Are you a Constitutionalist or an Anarchist?

[Dr.3D]

I think it might be interesting to know how we stand when it comes to the division in these forums as to who is an Anarchist versus who is a Constitutionalist.

Please vote in this poll so we will know how we stand on this issue.

Please view the video in post #2 before you vote.

[FrankRep]

For the Anarchists: We are a Constitutional Republic.


YouTube - The American Form of Government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE)

[rp08orbust]

I would have voted "Minarchist" or "Constitutionalist" only a year or even six months ago, but in hindsight, I've been on a journey from conservative statist to anarcho-capitalist for 15 years. If you truly believe in "individual sovereignty", there's nowhere else to go.

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

Poll contains a false alternative. An anarchist is simply someone who is able to live without government intrusions and chooses to do so. The Constitution is so great because it allows anarchists to coexist with statists.

When an anarchist seeks to destroy someone else's government, he becomes a tyrant trying to force his own "government" on others. The only way for an anarchist to remain a pure anarchist is to remove government from his own sphere while allowing others to have their government as well.
If said government becomes intrusive on the anarchist, he must work with his peers to consensually or by way of majority vote remove that government influence from his life--not to downplay the importance of civil disobedience.

Any pure anarchist would tend to be a Constitutionalist as well.

[Brassmouth]

For the Anarchists: We are a Constitutional Republic

:rolleyes:

[South Park Fan]

Anarcho-capitalist, although a true anarchist wouldn't vote.

[Andrew-Austin]

I think it might be interesting to know how we stand when it comes to the division in these forums as to who is an Anarchist versus who is a Constitutionalist.

Please vote in this poll so we will know how we stand on this issue.

Aren't there some minarchists who don't worship the constitution, and would opt for a different government? You should have included three options: constitutionalist, minarchist, and anarchist. Surely there must be plenty of minarchists on this board who think we can do better than the constitution, a system that already failed.


For the Anarchists: We are a Constitutional Republic.

YouTube - The American Form of Government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE)

We've heard this dogma before. In reality the US government has elements of authoritarianism, fascism, kleptocracy, meritocracy, plutocracy, socialism, and totalitarianism. These co-exist with its being a constitutional federal republic with representative democracy. That video misrepresents anarcho-capitalism using a strawman, the guy who made that video has probably never even heard of anarcho-capitalism. It was cute when he starting talking about anarchy, they showed clips of war and a bus crashing in to a tree. The chaos depicted in the video could be attributed to statism, we have all witnessed the utilization of the "problem-reaction-solution" tool by statists to increase their own power, the "anarchists" in the video who rose to power were not anarchists at all. "In a civilized society people have always hired a guardian / law man". Yes, but they do not have to grant those people a monopoly power over them. And I disagree with the political spectrum used in that video, its not very accurate/useful, I'd go with the nolan chart.

[heavenlyboy34]

For the Anarchists: We are a Constitutional Republic.


YouTube - The American Form of Government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE)

for FrankRep: only in theory! In practice, we've got ourselves a Leviathan State. :(:p:mad:

[Pod]

Please view the video in post #2 before you vote.

Why?

First you ask us what we are, but before we say it you want to lecture us some? :confused:

[Dr.3D]

Why?

First you ask us what we are, but before we say it you want to lecture us some? :confused:

I want to make sure you understand the question.

[FrankRep]

for FrankRep: only in theory! In practice, we've got ourselves a Leviathan State. :(:p:mad:
If America went into Anarchy how long could it actually last until being invaded by Mexico, Russia, China, and every other country who would like to own a chunk of this country?

[South Park Fan]

If America went into Anarchy how long could it actually last until being invaded by Mexico, Russia, China, and every other country who would like to own a chunk of this country?

Do you really think they'd be foolish enough to invade a country with 80 million gun owners and no government to obtain a surrender from?

[rp08orbust]

If America went into Anarchy how long could it actually last until being invaded by Mexico, Russia, China, and every other country who would like to own a chunk of this country?

How did the colonists ever repel an invasion by the world's greatest empire without the US government?

Getting itself re-invaded by Britain was one of the first accomplishments of the new US government.

[Epic]

Defense via voluntary cooperation is even better than a centralized military

[Master]

Was converted to an Anarcho-Capitalist just recently.

[Minarchy4Sale]

You gotta be fucking kidding me.... All the mainstream Paul supporters have vanished to be replaced with a fucking anarcho debatatarian society. No wonder this place is going to hell.

[Crash Martinez]

As the Bible doesn't allow anarchy, I cannot be a thoroughgoing anarchist, though under my own fallible wisdom, that would probably otherwise be my inclination.

If total anarchism can be proven to me to be compatible with biblical Christianity, then I'm there.

As it stands, though, I'm compelled to be a Minarchist. Within the Minarchist sphere, a constitutional republic seems to be one possible option - though seriously flawed, it sure would be a lot better than what we have here and now. But I'm by no means so devoted to constitutional republicanism as to call myself a constitutionalist.

I think that, in whatever form it may take, a government, by consent of the governed, that exists SOLELY for the purpose of defending all people's equal rights to life, liberty, and property (and is therefore funded not by taxes but by voluntary donations), is on the whole acceptable.

The problems of force and violence plague anarchy as much as minarchy, monarchy, republicanism, and empire -- though clearly we should strive for as small a stage as possible on which violent people can be capable of acting. This is because the problems of force and violence plague human nature itself, and no political system can erradicate them.

Just thoughts.

[Dr.3D]

You gotta be fucking kidding me.... All the mainstream Paul supporters have vanished to be replaced with a fucking anarcho debatatarian society. No wonder this place is going to hell.

LOL, this is why I started this thread. I wanted to know what was happening to the Liberty Forest Forums.

[Epic]

As the Bible doesn't allow anarchy, I cannot be a thoroughgoing anarchist, though under my own fallible wisdom, that would probably otherwise be my inclination.

If total anarchism can be proven to me to be compatible with biblical Christianity, then I'm there.

As it stands, though, I'm compelled to be a Minarchist. Within the Minarchist sphere, a constitutional republic seems to be one possible option - though seriously flawed, it sure would be a lot better than what we have here and now. But I'm by no means so devoted to constitutional republicanism as to call myself a constitutionalist.

I think that, in whatever form it may take, a government, by consent of the governed, that exists SOLELY for the purpose of defending all people's equal rights to life, liberty, and property (and is therefore funded not by taxes but by voluntary donations), is on the whole acceptable.

The problems of force and violence plague anarchy as much as minarchy, monarchy, republicanism, and empire -- though clearly we should strive for as small a stage as possible on which violent people can be capable of acting. This is because the problems of force and violence plague human nature itself, and no political system can erradicate them.

Just thoughts.

How about "thou shalt not steal" ----> implies voluntaryism

[Crash Martinez]

How about "thou shalt not steal" ----> implies voluntaryism

Indeed it does...


