called the Pinkertons that was essentially a massive private police force and I would support allowing those kind of private forces, but without any government at all we would have anarchy and would also be highly suceptible to other militarized governments.

[Truth Warrior]

I have been reading through everyones posts. Clearly its obvious there are different factions under the libertarian umbrella that find common ground under limited government but seriously disagree on everything else.

I have done research and it doesn't appear Ron Paul is an anarcho-capitalist, though some people who he associates with like Lew Rockwell potentially are.

I know in the 1800s there was something called the Pinkertons that was essentially a massive private police force and I would support allowing those kind of private forces, but without any government at all we would have anarchy and would also be highly suceptible to other militarized governments.

"A limited government is a contradiction in terms." -- Robert LeFevre


Thomas Jefferson described the Tenth Amendment as “the foundation of the Constitution” and added, “to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn … is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”
http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-x-to-the-u-s-constitution (http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-x-to-the-u-s-constitution)

[Truth Warrior]

Do You Consider Yourself a Libertarian? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/liberal-post-interview.html)

[Truth Warrior]

Interesting, but TW does not support this movement, or apparently think all that much of Ron Paul. :p

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j4/liberty_08/TruthWarrior-Imnothereforthemovemen.jpg

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j4/liberty_08/TruthWarriordissingRonPaul-1.jpg

Note: An as far as "emotional posts" are concerned, perhaps you should check your OWN post history. ;)

When Ron gets Lew to vote, please let me know. :rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

When Ron gets Lew to vote, please let me know. :rolleyes:

In the meantime, you'll stay here, bashing anyone who believes in the very things that Ron Paul believes and those activists who are engaged in taking back our country.

Yeah, we get it. :rolleyes:

Keep everyone divided, to the best of your ability, eh, TW? :(

[Truth Warrior]

In the meantime, you'll stay here, bashing anyone who believes in the very things that Ron Paul believes and those activists who are engaged in taking back our country.

Yeah, we get it. :rolleyes:

Keep everyone divided, to the best of your ability, eh, TW? :(

Not by a country light year you don't, AS USUAL. :rolleyes:

I bow to your superior Scorpionic MEGA divisiveness. Just keep on doing what you're doing. With "friends" like you Ron needs NO OTHER enemies.<IMHO> ;)

[LibertyEagle]

Not by a country light year you don't, AS USUAL. :rolleyes:
Ok, TW, then why don't you lay out what it is that you are trying to do?



I bow to your superior Scorpionic MEGA divisiveness. Just keep on doing what you're doing. With "friends" like you Ron needs NO OTHER enemies.<IMHO> ;)
Well, I guess it's a good thing it's your opinion and not Ron's.

[danberkeley]

Interesting, but TW does not support this movement, or apparently think all that much of Ron Paul. :p

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j4/liberty_08/TruthWarrior-Imnothereforthemovemen.jpg

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j4/liberty_08/TruthWarriordissingRonPaul-1.jpg

Note: An as far as "emotional posts" are concerned, perhaps you should check your OWN post history. ;)

Ironically, TW has done more on this forum to keep us on track towards liberty than L.E. DeRailer.

[futureleft]

Libertarianism is that last gasp of folks on their knees just hoping that the state protects them. "Please government, save me." The "movement" has been dead since it was hijacked in the 70's. Nobody is going to save you.

[danberkeley]

Libertarianism is that last gasp of folks on their knees just hoping that the state protects them. "Please government, save me." The "movement" has been dead since it was hijacked in the 70's. Nobody is going to save you.

/facepalm.

[Truth Warrior]

Libertarianism is that last gasp of folks on their knees just hoping that the state protects them. "Please government, save me." The "movement" has been dead since it was hijacked in the 70's. Nobody is going to save you. Nope, the NWO currently being implemented by YOUR government, will undoubtedly kill MOST of us, on both sides.<IMHO>

Have a good day. :)

[Truth Warrior]

Ok, TW, then why don't you lay out what it is that you are trying to do?



Well, I guess it's a good thing it's your opinion and not Ron's. We've done that several times before. Your STANDARD tired response is "No it's not". It's ALL just STUPID and a bloody frickin' waste of time. :p

If ya ain't "GOT IT" by now, I seriously doubt that you EVER will.

NO GREAT LOSS!< IMHO > :rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

We've done that several times before. Your STANDARD tired response is "No it's not". It's ALL just STUPID and a bloody frickin' waste of time. :p

If ya ain't "GOT IT" by now, I seriously doubt that you EVER will.

NO GREAT LOSS!< IMHO > :rolleyes:

No you haven't. You have refused to. Instead, choosing to cut-and-paste other people's words, in place of your own.

So, for once, "Truth" Warrior, why don't you tell us what your agenda is.

[Truth Warrior]

No you haven't. You have refused to. Instead, choosing to cut-and-paste other people's words, in place of your own.

So, for once, "Truth" Warrior, why don't you tell us what your agenda is. Exactly. :p :rolleyes: DUH!!!

[LibertyEagle]

Exactly. :p :rolleyes: DUH!!!

Still dodging, eh? :D

[Truth Warrior]

Still dodging, eh? :D Still stupid, eh? :rolleyes:

[heavenlyboy34]

Still stupid, eh? :rolleyes:

LOL!! :D:cool::) ~applauds~

[danberkeley]

Still derailing, eh?

[AggieforPaul]

I believe that objectivism came up with alot of the ideas of libertarianism before there ever was anything called libertarian and it was Ayn Rands books who created alot of libertarians that its associated with it.

Read "the law" by Bastiat. Actually, read everything by Bastiat. He came well before Rand, and was far more reasonable.

[Auntie Republicrat]

..methinks 'purist anarchists' are deluded..with the current state of public awareness-in the absence of the stinking, authoritarian r's and d's and their ma$ter$-- it seems, alas, that some other authoritarians would quickly fill any void..

...absent these stinking Republicrats, maybe 'the government' (organized force) would consist of some local thugs, maybe some Hell's Angels, etc. ad nauseam..it appears, unfortunately, most/all of our fellows are primitive, ooga-booga artists..(with computers) ..or as George Carlin put it, "ancient hatreds, modern weapons! ;)

[danberkeley]

..methinks 'purist anarchists' are deluded..with the current state of public awareness-in the absence of the stinking, authoritarian r's and d's and their ma$ter$-- it seems, alas, that some other authoritarians would quickly fill any void..

...absent these stinking Republicrats, maybe 'the government' (organized force) would consist of some local thugs, maybe some Hell's Angels, etc. ad nauseam..it appears, unfortunately, most/all of our fellows are primitive, ooga-booga artists..(with computers) ..or as George Carlin put it, "ancient hatreds, modern weapons! ;)

At least the Hell's Angels follow their own rules. Congress, however,...

[Truth Warrior]

..methinks 'purist anarchists' are deluded..with the current state of public awareness-in the absence of the stinking, authoritarian r's and d's and their ma$ter$-- it seems, alas, that some other authoritarians would quickly fill any void..