...a government, by consent of the governed, that exists SOLELY for the purpose of defending all people's equal rights to life, liberty, and property (and is therefore funded not by taxes but by voluntary donations), is on the whole acceptable...

[rp08orbust]

I think that, in whatever form it may take, a government, by consent of the governed, that exists SOLELY for the purpose of defending all people's equal rights to life, liberty, and property (and is therefore funded not by taxes but by voluntary donations), is on the whole acceptable

Rejecting the authority of all non-consensual government is all I mean by "anarchist".

Where in the Bible is it stated that only monopolistic governments funded through force are acceptable?

[Epic]

You gotta be fucking kidding me.... All the mainstream Paul supporters have vanished to be replaced with a fucking anarcho debatatarian society. No wonder this place is going to hell.

It's not like the voluntaryists don't support Ron Paul.

Ron Paul has been a boon for the minarchists and voluntaryists. And voluntaryists would be very happen if the government shrunk to a constitutional size.

It's an anti-government message... until this government gets radically minimalized (which isn't happening soon), we're on the same team.

[FrankRep]

Do you really think they'd be foolish enough to invade a country with 80 million gun owners and no government to obtain a surrender from?
Good lucking fighting tanks and missiles.

[rp08orbust]

LOL, this is why I started this thread. I wanted to know what was happening to the Liberty Forest Forums.

We're deepening our understanding of liberty.

[Kludge]

Does someone have a link to an older poll asking this same question?

I found this one from about a year ago, but it's mixing answers a bit, IMO, and over 25% voted NotA (and the sample size is fairly small): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=147541

[Epic]

...a government, by consent of the governed, that exists SOLELY for the purpose of defending all people's equal rights to life, liberty, and property (and is therefore funded not by taxes but by voluntary donations), is on the whole acceptable...

You are describing a voluntaryist society free of force. AKA "anarchy".

[heavenlyboy34]

If America went into Anarchy how long could it actually last until being invaded by Mexico, Russia, China, and every other country who would like to own a chunk of this country?


As long as people value their property, they will find a way to protect it. If we keep up the facade of the State, those countries will simply take us over with non-violent means (economic, "immigration", etc.). You can see this happening all around you if you just open your eyes. ;)

[Crash Martinez]

Rejecting the authority of all non-consensual government is all I mean by "anarchist".

Where in the Bible is it stated that only monopolistic governments funded through force are acceptable?

True, true... Hmm, so maybe I've been looking at this the wrong way. Perhaps instead of having to prove biblically that all (other) forms of government are unacceptable, I only have to establish that anarchism is biblically acceptable in order to be free in conscience to advocate for it. That'd be nice...

[rp08orbust]

Good lucking fighting tanks and missiles.

If they shoot my house with a missile, then there's nothing left of it worth "owning", which you assumed was the purpose of the invasion.

[Pod]

I think that, in whatever form it may take, a government, by consent of the governed, that exists SOLELY for the purpose of defending all people's equal rights to life, liberty, and property (and is therefore funded not by taxes but by voluntary donations), is on the whole acceptable.

Sounds like anarchy to me.

[Kludge]

Sounds like anarchy to me.

... Only because he included "consent of the governed".

[Pod]

As long as people value their property, they will find a way to protect it. If we keep up the facade of the State, those countries will simply take us over with non-violent means (economic, "immigration", etc.). You can see this happening all around you if you just open your eyes. ;)

Since we paid for all those tanks I`d homestead one and park it on my driveway.

[South Park Fan]

Good lucking fighting tanks and missiles.

Of course there would be no government to restrict those weapons from the public. And, as rp08orbust said, if they destroy our property, that gets rid of the entire purpose of the invasion.

[Epic]

Oh and by the way, there is anarchy on the world stage right now. As in there are tons of nations but no world government. It's anarchy.

[FrankRep]

If they shoot my house with a missile, then there's nothing left of it worth "owning", which you assumed was the purpose of the invasion.
They want the land and resources. They can build their own homes.

[Minarchy4Sale]

They want the land and resources. They can build their own homes.

Itll just stimulate their economy :)

[fisharmor]

Still a constitutionalist, by a thread.
Although that video does infuriate me.
In the old west example, the sheriff shows up and stops the mob.
How many videos have you seen in the last year where the sheriff is the criminal?

The reason anarchy is so tempting, and the reason why it's on my list of things to read about, is because the abuses of government that we deal with aren't societal abuses. They're abuses by individuals who have been empowered to abuse us.

[rp08orbust]

They want the land and resources. They can build their own homes.

Where would they get the loans for this Marshall plan after they've bankrupted themselves pulverizing North America? The US government wouldn't be around supporting the IMF, LOL

[Minarchy4Sale]

Where would they get the loans for this Marshall plan after they've bankrupted themselves pulverizing North America? The US government wouldn't be around supporting the IMF, LOL

Theyll just build with your bones.

[RevolutionSD]

For the Anarchists: We are a Constitutional Republic.


YouTube - The American Form of Government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE)

This video was created by the JBS and their section on anarchy is a bunch of nonsense.

[Pod]

... Only because he included "consent of the governed".

No, because he included voluntary contributions. I wouldn`t contribute.

Without the ability to extract money by force the government wouldn`t have a way to externalise cost and would thus lack the resources to establish a monopoly in practice. Thus even if it claimed territorial soverignity, there would for spring up enterprises which would for all practical purposes represent alternative competing governments.

So in effect you would have panarchy.

[mczerone]

You should ask:

Are you a Big Government Socialist or a Human?

[FrankRep]

Where would they get the loans for this Marshall plan after they've bankrupted themselves pulverizing North America? The US government wouldn't be around supporting the IMF, LOL
Supporting the IMF with $12 Trillion in debt?

Lets look at China. They have the money and the power right now.

[Kludge]

No, because he included voluntary contributions. I wouldn`t contribute.

Without the ability to extract money by force the government wouldn`t have a way to externalise cost and would thus lack the resources to establish a monopoly in practice. Thus even if it claimed territorial soverignity, there would for spring up enterprises which would for all practical purposes represent alternative competing governments.

So in effect you would have panarchy.

Who would let a leech into their community???

[Pod]

Still a constitutionalist, by a thread.

You are making it sound like it is only a matter of time. :D

Take your time. ;)

[UnReconstructed]

more options needed because there are a lot of "non" archists groups (I know that is collective) that are splintered on RPF.

[Pod]

Who would let a leech into their community???

Maybe you don`t understand the concept of induvidualism? I own my own piece of land under the sky. Nobody gets to let me in. :rolleyes:

[Dr.3D]

more options needed because there are a lot of "non" archists groups (I know that is collective) that are splintered on RPF.

I included the option of OTHER so those who held a different ideology could state their views.

[FrankRep]

The French went into anarchy after the French Revolution. How did that go?

Oh yeah, Napoleon rose to power.

No thank you.

[rp08orbust]

Supporting the IMF with $12 Trillion in debt?

Lets look at China. They have the money and the power right now.

Obama just tossed $100B in loan guarantees the IMF's way.

That $12T in debt you mention is growing from failed attempts at conquering tiny third-world countries in the Middle East and Central Asia. To actually conquer an armed society requires a staggering amount of money and human sacrifice. I seriously doubt the Chinese are stupid enough to attempt it in North America of all places, and I'd be willing to bet my life on that in exchange for liberty. They can barely keep Tibet under control!

[fisharmor]

True, true... Hmm, so maybe I've been looking at this the wrong way. Perhaps instead of having to prove biblically that all (other) forms of government are unacceptable, I only have to establish that anarchism is biblically acceptable in order to be free in conscience to advocate for it. That'd be nice...

How about... because it was functionally the government the Isrealites enjoyed for hundreds of years... up until this:


Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."

But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."

Does any of that sound familiar?

I am leaning toward anarchism primarily because the founding documents of this nation, plus Luke 20, means that in abdicating my duty of self government, by converting my servants into my masters, I am not taking into full consideration the admonition to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's".

We are the sovereigns, and our government masters are supposed to be our servants, doing our dirty work. Those that take that away from me are the ones breaking Luke 20:20-26. I am Caesar, and they are not giving to me what is mine.

[Brian4Liberty]

I have my own belief system, that is neither dependent on the Constitution or exclusively on the teachings of his Holiness Murray Rothtard or her Pervertedness Ayn Rand.

[Crash Martinez]

The French went into anarchy after the French Revolution. How did that go?

Oh yeah, Napoleon rose to power.

No thank you.

So the problem with anarchy is that it gives rise to government by force? So to protect against that eventuality, what we need is... government by force?

[rp08orbust]

The French went into anarchy after the French Revolution. How did that go?

Oh yeah, Napoleon rose to power.

No thank you.

You're right that dictators almost always fill the void left by violent revolutions. But to be an anarcho-capitalist is not to advocate violent revolution.

[FrankRep]

Wouldn't an Anarchist just want to move to a deserted island to setup their Anarchist Utopia?

[Dr.3D]

So the problem with anarchy is that it gives rise to government by force? So to protect against that eventuality, what we need is... government by force?

More like a government by consent.

[Crash Martinez]

Also, any time I consider declaring that "I am an anarchist," I always hear in my head that phrase as sung by Johnny Rotten. :cool:

[South Park Fan]

So the problem with anarchy is that it gives rise to government by force? So to protect against that eventuality, what we need is... government by force?

:D

[South Park Fan]

Also, any time I consider declaring that "I am an anarchist," I always hear in my head that phrase as sung by Johnny Rotten. :cool:

Well, if the term feels uncomfortable, you can use a different one. Panarchist and voluntaryist essentially mean the same thing, without the negative connotations.

[Scofield]

More like a government by consent.

And if I don't give my consent?

What happens to me?

[FrankRep]

You're right that dictators almost always fill the void left by violent revolutions. But to be an anarcho-capitalist is not to advocate violent revolution.
Luckily, everyone is America is non-violent.

[Young Paleocon]

I'm still up in the air. Bordering on Anarcho-capitalism as I realize governmental failures in all fields, yet am not sure if anarchism is applicable, or if the majority of the population just have a knee-jerk reaction towards statism as capitalism raises our standard of living. However, it is important to recognize in theory, so far, that anarcho-capitalism is the logical conclusion of the free-market/small government ethos. Mainly because small government is nearly impossible to maintain due to capitalism blossoming in a limited government environment and since the state has the monopoly of force it will harness the capitalist elements i.e. means of production, money supply, and is able to attain large amounts of revenue, (at least in our current fascist scenario) and success due to people and markets and use them against the people. The only way I can see right now of a sustained limited government is if something like the Swiss model is used. Namely: a small homogeneous country, 500 year confederalist tradition, pushed into a neutral state for practical reasons, and maintaining a strong local education system allowing for a more educated public that can partake in referendum whilst also having a constitution.

[rp08orbust]

And if I don't give my consent?

What happens to me?

Nothing--you won't receive the government's services.

[Imperial]

Neither. I think describing ourselves as "Constitutionalists" is a poor way to go about it. I think our Constitution is flawed, and any other governing document we produce will also be flawed.

What matters is human action. How humans work to make their world better. No Constitution will change that. If the law is bad, disregard the law. If you want to change the law but it is bad now, and you want others to follow it once you change it, you should probably follow them to an extent.

I find anarchy flawed as well, probably because of Nozick's analysis and the fact that given the short duration of human lives and the fact that perception controls the existence of any true free market.

[FrankRep]

The Constitution is the best comprise between total Anarchy and Communism.

Lets just support the Constitution.

[South Park Fan]

More like a government by consent.

A true government by consent would require the consent of every individual that the government claims to govern. If an individual decides not to consent and chooses to govern himself, you are either faced with allowing that individual to do so, which would lead to panarchy/voluntaryism/anarcho-capitalism, or you must force that individual to "consent" to your government, in which case it would no longer be a government by consent but a government by force.

[heavenlyboy34]

Supporting the IMF with $12 Trillion in debt?

Lets look at China. They have the money and the power right now.

I'm not so sure about that anymore.

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/5675198/Chinas-banks-are-an-accident-waiting-to-happen-to-every-one-of-us.html)China's banks are an accident waiting to happen to every one of us (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/5675198/Chinas-banks-are-an-accident-waiting-to-happen-to-every-one-of-us.html)

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

[Young Paleocon]

The French went into anarchy after the French Revolution. How did that go?

Oh yeah, Napoleon rose to power.

No thank you.

Actually the Jacobins and the Committee on Public Safety constructed the first communistic regime on a national scale so it was quite the opposite of anarchism. One should not confuse political infighting with anarcho-capitalism.

[FrankRep]

I think our Constitution is flawed, and any other governing document we produce will also be flawed.

People in general are flawed. If we were angels, anarchy would work, we are no angels.

[Dr.3D]

A true government by consent would require the consent of every individual that the government claims to govern. If an individual decides not to consent and chooses to govern himself, you are either faced with allowing that individual to do so, which would lead to panarchy/voluntaryism/anarcho-capitalism, or you must force that individual to "consent" to your government, in which case it would no longer be a government by consent but a government by force.

Actually, the constitution is supposed to restrain the power of the government and ensure the rights of the individual are not infringed upon. It does not give the government any powers not included in it.

[Epic]

People in general are flawed. If we were angels, anarchy would work, we are no angels.

If we were angels, government would work. But we aren't, so we should keep bad people in check the best way possible ---> not allowing them monopolies on force.