...absent these stinking Republicrats, maybe 'the government' (organized force) would consist of some local thugs, maybe some Hell's Angels, etc. ad nauseam..it appears, unfortunately, most/all of our fellows are primitive, ooga-booga artists..(with computers) ..or as George Carlin put it, "ancient hatreds, modern weapons! ;) Just can't even imagine life without a leader telling you what to do and how you are allowed to live. Right? :(

You're just probably gonna really positively LOVE the NWO, coming soon. :rolleyes:

[Auntie Republicrat]

TW REACHES: "Just can't even imagine life without a leader telling you what to do and how you are allowed to live. Right?"

:rolleyes:

WRONG!.."an" (a privative prefix meaning "without") "archy" (from Greek meaning "rule") literally..'without rule'...sounds like a lovely utopia to me!..

...unfortunately, I don't believe 'utopia' is an option for we the living..SADLY but seriously..

..although, in our lifetimes, I believe we would do well in working towards a MUCH MUCH MORE anarchistic society..

...dig?

[Truth Warrior]

TW REACHES: "Just can't even imagine life without a leader telling you what to do and how you are allowed to live. Right?"

:rolleyes:

WRONG!.."an" (a privative prefix meaning "without") "archy" (from Greek meaning "rule") literally..'without rule'...sounds like a lovely utopia to me!..

...unfortunately, I don't believe 'utopia' is an option for we the living..SADLY but seriously..

..although, in our lifetimes, I believe we would do well in working towards a MUCH MUCH MORE anarchistic society..

...dig?
Well you''ve gotten your etymology down correct. Congratulations! :D That puts you light years ahead of most of the folks here. :rolleyes:

anarchy (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=anarchy)1539, from M.L. anarchia, from Gk. anarkhia "lack of a leader," noun of state from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" + arkhos "leader" (see archon (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=archon)). Anarchist (1678) got a boost into modernity from the French Revolution. Anarcho-syndicalism is first recorded 1913.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=anarchy&searchmode=none (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=anarchy&searchmode=none)

I must have just missed the "Utopia" part of that. :rolleyes:

"An anarchist is anyone who believes in less government than you do." -- Robert LeFevre

If the above quote is correct, how and what do you imagine that the rank and file GOP thinks of Ron and the LF/RPF folks here? ;)

Thanks! :)

[idiom]

TW REACHES: "Just can't even imagine life without a leader telling you what to do and how you are allowed to live. Right?"

:rolleyes:

WRONG!.."an" (a privative prefix meaning "without") "archy" (from Greek meaning "rule") literally..'without rule'...sounds like a lovely utopia to me!..

...unfortunately, I don't believe 'utopia' is an option for we the living..SADLY but seriously..

..although, in our lifetimes, I believe we would do well in working towards a MUCH MUCH MORE anarchistic society..

...dig?

Not having a ruler does not mean you are not still a sheep.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png

[tremendoustie]

Not having a ruler does not mean you are not still a sheep.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png

Lol!! That is one of the funniest comics I've seen, that's terrific.

[cujothekitten]

Anarchism and the Libertarian party
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsrgf2mdEno

[Invalid]

Lol!! That is one of the funniest comics I've seen, that's terrific.


I had to stare at that comic for a little bit too long until I finally got the catch line to it.

[Nate]

Yeah, now if we could actually work together, instead of incessantly insulting and beating the shit out of each other. :(

+1

[Xenophage]

That`s because they`re murderous scum just like many Objectivists. Objectivism is the other side of the coin of Marxism. Different goals, the same murderous methods, the same results.

Hi sailor, I'm an Objectivist.

I would rather like to murder your babies and drink your blood, thanks. While I'm at it, can I defecate on the corpse of your grandmother? Its an ancient Objectivist ritual.

P.S. -> The idiocy on this message board sometimes surprises me as much as the intellect.

[danberkeley]

Hi sailor, I'm an Objectivist.

Not a surprise.


P.S. -> The idiocy on this message board sometimes surprises me as much as the intellect.

Yup.

[Dreamofunity]

I think the difference would be that within a minarchist society, you would still force me to support and participate within your system whether I wanted to or not.

Under an anarcho-capitalist society, you can go off and have your wonderful minarchist paradise, and I won't be forced to participate or pay for it.

As for why the two are associated, Murray Rothbard was a big influence on the beginnings of the Libertarian Party as well as anarcho-capitalism being the logical conclusion of the NAP which is professed by Libertarian minarchists but for some reason not applied to government itself.

[Xenophage]

I think the difference would be that within a minarchist society, you would still force me to support and participate within your system whether I wanted to or not.

Under an anarcho-capitalist society, you can go off and have your wonderful minarchist paradise, and I won't be forced to participate or pay for it.

As for why the two are associated, Murray Rothbard was a big influence on the beginnings of the Libertarian Party as well as anarcho-capitalism being the logical conclusion of the NAP which is professed by Libertarian minarchists but for some reason not applied to government itself.

In an effort to engender at least mutual understanding and respect...

you're fucking wrong.

As a Minarchist I do apply the NAP to the government. That's why I'm a minarchist. In fact, the NAP demands government - IMHO.

You presume this is a contradiction. I do not. I think that YOUR position is a contradiction. I don't want to argue about it, because if you want to see my position you can search my thread history.

[Xenophage]

Also, I love you brotha!

[danberkeley]

...

As a Minarchist I do apply the NAP to the government. That's why I'm a minarchist. In fact, the NAP demands government - IMHO.

...

What about the State?

[Dreamofunity]

Would I be forced to fund your minarchy, and if not, how would it be funded?

Would I still get the services if I didn't agree to voluntarily fund it (If it were voluntarily funded)?

If not, would I be able to contract with a different agency for those services (we can disregard defense for the sake of ease in the arguement on this issue, although overall it is probably the most important)?

-- I understand if you don't want to get into those questions here, you've probably answered them in plenty of similar threads.

If it's completely voluntary, I'm all for it. I'm not against a voluntary minarchy, although I would equate that to simply being allowed within an overall anarcho-capitalist society as long as it's done on your property and without violating the rights and property of others. If I were forced to join it against my will, I would be against it. Where as, I wouldn't be against someone creating a commune, but I would not like to be apart of it.

I'm not fully converted to anarcho-capitalism, but I definitly lean towards it and play with it in my mind. I respect minarchists and objectivists as long as they agree to leave me alone and not force me into their society.


Love all around to anyone that supports liberty over coercion too.

[tremendoustie]

In an effort to engender at least mutual understanding and respect...

you're fucking wrong.

As a Minarchist I do apply the NAP to the government. That's why I'm a minarchist. In fact, the NAP demands government - IMHO.

You presume this is a contradiction. I do not. I think that YOUR position is a contradiction. I don't want to argue about it, because if you want to see my position you can search my thread history.

Question: Do you wish to initiate force against those unwilling to pay for the protection provided by your government, in order to force them to pay?

If the answer is yes, that is a violation of the NAP.

If the answer is no, I think most of the voluntaryists or anarcho-capitalists you are arguing against probably don't consider your government a "government" at all - and so agree with you, except perhaps on semantics.

[Xenophage]

Would I be forced to fund your minarchy, and if not, how would it be funded?

Would I still get the services if I didn't agree to voluntarily fund it (If it were voluntarily funded)?