[South Park Fan]

People in general are flawed. If we were angels, anarchy would work, we are no angels.

And since we are not angels, we shouldn't be giving an agency full of non-angels a coercive monopoly over law.

[FrankRep]

If we were angels, government would work. But we aren't, so we should keep bad people in check the best way possible ---> not allowing them monopolies on force.
If we were angels, there is no need for government.

[South Park Fan]

Actually, the constitution is supposed to restrain the power of the government and ensure the rights of the individual are not infringed upon. It does not give the government any powers not included in it.

Well, obviously the Constitution fails at restraining government and ensuring individual rights.

[BuddyRey]

I was a Minarchist a year ago. But after reading Morris & Linda Tannehill's The Market for Liberty and several works by Murray Rothbard, I have come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as "good government" since the presence of government is predicated on at least some form of coercion, even if on a limited basis.

[South Park Fan]

If we were angels, there is no need for government.

Exactly, so either way government is not the answer! :D

[Dr.3D]

Well, obviously the Constitution fails at restraining government and ensuring individual rights.

Only because the people are letting the government interpret the constitution.
The people are supposed to be enforcing the constitution, not the government.

[Kraig]

Neither. I think describing ourselves as "Constitutionalists" is a poor way to go about it. I think our Constitution is flawed, and any other governing document we produce will also be flawed.

What matters is human action. How humans work to make their world better. No Constitution will change that. If the law is bad, disregard the law. If you want to change the law but it is bad now, and you want others to follow it once you change it, you should probably follow them to an extent.

I find anarchy flawed as well, probably because of Nozick's analysis and the fact that given the short duration of human lives and the fact that perception controls the existence of any true free market.

What do you propose then? Anarchy is basically the absence of a constitution or anything like it, I don't see how you could be against both. What do you mean by Nozick's analysis and the short duration of human lives?

[South Park Fan]

Only because the people are letting the government interpret the constitution.
The people are supposed to be enforcing the constitution, not the government.

And how do you expect the people to enforce the Constitution?

[Minarchy4Sale]

look at those numbers. Its official. Ronpaulforums.com is dead.

[ARealConservative]

look at those numbers. Its official. Ronpaulforums.com is dead.

huh?

The anarchist numbers are ridiculously high, but school is out for summer, so it is to be expected. :D

[Dr.3D]

And how do you expect the people to enforce the Constitution?

Via the 1st amendment, and if that fails, via the 2nd.

[Minarchy4Sale]

huh?

The anarchist numbers are ridiculously high, but school is out for summer, so it is to be expected. :D

Dude, the commies are inside the wire. Time to call artillery on our own position.

[mczerone]

Wouldn't an Anarchist just want to move to a deserted island to setup their Anarchist Utopia?

Why would you think that? Do you want to move to an island to institute your perfect society? Or, more likely, do you wish to protect your property and stay connected with your family while helping to change the system that surrounds you?


Consensualists, Voluntaryists, panarchists, anarcho capitalists, even some 'anarchists' themselves don't visualize a perfect utopia free from want and neglect, the see a world where violence is recognized as such and condemed, instead of used by a small group of men in the name of a "nation".

If you want a world where 100% of the people in a geographic area that is not your property must live by your system and dictates, I suggest you move to a deserted island, for only in the absence of others will you find complete agreement amongst your peers.

[South Park Fan]

Via the 1st amendment, and if that fails, via the 2nd.

And what do you do when the government starts infringing on the 1st and 2nd amendments?

[Dr.3D]

And what do you do when the government starts infringing on the 1st and 2nd amendments?

That is something called a revolution.

[rp08orbust]

look at those numbers. Its official. Ronpaulforums.com is dead.

If the minarchists are giving up on the Ron Paul Revolution and the anarcho-capitalists are staying, what does that say?

[South Park Fan]

That is something called a revolution.

So, what's the point of having a Constitution if revolution is necessary to make sure the government abides by it? Wouldn't it be better to avoid that violent cycle by allowing people to opt out of the government if they so choose?

[acptulsa]

And what do you do when the government starts infringing on the 1st and 2nd amendments?

First you make a mess.


Dude, the commies are inside the wire. Time to call artillery on our own position.

Then you clean it up.


If the minarchists are giving up on the Ron Paul Revolution and the anarcho-capitalists are staying, what does that say?

That the anarchists are as stubborn as the socialists, and we could stand to get a little more mule-like ourselves.

[Minarchy4Sale]

If the minarchists are giving up on the Ron Paul Revolution and the anarcho-capitalists are staying, what does that say?

It says we are fucked.

[Dr.3D]

If the minarchists are giving up on the Ron Paul Revolution and the anarcho-capitalists are staying, what does that say?

It's says, those who have given up coming to these forums have noticed it has been infiltrated by those who would destroy the movement.

[mczerone]

Via the 1st amendment, and if that fails, via the 2nd.

How's that working?

Has your dissent speech really retarded the growth of government or restrictions of liberties?

Has the threat of your meager arsenal made the Fedgov bow in fear and not impose more regulations?

Try defending yourself from the SWAT team performing an illegal drug raid by brandishing anything that remotely looks like a weapon and you'll be a forgotten martyr by noon the next day. Try formulating a grand oratory against the evils of our unConstitutional empire, and you will be denounced by TPTB and ignored by their sheep.

Stop living with the rights that the constitution gave you, and find your own voice, your own fiber of being, and speak freely without caring about the 1st Amendment. Carry a weapon without saluting the Second Amendment. Abstain from claiming to own another human being without pretending that the 13th Amendment is your purpose.

[South Park Fan]

It's says, those who have given up coming to these forums have noticed it has been infiltrated by those who would destroy the movement.

I'm fine with minarchists as long as they wish to work toward the goal of reducing the size of government. I wish that you would think the same way toward us anarcho-capitalists.

[pcosmar]

Other
I am a free Individual, I am also a Christian.
I am not an anarchist. I see government as a necessary evil that needs to be limited.
I think our Constitution was the best attempt at this end, but through neglect it has been nullified. :(
I am an Angry American.

[mczerone]

It's says, those who have given up coming to these forums have noticed it has been infiltrated by those who would destroy the movement.

Good, its a free world, and you are entitled to take your party elsewhere. As long as I am welcome here, I'll continue the struggle for Liberty through cooperative means and intellectual discourse.

You go whine about how someone who disagrees with you could possibly rally behind the same person as you.

[Dr.3D]

Good, its a free world, and you are entitled to take your party elsewhere. As long as I am welcome here, I'll continue the struggle for Liberty through cooperative means and intellectual discourse.

You go whine about how someone who disagrees with you could possibly rally behind the same person as you.

Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist.

[ChaosControl]

I don't know. Somewhere in between.

I like anarchy as an ideal. But I'm fine with minarchy as a compromise.
I think a government existing is fine, as long as I can live my life free from it, assuming I do not violate another individual's liberty.

[rp08orbust]

Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist.

Ron Paul believes in the right of secession, which is just one of the many logical routes to anarcho-capitalism.

While the United States exists, I'm a Constitutionalist as well for practical purposes.

[Scofield]

Via the 1st amendment, and if that fails, via the 2nd.

Rebellion is unconstitutional.

[Brassmouth]

Good lucking fighting tanks and missiles.

And what exactly would they bomb? The capitol? Oh wait, there is none. The military? Nope, it's decentralized.

Hmm...tricky. :rolleyes:

Not to mention guerrilla warfare is next to impossible for a socialized military to defeat.


They want the land and resources. They can build their own homes.

Who is "they?" The fictional fictional invaders in your imagination?

[Brassmouth]

Rebellion is unconstitutional.

One of the many reasons why the constitution is invalid.

[acptulsa]

Rebellion is unconstitutional.

Nonsense. The first amendment guarantees the right to be rebellious. Every election is set up to be a potential rebellion.

[mczerone]

It says we are fucked.

So go get fucked, then.

You force initiating, collective thinking, freedom hater.


RPFs will be just left with people who are willing to defend everybody's Liberties, instead of those few Liberties that align with what you seem to care about.

[rp08orbust]

Rebellion is unconstitutional.

Nothing in the Constitution proscribes secession though.

[Dr.3D]

Rebellion is unconstitutional.


That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

From the Declaration of Independence.

[mczerone]

Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist.

Cool. And why? Because as a member of the fedgov, he must seek to control it with the most effective means, a document that they all swear an oath to.

As I've said before, a Constitutional government would be a great first step, but it would just devolve again into the monolith of today.

[Minarchy4Sale]

So go get fucked, then.

You force initiating, collective thinking, freedom hater.


RPFs will be just left with people who are willing to defend everybody's Liberties, instead of those few Liberties that align with what you seem to care about.

the only place you and your dickbreath companions are going is prison or the cemetery. Your philosophy is a literal dead end.

[acptulsa]

the only place you and your dickbreath companions are going is prison or the cemetery. Your philosophy is a literal dead end.

You're assuming they can make it out from in front of their televisions. If they're actually convinced they can get any level of popular support, then they obviously don't get out very often. So, don't worry about them too much...

[Scofield]

Nonsense. The first amendment guarantees the right to be rebellious. Every election is set up to be a potential rebellion.

The Constitution is a piece of paper. The First Amendment is a recommendation, one our government no longer follows.

Go ahead and rebel, I'm sure your obituary will be well written. I'm sure a few people will skim over it on their way to the funnies.

[Kraig]

I am quite impressed with the poll results, for awhile I thought there was only like 3 of us. :)

[ARealConservative]

I am quite impressed with the poll results, for awhile I thought there was only like 3 of us. :)

summer vacation :p

[Stary Hickory]

Constitutionalist.

[Pod]

The French went into anarchy after the French Revolution. How did that go?

Oh yeah, Napoleon rose to power.

No thank you.

Fail.

After the revolution they had a constitutional monarchy followed by a constitutional republic.

So if you want to avoid Napoleon rising to power it is constitutional republic you should steer clear from.

[Theocrat]

Fail.

After the revolution they had a constitutional monarchy followed by a constitutional republic.

So if you want to avoid Napoleon rising to power it is constitutional republic you should steer clear from.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The French Revolution was indeed an attempt to establish anarchy within society, especially by killing the clergy during the "Reign of Terror."

[acptulsa]

Fail.

After the revolution they had a constitutional monarchy followed by a constitutional republic.

So if you want to avoid Napoleon rising to power it is constitutional republic you should steer clear from.

Fail. Napoleon was the monarch in their constitutional monarchy. The constitutional republic was enacted to replace them when the French got sick of Napoleonic bullshit.

So, if you want to avoid Napoleon rising to power you should go straight to the constitutional republic without intermediate steps.

[Pod]

That is something called a revolution.

I`m afraid it`s actually called the GULAG.

[Young Paleocon]

Fail. Napoleon was the monarch in their constitutional monarchy. The constitutional republic was enacted to replace them when the French got sick of Napoleonic bullshit.

So, if you want to avoid Napoleon rising to power you should go straight to the constitutional republic without intermediate steps.

Actually both fail: 1793-1799-Jacobins institute the Committee on Public Safety and begin the centralization of France and the first nation wide communistic regime in history, then the Directory is instituted. Napoleon becomes First Consul and then Emperor after that.

[gls]

It seems to me the Constitution has failed stupendously at limiting government, and now only serves as a pretense of legitimacy for the criminal gang operating out of Washington, D.C.

That the Original Intent could be so far maligned makes me wonder if the entire concept of restraining 'authority' is unrealistic.

[Theocrat]

It seems to me the Constitution has failed stupendously at limiting government, and now only serves as a pretense of legitimacy for the criminal gang operating out of Washington, D.C.

That the Original Intent could be so far maligned makes me wonder if the entire concept of restraining 'authority' is unrealistic.

It's not the Constitution which has changed. It is the hearts of the people who do not understand and utilize the Constitution which has led to the failure of limiting government. Blaming the Constitution on failing to limit the government is like blaming guns for failing to protect murder victims.

[Brett]

I'm an anarchist, but I hold fears that if we had a true anarchy, a new government would rise up. Our current government has the potential to be small enough. If we had an anarchy, and it was taken over, the odds that it would be weaker then our Constitution are basically zero.

[Pod]

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The French Revolution was indeed an attempt to establish anarchy within society, especially by killing the clergy during the "Reign of Terror."

And who was carrying out the Reign of Terror? The government. What is more it was a republican government. So how is that anarchy?



Fail. Napoleon was the monarch in their constitutional monarchy. The constitutional republic was enacted to replace them when the French got sick of Napoleonic bullshit.

So, if you want to avoid Napoleon rising to power you should go straight to the constitutional republic without intermediate steps.

Learn your history. After Louis XVI was executed France became a radical republic. Even Napoleon was initialy only a consul before dismantling the republic and proclaiming himself emperor.

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

[Young Paleocon]

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The French Revolution was indeed an attempt to establish anarchy within society, especially by killing the clergy during the "Reign of Terror."

Wtf are you smoking. How is the radical Jacobins kicking out the moderates in the Congress, ripping up the Catholic church, creating the cult of the nation, issuing the levee en mass ordinance in 1793, imposing price controls, redrawing the French provincial map, centralizing a previously decentralized kingdom, and going to war with all of Europe in anyway not a massive state? It was Communism not anarchy, the intelligentsia ruled. Christ....read a book.