If not, would I be able to contract with a different agency for those services (we can disregard defense for the sake of ease in the arguement on this issue, although overall it is probably the most important)?

-- I understand if you don't want to get into those questions here, you've probably answered them in plenty of similar threads.

If it's completely voluntary, I'm all for it. I'm not against a voluntary minarchy, although I would equate that to simply being allowed within an overall anarcho-capitalist society as long as it's done on your property and without violating the rights and property of others. If I were forced to join it against my will, I would be against it. Where as, I wouldn't be against someone creating a commune, but I would not like to be apart of it.

I'm not fully converted to anarcho-capitalism, but I definitly lean towards it and play with it in my mind. I respect minarchists and objectivists as long as they agree to leave me alone and not force me into their society.


Love all around to anyone that supports liberty over coercion too.

A minarchist government wouldn't offer any "services" in the way that you are accustomed to thinking of government. Fire departments, roads, schools and almost everything would be up to private individuals.

This is what my ideal government would do:

Provide courts and police and an objective legal system. It would maintain a volunteer military reserve to be used in a time of defensive need.

That's it!

Police would not maintain any sort of a 'monopoly' on security or defense. If you want to hire a private security company, I think there'd be a lot more of them available in a minarchy. Why would we have government police? To enforce the basic laws.

A free society NEEDS laws protecting life, liberty and private property. They cannot be arbitrary, or open to the highest bidder. It ceases to be a free society precisely when life, liberty and private property are no longer protected. Everyone's rights must be recognized, and the threat of coercive violence which is pervasive and has always existed in human societies has to be met with an equal and uniform threat of defensive force. You cannot expect a free society to flourish under conditions where one man's rights are protected and another's are not. I cannot understand how, as an individual desiring freedom, you would want to live in such a society.

So, you could opt out of having police anywhere on your property. You could opt out of funding them. But if you murder someone, you have to know that the police will go after you, even if nobody else will. Murder is not OPTIONAL. Theft is not OPTIONAL. Breaking a contract is not OPTIONAL. Therefore, you can not OPT-OUT of non-aggression and continue to exist in this theoretical society.

If the victim of a crime is capable of speaking for him or herself, they may choose not to press charges.

Police and courts could be funded a number of ways. Voluntary donations are fine, but who's to say how much that could account for? If someone is convicted of a crime, and their victim chooses to press charges, who is responsible for the costs incurred by the legal process? The criminal first, and the victim second.

Under a non-coercive system, I totally expect competing security forces and competing prisons. Some companies may choose not to protect against or incarcerate murderers, or rapists, or thieves or whatever. The difference between anarchy and minarchy simply is: none of the companies can commit murder or theft THEMSELVES, and there is an objective law that holds them accountable for any aggression. Nor could they hold TRIAL without following a FAIR procedure that includes a jury.

Before you even START, demanding that a fair trial be held is not coercive. If you hold a rigged trial, YOU are committing aggression. The entity that punishes you for holding a rigged trial is acting defensively. To enforce fair and equitable distribution of justice requires a uniform court system managed by a public entity, voluntarily funded by the use of private citizens and also funded through the seizure of property of rights-infringers where appropriate.

Now you're going to ask me what is appropriate and who decides. I think I already answered it above though and this post is ridiculously long and train-of-thought enough as it is.

[Truth Warrior]

A minarchist government wouldn't offer any "services" in the way that you are accustomed to thinking of government. Fire departments, roads, schools and almost everything would be up to private individuals.

This is what my ideal government would do:

Provide courts and police and an objective legal system. It would maintain a volunteer military reserve to be used in a time of defensive need.

That's it!

Police would not maintain any sort of a 'monopoly' on security or defense. If you want to hire a private security company, I think there'd be a lot more of them available in a minarchy. Why would we have government police? To enforce the basic laws.

A free society NEEDS laws protecting life, liberty and private property. They cannot be arbitrary, or open to the highest bidder. It ceases to be a free society precisely when life, liberty and private property are no longer protected. Everyone's rights must be recognized, and the threat of coercive violence which is pervasive and has always existed in human societies has to be met with an equal and uniform threat of defensive force. You cannot expect a free society to flourish under conditions where one man's rights are protected and another's are not. I cannot understand how, as an individual desiring freedom, you would want to live in such a society.

So, you could opt out of having police anywhere on your property. You could opt out of funding them. But if you murder someone, you have to know that the police will go after you, even if nobody else will. Murder is not OPTIONAL. Theft is not OPTIONAL. Breaking a contract is not OPTIONAL. Therefore, you can not OPT-OUT of non-aggression and continue to exist in this theoretical society.

If the victim of a crime is capable of speaking for him or herself, they may choose not to press charges.

Police and courts could be funded a number of ways. Voluntary donations are fine, but who's to say how much that could account for? If someone is convicted of a crime, and their victim chooses to press charges, who is responsible for the costs incurred by the legal process? The criminal first, and the victim second.

Under a non-coercive system, I totally expect competing security forces and competing prisons. Some companies may choose not to protect against or incarcerate murderers, or rapists, or thieves or whatever. The difference between anarchy and minarchy simply is: none of the companies can commit murder or theft THEMSELVES, and there is an objective law that holds them accountable for any aggression. Nor could they hold TRIAL without following a FAIR procedure that includes a jury.

Before you even START, demanding that a fair trial be held is not coercive. If you hold a rigged trial, YOU are committing aggression. The entity that punishes you for holding a rigged trial is acting defensively. To enforce fair and equitable distribution of justice requires a uniform court system managed by a public entity, voluntarily funded by the use of private citizens and also funded through the seizure of property of rights-infringers where appropriate.

Now you're going to ask me what is appropriate and who decides. I think I already answered it above though and this post is ridiculously long and train-of-thought enough as it is. How far away is America from a minarchist government, SIZE WISE?

[Xenophage]

How far away are we from a minarchist government, SIZE WISE?

Like, this much <---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> times a lot

[tremendoustie]

A minarchist government wouldn't offer any "services" in the way that you are accustomed to thinking of government. Fire departments, roads, schools and almost everything would be up to private individuals.

This is what my ideal government would do:

Provide courts and police and an objective legal system. It would maintain a volunteer military reserve to be used in a time of defensive need.

That's it!

Police would not maintain any sort of a 'monopoly' on security or defense. If you want to hire a private security company, I think there'd be a lot more of them available in a minarchy. Why would we have government police? To enforce the basic laws.

A free society NEEDS laws protecting life, liberty and private property. They cannot be arbitrary, or open to the highest bidder. It ceases to be a free society precisely when life, liberty and private property are no longer protected. Everyone's rights must be recognized, and the threat of coercive violence which is pervasive and has always existed in human societies has to be met with an equal and uniform threat of defensive force. You cannot expect a free society to flourish under conditions where one man's rights are protected and another's are not. I cannot understand how, as an individual desiring freedom, you would want to live in such a society.

So, you could opt out of having police anywhere on your property. You could opt out of funding them. But if you murder someone, you have to know that the police will go after you, even if nobody else will. Murder is not OPTIONAL. Theft is not OPTIONAL. Breaking a contract is not OPTIONAL. Therefore, you can not OPT-OUT of non-aggression and continue to exist in this theoretical society.