[Pod]

Actually both fail: 1793-1799-Jacobins institute the Committee on Public Safety and begin the centralization of France and the first nation wide communistic regime in history, then the Directory is instituted. Napoleon becomes First Consul and then Emperor after that.

In what sense was it communistic? It was ultra-statist, but statism is not the exclusive domain of communism. The radicals considered themselves republicans, proggressives and liberals.

[Brassmouth]

I am quite impressed with the poll results, for awhile I thought there was only like 3 of us. :)

We're growing. :)


I'm an anarchist, but I hold fears that if we had a true anarchy, a new government would rise up. Our current government has the potential to be small enough. If we had an anarchy, and it was taken over, the odds that it would be weaker then our Constitution are basically zero.


GOVERNMENTAL INEVITABILITY:
REPLY TO HOLCOMBE

by WALTER BLOCK

http://mises.org/journals/jls/19_3/19_3_4.pdf (http://mises.org/journals/jls/19_3/19_3_4.pdf)

[Elwar]

If the United States could get to the point of following the Constitution, I would be happy. And from there I would work toward improving the Constitution to get rid of the things that got us into this mess in the first place. Such as the 16th Amendment and the General Welfare clause, etc.

[Brassmouth]

If the United States could get to the point of following the Constitution, I would be happy. And from there I would work toward improving the Constitution to get rid of the things that got us into this mess in the first place. Such as the 16th Amendment and the General Welfare clause, etc.

If you're going to set impossible minarchist goals for yourself, why not go for the Articles of Confederation? Or simply a piece of paper that says "government sucks" on it?

[FrankRep]

It seems to me the Constitution has failed stupendously at limiting government, and now only serves as a pretense of legitimacy for the criminal gang operating out of Washington, D.C.

That the Original Intent could be so far maligned makes me wonder if the entire concept of restraining 'authority' is unrealistic.

The Constitution is just a piece of paper.

The PEOPLE enforce the Constitution.

[Pod]

The Constitution is just a piece of paper.

The PEOPLE enforce the Constitution.

If it is "THE PEOPLE" who must ultimately stay vigilant to prevent the government from enroaching on their rights, then why have a consitution in the first place?

In order to lull them into a false sense of security?

[FrankRep]

If it is "THE PEOPLE" who must ultimately stay vigilant to prevent the government from enroaching on their rights, then why have a consitution in the first place?

In order to lull them into a false sense of security?

The Constitution is just a contract, but contracts are useless if they aren't enforced.

[pcosmar]

The Constitution is just a piece of paper.

The PEOPLE enforce the Constitution.

Well, that was the plan.
And a good plan it was.

[Young Paleocon]

In what sense was it communistic? It was ultra-statist, but statism is not the exclusive domain of communism. The radicals considered themselves republicans, proggressives and liberals.

Maybe not communistic but more the first completely planned state, which I may incorrectly equate with communist. Attempting to replace religion with the cult of the nation, imposing price controls, Committee on Public Safety, and I can't quite remember but didn't they attempt to (or maybe it was just one of Robespierre's ramblings) make all pay/wages the same.

[FrankRep]

Well, that was the plan.
And a good plan it was.

Republics are better than Kingdoms and Monarchies.

[acptulsa]

So, the anarchists get all four of their tires shot out by media marginalization or whatever (more likely the very, very strange bedfellows that hanging yourself with the word 'anarchist' automatically gives you), and the minarchists get at least three tires shot out by the same means. The anarchists bitch; the minarchists get new tires. Then the anarchists hitch a ride with the minarchists (knowing we have soft hearts, despite 'liberal' claims to the contrary) and start shouting out the windows, 'Hey, look at whose car we're in now!!' Then people reload their guns and eye our new tires...

Yeah, gets old guys. What can we say?

[Reason]

fuck labels

[Brassmouth]

The Constitution is just a contract, but contracts are useless if they aren't enforced.

A social contract. Which, of course, isn't a contract at all.

YouTube - The Social Contract: Defined and Destroyed in under 5 mins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNj0VhK19QU)

See also, No Treason, by Lysander Spooner.

[Minarchy4Sale]

So, the anarchists get all four of their tires shot out by media marginalization or whatever (more likely the very, very strange bedfellows that hanging yourself with the word 'anarchist' automatically gives you), and the minarchists get at least three tires shot out by the same means. The anarchists bitch; the minarchists get new tires. Then the anarchists hitch a ride with the minarchists (knowing we have soft hearts, despite 'liberal' claims to the contrary) and start shouting out the windows, 'Hey, look at whose car we're in now!!' Then people reload their guns and eye our new tires...

Yeah, gets old guys. What can we say?

thats a damn good analogy. When are we gonna let these fuckers walk?

[acptulsa]

fuck labels

This. We don't even need to marginalize ourselves by using the word 'anarchist' on this forum in order to achieve those goals we have in common. Do we?

[Brassmouth]

Republics are better than Kingdoms and Monarchies.

Wrong again, my friend.

See Hoppe's Democracy: The God That Failed.

Monarchies are strictly better than democracies, because monarchs own their government and have a vested interest in preserving it, via low taxes, a docile populace, and by giving into intense demands.

Before democracy, there was also virtually no such thing as total war. Soldiers never involved the citizens. Now, every war is total war.

[mczerone]

summer vacation :p

So the educated are more likely to reject the notion that a piece of paper can enslave an entire population?

I get that you are trying to be pejorative (e.g. "those dumb kids will understand that they need government when they grow up"), but come on, recruiting high-school kids is supposed to be showing the 'youth enthusiasm' for Liberty.

Get your story straight, lest you alienate new arrivals much the same way the GOP at large is doing.

[FrankRep]

Wrong again, my friend.

See Hoppe's Democracy: The God That Failed.

Monarchies are strictly better than democracies, because monarchs own their government and have a vested interest in preserving it, via low taxes, a docile populace, and by giving into intense demands.

Before democracy, there was also virtually no such thing as total war. Soldiers never involved the citizens. Now, every war is total war.



A Republic is not a Democracy.

[Young Paleocon]

Wrong again, my friend.

See Hoppe's Democracy: The God That Failed.

Monarchies are strictly better than democracies, because monarchs own their government and have a vested interest in preserving it, via low taxes, a docile populace, and by giving into intense demands.

Before democracy, there was also virtually no such thing as total war. Soldiers never involved the citizens. Now, every war is total war.

Good book written in 2007 I think called The Birth of Total War which I included in a bibliographic essay that discussed the previous separation of citizen and soldier and patriotism/nationalism that was brought on by the French Revolution that erased the separation forever.

[Pod]

Maybe not communistic but more the first completely planned state, which I may incorrectly equate with communist. Attempting to replace religion with the cult of the nation, imposing price controls, Committee on Public Safety, and I can't quite remember but didn't they attempt to (or maybe it was just one of Robespierre's ramblings) make all pay/wages the same.

I admit I wouldn`t know about the wages. I know they did away with serfdom handing land over into private ownership of the peasants and dismantled the guilds.

I guess they could be called communistic if we used Rothbard`s explanation of what socialism is. Pursuit of liberal goals through conservative means.

They did for the most part pursue liberal goals but in their zeal resorted to conservative (statist) means. So they claimed to be the children of Enlightment and Classical Liberalism but acted like Attila the Hun.

[Sandman33]

The U.S. Constitution did not fail. The citizens of this country failed the constitution by not demanding that their leaders strictly stick to it.

And the Ron Paul movement is the citizens last hope for doing so.

[mczerone]

So, the anarchists get all four of their tires shot out by media marginalization or whatever (more likely the very, very strange bedfellows that hanging yourself with the word 'anarchist' automatically gives you), and the minarchists get at least three tires shot out by the same means. The anarchists bitch; the minarchists get new tires. Then the anarchists hitch a ride with the minarchists (knowing we have soft hearts, despite 'liberal' claims to the contrary) and start shouting out the windows, 'Hey, look at whose car we're in now!!' Then people reload their guns and eye our new tires...

Yeah, gets old guys. What can we say?

To wit, this thread labeled people as "anarchists" as a pejorative. I would never use the term to describe myself, and prefer simply calling myself a free person, or a free human.

I would never jump on a bandwagon to hijack a message. I was invited to support Dr. Paul, and will do so while he fights to limit federal power. If, by miracles of miracles, he succeeds in getting the government down to a Constitutional size (by whatever subjective test he uses), and says "my job here is done, its small enough," I'll leave the forums with his name, and go to one that is affiliated with the further reduction of violence and force of government.

Until that day, I'm pretty sure we can work together, and are fighting for many of the same Rights or Liberties. We just may not agree on whether it is the Constitution that provides those rights or on any number of particular issues, but we all agree that Ron Paul's position, idealism, and vision are something to support, at least for now, in each of our self interests.

[ARealConservative]

So the educated are more likely to reject the notion that a piece of paper can enslave an entire population?

Young people on a journey for knowledge are often times idealistic, furthermore, with extremely limited real world experience, their education is rather useless.


I get that you are trying to be pejorative (e.g. "those dumb kids will understand that they need government when they grow up"), but come on, recruiting high-school kids is supposed to be showing the 'youth enthusiasm' for Liberty.

Get your story straight, lest you alienate new arrivals much the same way the GOP at large is doing.

Anarchists are of no value to this movement because anarchists don’t vote. Any form of grassroots efforts they engage in is to convince people not to vote. That movement is completely at odds with this movement.

[Young Paleocon]

I admit I wouldn`t know about the wages. I know they did away with serfdom handing land over into private ownership of the peasants and dismantled the guilds.

I guess they could be called communistic if we used Rothbard`s explanation of what socialism is. Pursuit of liberal goals through conservative means.

They did for the most part pursue liberal goals but in their zeal resorted to conservative (statist) means. So they claimed to be the children of Enlightment and Classical Liberalism but acted like Attila the Hun.

Correct, liberals and planners hadn't separated yet, therefore the radicals in this particular setting were planners on the scale of Fourier and the moderates were in favor of constitutional monarchy.

[Brassmouth]

Good book written in 2007 I think called The Birth of Total War which I included in a bibliographic essay that discussed the previous separation of citizen and soldier and patriotism/nationalism that was brought on by the French Revolution that erased the separation forever.

Thanks, I'll check it out.

Edit:

Is this what you mean?

http://www.amazon.com/First-Total-War-Napoleons-Warfare/dp/0618919813/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246391116&sr=8-1

[mczerone]

The U.S. Constitution did not fail. The citizens of this country failed the constitution by not demanding that their leaders strictly stick to it.

And the Ron Paul movement is the citizens last hope for doing so.

But then isn't the Constitution at fault for putting the fallible 'citizenry' in charge? (BTW, there is no basis for this claim, the Constitution puts the onus on Congress to pass laws that are Necessary and proper to carry out the edicts of the document)

The people were hoodwinked by "their leaders" into thinking what was being done was, in fact, Constitutional. So it was the "leaders" not the people?

And if it was the people, what has given you the confidence that the general public would do any better once Ron Paul 'resets' the power to Constitutional limits?

[Young Paleocon]

Thanks, I'll check it out.

Edit:

Is this what you mean?

http://www.amazon.com/First-Total-War-Napoleons-Warfare/dp/0618919813/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246391116&sr=8-1

Yep

[acptulsa]

But then isn't the Constitution at fault for putting the fallible 'citizenry' in charge? (BTW, there is no basis for this claim, the Constitution puts the onus on Congress to pass laws that are Necessary and proper to carry out the edicts of the document)

The people were hoodwinked by "their leaders" into thinking what was being done was, in fact, Constitutional. So it was the "leaders" not the people?

And if it was the people, what has given you the confidence that the general public would do any better once Ron Paul 'resets' the power to Constitutional limits?

How many times has this forum seen this argument?! Damn just damn.

So, if the people and their 'leaders' (literally the ones they follow, and yes humans are pack animals by and large and will follow) fall on their faces within 2-300 years with limits, what evidence is there they'll do better without limits?

Why is democracy a failure? Because it canonizes and makes sacred the mob will of the majority. Why is anarchy different again? At least the Constitution canonizes and makes sacred our individuality. Anarchy does not.

[mczerone]

Young people on a journey for knowledge are often times idealistic, furthermore, with extremely limited real world experience, their education is rather useless.



Anarchists are of no value to this movement because anarchists don’t vote. Any form of grassroots efforts they engage in is to convince people not to vote. That movement is completely at odds with this movement.

You're a helluva collectivist, too!

"Anarchists" aren't a single homogeneous mass of people who all do things the same way. Some may not vote, some may encourage people to vote for people who promise to regulate government once on the "inside". If there are any anarchists here, wouldn't they pretty much de facto be supporting voting for Paul?

Further, why is voting the only, best, or preferred method for changing the system? As far as I can tell, if the current system remains in place, the majority of the people will be content enough to keep voting for people that want to preserve the status quo.

Personally, if the State is going to allow me to play some infinitesimal part in deciding which 'leader' is going to claim to represent me, I want to take part in that process. But it is the State's process, not mine. If there is one candidate that proves to me to be exceptionally trustworthy and earnest, I'll encourage others to vote for them also.

But I recognize the futility of consistently filing a vote for the less-than-one-percent category of someone who tells the truth and doesn't promise the voter that all of their dreams will come true, and sense that other, non governmental, non-political processes must be implemented to first win the hearts and minds of the democratic voters.

So do I urge people that they must vote? Of course not. Do I reject using the system as currently enabled to bring about incremental change, as you suggest? Again, no.