If the victim of a crime is capable of speaking for him or herself, they may choose not to press charges.

Police and courts could be funded a number of ways. Voluntary donations are fine, but who's to say how much that could account for? If someone is convicted of a crime, and their victim chooses to press charges, who is responsible for the costs incurred by the legal process? The criminal first, and the victim second.

Under a non-coercive system, I totally expect competing security forces and competing prisons. Some companies may choose not to protect against or incarcerate murderers, or rapists, or thieves or whatever. The difference between anarchy and minarchy simply is: none of the companies can commit murder or theft THEMSELVES, and there is an objective law that holds them accountable for any aggression. Nor could they hold TRIAL without following a FAIR procedure that includes a jury.

Before you even START, demanding that a fair trial be held is not coercive. If you hold a rigged trial, YOU are committing aggression. The entity that punishes you for holding a rigged trial is acting defensively. To enforce fair and equitable distribution of justice requires a uniform court system managed by a public entity, voluntarily funded by the use of private citizens and also funded through the seizure of property of rights-infringers where appropriate.

Now you're going to ask me what is appropriate and who decides. I think I already answered it above though and this post is ridiculously long and train-of-thought enough as it is.

I'm a voluntarist, and I agree 100% with what you propose, since you would not force people to fund the government. Of course you cannot opt out of the consequences of violent crime, I don't think anyone would propose that.

Suppose I now call your government a "private protection agency". What changes? I think your disagreement with those who propose no government is only one of semantics.

You call your protection agency "government", and they'd call it private. Do you think there is a distinction, because I don't see one. Change the names, but none of the meaning, and your proposal could have been made by an anarcho-capitalist.

You have to understand, many people who call themselves anarcho-capitalists, or voluntaryists, define government as the systematic violation of the NAP. So, if you propose a government which does not violate the NAP, they no longer consider it government -- and they agree with your proposal. In short, I think the meaning of what you and they want is identical, your only difference is in the definition of government.

[Xenophage]

I'm a voluntarist, and I agree 100% with what you propose, since you would not force people to fund the government. Of course you cannot opt out of the consequences of violent crime, I don't think anyone would propose that.

Suppose I now call your government a "private protection agency". What changes? I think your disagreement with those who propose no government is only one of semantics.

You call your protection agency "government", and they'd call it private. Do you think there is a distinction, because I don't see one. Change the names, but none of the meaning, and your proposal could have been made by an anarcho-capitalist.

No, there isn't a distinction. You can call it whatever you wish. You could call it a cooperation, because that's what it literally would be. Its still a justice system. Its operations would still extend over a geographic area. Essentially though, this cooperation would own very little actual land, and would not operate for profit.

Therefore, it is not an enterprise. It is more accurate to call it a government.

[Truth Warrior]

Like, this much <---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> times a lot Very STRANGE type of answer for an "OBJECTIVIST".<IMHO> :(

[sailor]

The entity that punishes you for holding a rigged trial is acting defensively.

Where does this "entity" get standing?

[tremendoustie]

No, there isn't a distinction. You can call it whatever you wish. You could call it a cooperation, because that's what it literally would be. Its still a justice system. Its operations would still extend over a geographic area. Essentially though, this cooperation would own very little actual land, and would not operate for profit.

Therefore, it is not an enterprise. It is more accurate to call it a government.

So, the difference is that it does not make a profit? There are many non-profits though -- I mean, no one calls habitat for humanity a government.

I have no problem with your definition of government, if you describe it simply as a non-profit protection agency. Just be aware that those who disagree with "government" probably don't use this same definition, and so, are certainly not disagreeing with your model.

I do not think many anarcho-capitalists would disagree with your government, or demand it make a profit. I think most would be quite happy with not for profit protection agencies, as long as they are voluntary.

[Xenophage]

Where does this "entity" get standing?

By the population that chooses to fund it and exist within its umbrella.

[sailor]

I'm a voluntarist, and I agree 100% with what you propose, since you would not force people to fund the government. Of course you cannot opt out of the consequences of violent crime, I don't think anyone would propose that.

Suppose I now call your government a "private protection agency". What changes? I think your disagreement with those who propose no government is only one of semantics.

You call your protection agency "government", and they'd call it private. Do you think there is a distinction, because I don't see one. Change the names, but none of the meaning, and your proposal could have been made by an anarcho-capitalist.

You have to understand, many people who call themselves anarcho-capitalists, or voluntaryists, define government as the systematic violation of the NAP. So, if you propose a government which does not violate the NAP, they no longer consider it government -- and they agree with your proposal. In short, I think the meaning of what you and they want is identical, your only difference is in the definition of government.

You`re actually wrong. What he is proposing is not voluntaryism. He is talking about "objective law" and an entity that claims the right of final arbitrage.

His is a voluntarily funded state, but it is stil a state. If you break one of their rules they get to set in their dark dungeons they will come after you, even though you haven`t violated any of their rights.

In an anarchy you only get to speak for yourself. But he has an entity that claims the right to speak for the whole of society.

[Xenophage]

So, the difference is that it does not make a profit? There are many non-profits though -- I mean, no one calls habitat for humanity a government.

I have no problem with your definition of government, if you describe it simply as a non-profit protection agency. Just be aware that those who disagree with "government" probably don't use this same definition, and so, are certainly not disagreeing with your model.

I do not think many anarcho-capitalists would disagree with your government, or demand it make a profit. I think most would be quite happy with not for profit protection agencies, as long as they are voluntary.

I know. I think we'd get along great. I've always said as much.

But this "agency" has to exist before capitalism can exist. There has to be a protection and at least some minimum guarantee of individual rights, either though everyone getting together and saying "hey, we'll make this 'government' or 'agency' or whatever to protect everyone who wants to be a part of our society and define the things that its not ok for us to do to each other" or by everyone just "getting along" and never committing aggression (unlikely).

If I could live in an anarchy of libertarians I would. "Galt's Gulch" sounded pretty sweet.

[Xenophage]

Very STRANGE type of answer for an "OBJECTIVIST".<IMHO> :(

That's because you don't roll with the cool Objectivists.

[Truth Warrior]

That's because you don't roll with the cool Objectivists. Hark! I hear Ayn spinning in her grave. :(

[tremendoustie]

You`re actually wrong. What he is proposing is not voluntaryism. He is talking about "objective law" and an entity that claims the right of final arbitrage.

His is a voluntarily funded state, but it is stil a state. If you break one of their rules they get to set in their dark dungeons they will come after you, even though you haven`t violated any of their rights.

In an anarchy you only get to speak for yourself. But he has an entity that claims the right to speak for the whole of society.

A protection agency has the right to defend its customers. Xenophage, I believe (and he can correct me if I am wrong), is proposing that one protection agency offer services even to those who do not pay them. This is certainly their right.

And, he says, "If the victim of a crime is capable of speaking for him or herself, they may choose not to press charges".

Any protection agency will be setting rules which constitute assault on one of their customers, and they will go after those who assault that customer.

This is no different, except that his service offers coverage no matter ability to pay. Although one can argue the practicality of offering services even to those who do not pay, I do not think it is immoral.

[Xenophage]

Hark! I hear Ayn spinning in her grave. :(

If you agree with 98% of a philosophy, is it inaccurate to say you are a practitioner of said philosophy?

If so, I'm not an Objectivist, but then I don't have a neat and accurate word to describe myself.

I'd have to come up with something crazy like...

"Secular rational egoist."

[sailor]

By the population that chooses to fund it and exist within its umbrella.

That`s not standing. I can fund the KKK, but it doesn`t give them any standing to prosecute anyone for holding a trial they find to be phony.


The only way to get standing is if you are the victim and your rights have been violated or if the victim has mandated you to be his representative.

Unless the victim is your client you don`t get to interfeare else you are an aggressor. You can not speak in his place by the virtue of him "existing within your umbrella" (so you even claim territorial soverignity??).

[tremendoustie]

I know. I think we'd get along great. I've always said as much.

But this "agency" has to exist before capitalism can exist. There has to be a protection and at least some minimum guarantee of individual rights, either though everyone getting together and saying "hey, we'll make this 'government' or 'agency' or whatever to protect everyone who wants to be a part of our society and define the things that its not ok for us to do to each other" or by everyone just "getting along" and never committing aggression (unlikely).

If I could live in an anarchy of libertarians I would. "Galt's Gulch" sounded pretty sweet.

What you describe seems the same as the standard protection agency to me, with the difference that it is willing to protect even those who do not pay in.

[Truth Warrior]

If you agree with 98% of a philosophy, is it inaccurate to say you are a practitioner of said philosophy?

If so, I'm not an Objectivist, but then I don't have a neat and accurate word to describe myself.

I'd have to come up with something crazy like...

"Secular rational egoist." It's less agreement than living it.<IMHO> The proof is in the doing. If I agree with the NAP, aggression is off the table as an option.

A is A.

[Xenophage]

That doesn't cover it all though... I'm a believer in objective reality, I only trust logic to uncover the truth of things, I believe in selfish morality and individual rights, and I think capitalism is the only moral system of government, I like technology and human progress, and I like rock and roll and sex and drugs...

So I'm a Rational Realist Secular Egoist Humanist Capitalist Douchebagistisminer.

[Xenophage]

I live my philosophy quite well.

[sailor]

A protection agency has the right to defend its customers. Xenophage, I believe (and he can correct me if I am wrong), is proposing that one protection agency offer services even to those who do not pay them. This is certainly their right.

And, he says, "If the victim of a crime is capable of speaking for him or herself, they may choose not to press charges".

Any protection agency will be setting rules which constitute assault on one of their customers, and they will go after those who assault that customer.

This is no different, except that his service offers coverage no matter ability to pay. Although one can argue the practicality of offering services even to those who do not pay, I do not think it is immoral.

Paying doesn`t really have anything to do with it. You can have paying as well as non-paying clients. Lawyers for example take on some cases just for the publicity.

What matters is if someone is your client of if he is not. Xenophage`s entity claims everyone "existing under their umbrella" as a client wether they like it or not. You can not opt-out of their "protection".

[Truth Warrior]

That doesn't cover it all though... I'm a believer in objective reality, I only trust logic to uncover the truth of things, I believe in selfish morality and individual rights, and I think capitalism is the only moral system of government, I like technology and human progress, and I like rock and roll and sex and drugs...

So I'm a Rational Realist Secular Egoist Humanist Capitalist Douchebagistisminer. So how about an OBJECTIVE rational answer to my very simple questions? I'm not looking for perfection. A reasonable SWAG will suffice.

[tremendoustie]

Paying doesn`t really have anything to do with it. You can have paying as well as non-paying clients. Lawyers for example take on some cases just for the publicity.

What matters is if someone is your client of if he is not. xenophages entity claims everyone "existing under their umbrella" as a client wether they like it or not. You can not opt-out of their "protection".

That is not true. Observe: "If the victim of a crime is capable of speaking for him or herself, they may choose not to press charges".

If you do not wish for them to "protect" you, simply ask them to leave those who "attack" you alone. You can opt out. You could probably even leave a standing order with them that you will not press charges against anyone they arrest for attacking you, and they won't even bother to pick them up.

[Xenophage]

So how about an OBJECTIVE rational answer to my very simple questions? I'm not looking for perfection. A reasonable SWAG will suffice.

Your question was stupid. You got a stupid answer.

I have no way of quantifying Objectively how far away we are from a minarchist government except to say we're really fucking far away from it.

If you know of some way to quantify that, please, do tell.

[Truth Warrior]

Your question was stupid. You got a stupid answer.

I have no way of quantifying Objectively how far away we are from a minarchist government except to say we're really fucking far away from it.

If you know of some way to quantify that, please, do tell. I'd say it was ignorant, not stupid. That's why I asked it. You continued refusal to answer, really tells me more than I want to know. :(

[Xenophage]

I'd say it was ignorant, not stupid. That's why I asked it. You continued refusal to answer, really tells me more than I want to know. :(

I did answer you.

[Xenophage]

You're really good at goading people.

[Truth Warrior]

I did answer you. Just keep on thinking that. ;)

[Xenophage]

Just keep on thinking that. ;)


Oh, I WILL.

[sailor]

That is not true. Observe: "If the victim of a crime is capable of speaking for him or herself, they may choose not to press charges".

If you do not wish for them to "protect" you, simply ask them to leave those who "attack" you alone. You can opt out. You could probably even leave a standing order with them that you will not press charges against anyone they arrest for attacking you, and they won't even bother to pick them up.

Yeah, If the victim of a crime is capable of speaking for him or herself.

Kind of like guilty until proven innocent.

What gives them the right to assume anyone who can`t speak for himself would have wanted their interfearance? Are they everyone`s relatives?

[Xenophage]

Yeah, If the victim of a crime is capable of speaking for him or herself.

Kind of like guilty until proven innocent.

What gives them the right to assume anyone who can`t speak for himself would have wanted their interfearance? Are they everyone`s relatives?

If a piano is about to fall on someone's head and he doesn't know it, do you assume he might like you to push him out of the way?

Or do you stand there, think about, start to open your mouth to ask him, and then get splattered by blood?

[sailor]

If a piano is about to fall on someone's head and he doesn't know it, do you assume he might like you to push him out of the way?

Or do you stand there, think about, start to open your mouth to ask him, and then get splattered by blood?

Not even similar. If you pushed someone out of the way, depending on the circumstances, this person is within its rights to press charges against you later.

Someone who is unable to speak for himself on the other hand can not press charges against you for interfearing later, can he?

[tremendoustie]

Ok, so, Xenophage, what if, in this society, in order to get the free coverage, you just send a postcard to the "government" or "protection agency", whatever you want to call it, to be included, at no cost to you.

Most parents would do it for their kids at birth, and then the kid does it for themselves at whatever age they can legally make a decision, 18 if it's the same as now. This is just to make sure, that if someone doesn't want protection, you don't accidentally give it to them. In otherwords, it authorizes the "government" to act in their intrests by arresting and bringing up for prosecuting those who attack them.

Of course, if you later want to opt out, you can send another postcard, indicating it.

Cool?

[Xenophage]

Not even similar. If you pushed someone out of the way, depending on the circumstances, this person is within its rights to press charges against you later.

Someone who is unable to speak for himself on the other hand can not press charges against you for interfearing later, can he?

Its similar because it is logical to assume that someone would want you to help them, even if they can't say so. If someone has been killed or utterly incapacitated by an act of violence, it is not only logical to assume that they would want you to pursue the person responsible, it is also mandatory that you do so if your goal is to maintain a society of individual rights and equitable justice.

[Xenophage]

Ok, so, Xenophage, what if, in this society, in order to get the free coverage, you just send a postcard to the "government" or "protection agency", whatever you want to call it, to be included, at no cost to you.

Most parents would do it for their kids at birth, and then the kid does it for themselves at whatever age they can legally make a decision, 18 if it's the same as now. This is just to make sure, that if someone doesn't want protection, you don't accidentally give it to them. In otherwords, it authorizes the "government" to act in their intrests by arresting and bringing up for prosecuting those who attack them.

Of course, if you later want to opt out, you can send another postcard, indicating it.

Cool?

There are a myriad of various ways you could go about organizing a minarchy, just like there are a multitude of ways you can explain how things would work in an anarchy. As long as it is voluntary and serves objective law and equitable justice, in accordance with the philosophy of individual rights, then its all good. Run it however.

[tremendoustie]

There are a myriad of various ways you could go about organizing a minarchy, just like there are a multitude of ways you can explain how things would work in an anarchy. As long as it is voluntary and serves objective law and equitable justice, in accordance with the philosophy of individual rights, then its all good. Run it however.

All I'm saying is, if you're ok with this, this removes sailor's objection -- people would be consenting to be protected by this service, and would furthermore be able to drop charges on a particular crime, if desired. It's completely voluntary.

I still think you think there's a difference between voluntary minarchy and voluntaryism, or anarcho-capitalism, which is in reality not meaningful ;). I think they're really one and the same -- I certainly think your system qualifies as an anarcho-capitalist system.

[Xenophage]

All I'm saying is, if you're ok with this, this removes sailor's objection -- people would be consenting to be protected by this service, and would furthermore be able to drop charges on a particular crime, if desired. It's completely voluntary.

I suppose, yes. If someone can't speak for themselves you have prior authorization to act on their behalf. That makes sense.

Seems like a lot of paperwork though, and I'm not convinced a simple assumption on behalf of the disabled or dead is immoral.

[tremendoustie]

I suppose, yes. If someone can't speak for themselves you have prior authorization to act on their behalf. That makes sense.

Seems like a lot of paperwork though, and I'm not convinced a simple assumption on behalf of the disabled or dead is immoral.

It could be super simple, like I say, just drop a postcard in the mail with the "yes" box checked.

I don't think it matters from a protection standpoint -- signee or not signee, if someone appears to be in danger, it is reasonable to rescue them. The difference comes in prosecution -- the victim of an attacker or thief is not society at large, but rather the person they have assaulted or stolen from. The right to demand punishment or recieve restitution, rests with the victim. So, to be completely on the up and up, that person should probably authorize the protection agency to act on their behalf.

Anyhow, just saying, I don't think there are as many disagreements here as some might suppose, between voluntary minarchists and anarcho-capitalists -- or maybe really even any at all. A true voluntary minarchy seems pretty much the same as an anarcho-capitalist system to me.

The only real delineator is voluntary or not. Otherwise, we're just talking about different potential structures in the same system -- a non-profit instead of for profit for example, or universal coverage vs subscriber based service. None of these things are different forms of government, they're just different voluntary organizations that might arise, or evolve in a free society.

[sailor]

Its similar because it is logical to assume that someone would want you to help them, even if they can't say so. If someone has been killed or utterly incapacitated by an act of violence, it is not only logical to assume that they would want you to pursue the person responsible,

It is only logical if you assume everyone is like you. It is not logical to assume everyone would find what you call help to be actuall help and it is not logical to assume everyone would have wanted help in the first place.

A lot of this is not logical if we assume the person in question is actually an amish, a devout catholic or a buddhist monk.


it is also mandatory that you do so if your goal is to maintain a society of individual rights and equitable justice.

It is not mandatory. The society has no standing in this matter. Only the victim. (And by extension its relatives and friends...)
Less worrying about society and more worrying about the induvidual. How do you know you have not violated the rights of the very person you claim to represent?

The fact is that you can not know. On the other hand if you stay put you know for a fact that you have not violated his rights, because you have no positive obligation to him.


It must be understood that perception is meaningless. The only thing that matters is reality. If a suspicious looking person walks into my store at around closing time and suddenly reaches for his pocket and I shoot him thinking my life is in danger then if it turns out the person had a gun in his pocket and just held up and shot up a place two blocks away the previous day then all is fine. But if it turns out the person was an insomniac customer reaching for a cell phone then I am a serious criminal, regardless of my very real perception at the time that my life was in danger.

But the only reason why my shooting is allowed under this circumstance is that it can be later verified what the reality was. After I shot the person it was possible to establish wether the person whom I shot was a legitimate danger to me or not.

On the other hand had I shot him with a kill-o-zap that would have instantenously disintegrated his body, clothing and everything in his pockets into a little bit of dust (making it impossibe to determine who the shot person was and wether he was actually reaching for the gun) then my shooting would have never been deemed warranted because there would have been nothing to prove my perception at the time was matching the reality.

When there is no way to determine the facts one way or the other the logical thing is to assume nothing.

[Conza88]

You never answered his question. :rolleyes:


What about the State?

[tremendoustie]

It is only logical if you assume everyone is like you. It is not logical to assume everyone would find what you call help to be actuall help and it is not logical to assume everyone would have wanted help in the first place.

A lot of this is not logical if we assume the person in question is actually an amish, a devout catholic or a buddhist monk.



It is not mandatory. The society has no standing in this matter. Only the victim. (And by extension its relatives and friends...)
Less worrying about society and more worrying about the induvidual. How do you know you have not violated the rights of the very person you claim to represent?

The fact is that you can not know. On the other hand if you stay put you know for a fact that you have not violated his rights, because you have no positive obligation to him.


It must be understood that perception is meaningless. The only thing that matters is reality. If a suspicious looking person walks into my store at around closing time and suddenly reaches for his pocket and I shoot him thinking my life is in danger then if it turns out the person had a gun in his pocket and just held up and shot up a place two blocks away the previous day then all is fine. But if it turns out the person was an insomniac customer reaching for a cell phone then I am a serious criminal, regardless of my very real perception at the time that my life was in danger.

But the only reason why my shooting is allowed under this circumstance is that it can be later verified what the reality was. After I shot the person it was possible to establish wether the person whom I shot was a legitimate danger to me or not.

On the other hand had I shot him with a kill-o-zap that would have instantenously disintegrated his body, clothing and everything in his pockets into a little bit of dust (making it impossibe to determine who the shot person was and wether he was actually reaching for the gun) then my shooting would have never been deemed warranted because there would have been nothing to prove my perception at the time was matching the reality.

When there is no way to determine the facts one way or the other the logical thing is to assume nothing.

Ok ... your main points are all solved by the post card thing though, right?

I do question your method for deciding if a person has used justified self defense, though. I think reasonable behavior comes into it. If a person yells, "say goodbye", pulls a replica deagle out, and starts to point it at your head, I don't think I can blame you for shooting him, because it was reasonable for you to assume he was an attacker.

[sailor]

I do question your method for deciding if a person has used justified self defense, though. I think reasonable behavior comes into it. If a person yells, "say goodbye", pulls a replica deagle out, and starts to point it at your head, I don't think I can blame you for shooting him, because it was reasonable for you to assume he was an attacker.

Thats neither attack nor self-defense. Thats suicide by proxy.

[tremendoustie]

Thats neither attack nor self-defense. Thats suicide by proxy.

Oh, ok, cool, I think we agree then. Common sense, and not only the outcome, should indeed play a role in determining the legality of an action.

[sailor]

Seems like a lot of paperwork though, and I'm not convinced a simple assumption on behalf of the disabled or dead is immoral.

In practice the dead or the disabled will be survived by close ones who will be able to speak for them.

So I don`t see why anyone would make an unsubstantied assumption the default stance unless it was for power reasons.

[sailor]

Anyhow, just saying, I don't think there are as many disagreements here as some might suppose, between voluntary minarchists and anarcho-capitalists -- or maybe really even any at all. A true voluntary minarchy seems pretty much the same as an anarcho-capitalist system to me.

Other than the issue I brought up (and which could indeed be resolved with your postcard opt-in programe) I would have to agree.

But I don`t think many minarchists envision voluntary funding and allow for alternative courts, even criminal courts. I think this is very much a minority view among the minarchists. (Possibly making Xenophage closer to anarchists than minarchists.)

[Dreamofunity]

A minarchist government wouldn't offer any "services" in the way that you are accustomed to thinking of government. Fire departments, roads, schools and almost everything would be up to private individuals.

This is what my ideal government would do:

Provide courts and police and an objective legal system. It would maintain a volunteer military reserve to be used in a time of defensive need.

That's it!

Police would not maintain any sort of a 'monopoly' on security or defense. If you want to hire a private security company, I think there'd be a lot more of them available in a minarchy. Why would we have government police? To enforce the basic laws.

A free society NEEDS laws protecting life, liberty and private property. They cannot be arbitrary, or open to the highest bidder. It ceases to be a free society precisely when life, liberty and private property are no longer protected. Everyone's rights must be recognized, and the threat of coercive violence which is pervasive and has always existed in human societies has to be met with an equal and uniform threat of defensive force. You cannot expect a free society to flourish under conditions where one man's rights are protected and another's are not. I cannot understand how, as an individual desiring freedom, you would want to live in such a society.

So, you could opt out of having police anywhere on your property. You could opt out of funding them. But if you murder someone, you have to know that the police will go after you, even if nobody else will. Murder is not OPTIONAL. Theft is not OPTIONAL. Breaking a contract is not OPTIONAL. Therefore, you can not OPT-OUT of non-aggression and continue to exist in this theoretical society.

If the victim of a crime is capable of speaking for him or herself, they may choose not to press charges.

Police and courts could be funded a number of ways. Voluntary donations are fine, but who's to say how much that could account for? If someone is convicted of a crime, and their victim chooses to press charges, who is responsible for the costs incurred by the legal process? The criminal first, and the victim second.

Under a non-coercive system, I totally expect competing security forces and competing prisons. Some companies may choose not to protect against or incarcerate murderers, or rapists, or thieves or whatever. The difference between anarchy and minarchy simply is: none of the companies can commit murder or theft THEMSELVES, and there is an objective law that holds them accountable for any aggression. Nor could they hold TRIAL without following a FAIR procedure that includes a jury.

Before you even START, demanding that a fair trial be held is not coercive. If you hold a rigged trial, YOU are committing aggression. The entity that punishes you for holding a rigged trial is acting defensively. To enforce fair and equitable distribution of justice requires a uniform court system managed by a public entity, voluntarily funded by the use of private citizens and also funded through the seizure of property of rights-infringers where appropriate.

Now you're going to ask me what is appropriate and who decides. I think I already answered it above though and this post is ridiculously long and train-of-thought enough as it is.


I don't have much disagreement with any of that, just some questions.

Keep in mind, I've only had an introductory philosophy class (where we went over objectivism, but not it's political philosophy) and knowledge from what I've read/listened to online, so I may have misunderstood or made assumptions on some things, also I'm not really trying to make an essential argument for an-cap (considering I'm not completely converted myself), I'm just curious of how other political philosophies would work and take it from the perspective of a leaning an-cap.

How far out does this 'government' have jurisdiction? Is it done by land masses? Global? Local? Voluntary acceptance? I realize all the laws would basically be the same given they're objective law (and that is probably debatable as to what they would be, but at least in concept they'd be universal) but who gets to decide who is part of the government and who isn't? Who decides who gets to enforce these objective laws? Not who decides what the laws are, we have reason for that.

Can some men then claim the right to aggress against another as long as they are within objective law bringing someone to objective justice? Or can one only make that claim if they are the victim acting in defense or in the police bureaucracy? Could I make that claim without joining the police bureaucracy, or delegate that claim for my protection to someone else - as long as they act within objective law? If not, what makes those men different than me or the company I wish to hire? Different uniforms? If so, I'd consider it anarcho-capitalism.

The way I see your system is almost as if it were anarcho-capitalism, or at least what would arise within it, just without mulitple choices. I don't see any legitimacy in your acting government or police other than in the laws they enforce. If they enforce bad laws, or non-objective laws, they're illegitimate. The same way I would not see any legitimacy in a random protective agency if they did not act within objective law (the non-agression principle), the only difference is I can claim that company illegitimate, I can't make that claim against yours. I guess you could make that claim in your system against individuals, but again what makes that individual any different than anyone/group choosing to uphold objective law? If your government were to be corrupt or act outside of the law, who would stop them?

If within competing companies, a company violates the rights of their customers or others, that company would no longer be seen as a legitimate protective agency and instead as a gang at large; and anyone, including those claiming the rights to violate the NAP legitimately, can be considered illegitimate and liable for their crimes if they diviate from objective law. This is something that I think would be hard to be held accountable if there were a monopoly police force (even with the allowance of security forms if they weren't allowed to act against the police).

I understand the the law must be upheld, and I think we mostly agree that would simply be for the most part the NAP, but have a difference on opinion on who would be seen as legitimate to enforce it. Objectivism seems to claim a large central monopoly would be the only ones allowed to enforce objective law; the police being the police, and the government being the government, no exceptions. I think the problem with this is the veil of legitimacy and the power to corrupt without any checks and balances that the free-market could provide.

Other than that we're in agreement. I realize it is a big difference when it comes down to it, but for now, we're definitly on the same team working towards the same goal of human liberty. I think objectivists would be happy within an anarcho-capitalists society, as long as they're left alone, and an anarcho-capitalist would be happy within an objectivist government, as long as there was no corruption and the system self-regulated those who violated NAP within the system.

Basically, I'm in agreeance with you on ending the bickering and name calling - as professed in your other thread.

Also, a little less philosophical, but with the state enforcing both law and prosecuting violaters, how would you prevent conflict of interest or corruption?


Out of curiosity, do you adhere to the majority of Objectivism or just it's political philosophy? When we learned about Rand and Objectivism in class and it was very interesting, but only a short section, and I found myself drawing more towards existentialism -- but that's a whole other topic.

[Xenophage]

I don't have much disagreement with any of that, just some questions.

Keep in mind, I've only had an introductory philosophy class (where we went over objectivism, but not it's political philosophy) and knowledge from what I've read/listened to online, so I may have misunderstood or made assumptions on some things, also I'm not really trying to make an essential argument for an-cap (considering I'm not completely converted myself), I'm just curious of how other political philosophies would work and take it from the perspective of a leaning an-cap.

How far out does this 'government' have jurisdiction? Is it done by land masses? Global? Local? Voluntary acceptance? I realize all the laws would basically be the same given they're objective law (and that is probably debatable as to what they would be, but at least in concept they'd be universal) but who gets to decide who is part of the government and who isn't? Who decides who gets to enforce these objective laws? Not who decides what the laws are, we have reason for that.

Can some men then claim the right to aggress against another as long as they are within objective law bringing someone to objective justice? Or can one only make that claim if they are the victim acting in defense or in the police bureaucracy? Could I make that claim without joining the police bureaucracy, or delegate that claim for my protection to someone else - as long as they act within objective law? If not, what makes those men different than me or the company I wish to hire? Different uniforms? If so, I'd consider it anarcho-capitalism.

The way I see your system is almost as if it were anarcho-capitalism, or at least what would arise within it, just without mulitple choices. I don't see any legitimacy in your acting government or police other than in the laws they enforce. If they enforce bad laws, or non-objective laws, they're illegitimate. The same way I would not see any legitimacy in a random protective agency if they did not act within objective law (the non-agression principle), the only difference is I can claim that company illegitimate, I can't make that claim against yours. I guess you could make that claim in your system against individuals, but again what makes that individual any different than anyone/group choosing to uphold objective law? If your government were to be corrupt or act outside of the law, who would stop them?

If within competing companies, a company violates the rights of their customers or others, that company would no longer be seen as a legitimate protective agency and instead as a gang at large; and anyone, including those claiming the rights to violate the NAP legitimately, can be considered illegitimate and liable for their crimes if they diviate from objective law. This is something that I think would be hard to be held accountable if there were a monopoly police force (even with the allowance of security forms if they weren't allowed to act against the police).

I understand the the law must be upheld, and I think we mostly agree that would simply be for the most part the NAP, but have a difference on opinion on who would be seen as legitimate to enforce it. Objectivism seems to claim a large central monopoly would be the only ones allowed to enforce objective law; the police being the police, and the government being the government, no exceptions. I think the problem with this is the veil of legitimacy and the power to corrupt without any checks and balances that the free-market could provide.

Other than that we're in agreement. I realize it is a big difference when it comes down to it, but for now, we're definitly on the same team working towards the same goal of human liberty. I think objectivists would be happy within an anarcho-capitalists society, as long as they're left alone, and an anarcho-capitalist would be happy within an objectivist government, as long as there was no corruption and the system self-regulated those who violated NAP within the system.

Basically, I'm in agreeance with you on ending the bickering and name calling - as professed in your other thread.

Also, a little less philosophical, but with the state enforcing both law and prosecuting violaters, how would you prevent conflict of interest or corruption?


Out of curiosity, do you adhere to the majority of Objectivism or just it's political philosophy? When we learned about Rand and Objectivism in class and it was very interesting, but only a short section, and I found myself drawing more towards existentialism -- but that's a whole other topic.

This is a big question. I'll do my best to answer...

Quesiton 1) How far out is the jurisdiction of a minarchy?
A: Frankly, I don't know and I think it would depend upon a great many things. Essentially, a minarchist "state" would look like a lot of private property. I think a predefined "border" would be a silly notion. Most likely, the citizens of such a state would live in proximity to one another, but how that ends up looking on a map I have no idea. Maybe it wouldn't be contiguous at all.

Question 2) Can some men initiate aggression against others?
A: The NAP refers to coercive force, e.g. force intended to subject someone to your will without their consent. Defensive force is perfectly moral. Acting to defend someone else on their behalf from aggression is not aggression itself. As long as the people engaged in the use of force are engaged in it according to the objective law of the land, which means they are engaged only in retaliatory force, there is no authority for an Objectivist government to prevent them from doing so. However, in an effort to enforce basic laws against the infringement of individual rights, trials would need to be held to attempt to determine the facts of a particular case. Any person who uses violent force against another person should be held accountable and expected to defend their reasons for doing so - everyone is personally responsible for the consequences of their actions. If a trial is called and a person refuses to provide any sort of defense for their act of violence by failing to show up, then they have abdicated their personal responsibility in the matter and it is within the moral rights of any agent, agency or citizen to pursue and detain them - assuming the crime for which they are to be held trial can justifiably and objectively be considered a crime according to the NAP.

Question 3) Who is responsible for correcting the aberrations of an immoral, unjust legal system? From where does any such entity derive its legitimacy?
A: The citizens that choose to conduct their society within the jurisdiction of their government. I believe, and I believe everyone here would agree, that citizens are ultimately responsible for their government and not the other way around. Government gets its power by consent, and if consent is not given then it is powerless.

Question 4) Is it hard to hold a monopoly police force accountable to objective law?
A: Yes. I don't advocate a monopoly police force. I believe in the rights of individuals to arm and defend themselves, and to grant others the privilege of defending them. Like I said before, everyone is personally responsible for their own uses of force. The police acting on behalf of the government, who's job it is to uphold objective law and enforce fair trial proceedings are ultimately responsible to the people who entrust them to do so. The people are within their rights to overthrow this government if it fails to uphold objective law.

Have I missed anything? lol

[Xenophage]

Other questions:

How much of Objectivism do I agree with?

Basically, all of its primary tenants, with some added stipulations and slightly different conclusions. I believe in objective reality, I believe in reason as the only tool to know reality, I believe in selfish morality, and I believe in capitalism.

Objectivism's Metaphysics and Epistemology I find to be profound, and I'm very well versed in those. The Ethics are a great start and I would say I agree with the basic premises there as well. The Politics I can find nothing to disagree with.

Ways I differ from Rand...

I blend in some understanding that human beings are by nature social and sexual creatures. I do not agree with Rand's conclusions regarding love and sex. I also disagree with much of her aesthetics and I believe aesthetics are highly subjective. While I believe humans are primarily selfish in their motivations, and that a rational morality can only begin by examining your individual values, I also concede that human beings are happiest when they have companions and groups that they can associate with and feel accepted by - and some such groups are absolutely essential. By extension, my own individual values extend to social groups like my family.

[The_Orlonater]

Anarcho Capitalists are simply extremists who reject minarchy in favor of lawlessness and chaos. It is nothing more than purely theoretical vanity which has no historical basis or connection to any rule of law system.

Medieval Iceland is just one example of historical basis.
Do you want more?