[FrankRep]

It's kinda comical how heated this debate is getting.

[mczerone]

How many times has this forum seen this argument?! Damn just damn.

So, if the people and their 'leaders' (literally the ones they follow, and yes humans are pack animals by and large and will follow) fall on their faces within 2-300 years with limits, what evidence is there they'll do better without limits?

Why is democracy a failure? Because it canonizes and makes sacred the mob will of the majority. Why is anarchy different again? At least the Constitution canonizes and makes sacred our individuality. Anarchy does not.

Freedom allows the failure and success of any group of leaders and followers. Without forceful binding by a constitution, these groups are free to set their own "limits" to see what works at preserving a stable administrative institution. Constitutionalism forces all of us to fall on our faces at the same time, by canonizing and making sacred our group identity as National citizens, and sets in stone a single set of "limits" that OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T WORK THE FIRST TIME!

You and I regularly fall on the same side of complicated debates, acptulsa, I'm surprised to see this much vitriol and fervor from you in favor of groupthink and usurpation of freedoms of association.

[Kraig]

At least the Constitution canonizes and makes sacred our individuality. Anarchy does not.

So you make sacred my individuality my denying me my individuality by forcing me to subscribe to your system through taxation as a gun is pointed at my head? Really? :rolleyes:

[rp08orbust]

Anarchists are of no value to this movement because anarchists don’t vote. Any form of grassroots efforts they engage in is to convince people not to vote.

Not only do I vote, but being an Australian resident, I've jumped through more hoops than you've had to just so I can get an absentee ballot.

I do all I can from Australia to help Ron Paul.

[sdczen]

It's kinda comical how heated this debate is getting.

Yes, the people who want to be left alone and live their lives the way they see fit and the people who want to control, monitor, tax and enslave the people that don't agree with them. ;)

[FrankRep]

Yes, the people who want to be left alone and live their lives the way they see fit and the people who want to control, monitor, tax and enslave the people that don't agree with them. ;)
One can dream I guess of less or no government.
Reality will smack you in the back of the head to wake you up.

[ARealConservative]

You're a helluva collectivist, too!

words have meanings to me. Anarchists don't vote.

[Young Paleocon]

words have meanings to me. Anarchists don't vote.

That's like saying a preacher doesn't sin.

[ClayTrainor]

words have meanings to me. Anarchists don't vote.

Saying that, doesn't make it true about them all. I bet you can find several anarchists that voted for Ron Paul.

[Brassmouth]

Saying that, doesn't make it true about them all. I bet you can find several anarchists that voted for Ron Paul.

There is an anarchist "self-defense" justification for voting, espoused by Spooner and Rothbard.

It doesn't seem to be very popular though. Not even Rockwell and Co. adhere to it.

Last election I was a minarchist, so I voted. Not sure if I'll ever vote again.

(Yay, my 1,000th post. :))

[acptulsa]

You and I regularly fall on the same side of complicated debates, acptulsa, I'm surprised to see this much vitriol and fervor from you in favor of groupthink and usurpation of freedoms of association.

It's just that the issue has been hashed and rehashed so often, here. And you know it isn't that I don't appreciate the irony of a constitution that defines a collective in the process of binding together a nation being the bulwark upon which an individual depends to safeguard his individuality. It's just that I don't think anarchy can be realistically depended upon to do the same. As we have seen from the Constitution, just because a nation is founded upon a set of values and principles doesn't mean it can't be perverted from them. It's just that I maintain it's easier to subvert a--whatever--when it has no underlying moral/legal code codified and institutionalized to begin with.

I still consider as a practical matter only anarchy to be most closely related to democracy--and with all the shortfalls and pitfalls.

[Sandman33]

But then isn't the Constitution at fault for putting the fallible 'citizenry' in charge? (BTW, there is no basis for this claim, the Constitution puts the onus on Congress to pass laws that are Necessary and proper to carry out the edicts of the document)

The people were hoodwinked by "their leaders" into thinking what was being done was, in fact, Constitutional. So it was the "leaders" not the people?

And if it was the people, what has given you the confidence that the general public would do any better once Ron Paul 'resets' the power to Constitutional limits?


No. The people SHOULD be in charge. The people were lied to by their Congressmen and the people put up with it when they shouldn't have.

The constitution itself is perfect as long as the citizens have the gumption and the bravery to uphold it. It's only as good as the people that it protects.

It's the peoples fault it got this far and the people are going to have to take it back.

[Optatron]

For the Anarchists: We are a Constitutional Republic.



For the Constitutionalists : we lost our way, wake up and do something.

[Crash Martinez]

It's only as good as the people that it protects.

Obviously, then, it doesn't protect them!

[Pod]

There is an anarchist "self-defense" justification for voting, espoused by Spooner and Rothbard.

It doesn't seem to be very popular though. Not even Rockwell and Co. adhere to it.

Last election I was a minarchist, so I voted. Not sure if I'll ever vote again.



I voted in a referendum and may do so again. I never voted in an election and never will, but I`d encourage a neocon or some such ilk to cease with their sinful ways and vote Paul.

[LibertyEagle]

For the Constitutionalists : we lost our way, wake up and do something.

We know that. We're trying. Want to help? :)

[ClayTrainor]

I voted in a referendum and may do so again. I never voted in an election and never will, but I`d encourage a neocon or some such ilk to cease with their sinful ways and vote Paul.

how can you be so principled, that you couldn't go give Ron Paul another vote?

[Brassmouth]

how can you be so principled, that you couldn't go give Ron Paul another vote?

This thread is amorphous enough without a voting debate.

Why don't you make a separate thread on that subject, if you are so interested?

[Pod]

how can you be so principled, that you couldn't go give Ron Paul another vote?

I`m not an American, but I wouldn`t register with the Republicans even if I were. I`d tell any family to cast a vote for him if they were already registered though and mayhap campaigned for him if I had the time.

You help people become small government types, then the system inevitably has them become disgruntled small government types. And once they are disgruntled.... well you can figure it out.

[FrankRep]

I guess the question would be:

How do we reverse the direction American is going?

[acptulsa]

I guess the question would be:

How do we reverse the direction American is going?

Well, not by dividing ourselves against ourselves over trifles...

[Imperial]

What do you propose then? Anarchy is basically the absence of a constitution or anything like it, I don't see how you could be against both. What do you mean by Nozick's analysis and the short duration of human lives?

All governing documents will be flawed in some manner. However, I accept having them anyway. I will never be able to convince everybody of my ideals. Despite a law being whole-heartedly wrong in my heart, say laws against possession of heroin, that doesn't necessarily mean I should break it. I certainly would have the authority to, but go back to the point I cant convince everyone. Someone else could whole-heartedly believe that banning heroin is right. If I want them to respect the laws I institute, I choose to play the electoral game. So, I will follow flawed laws in order that people respect them when I can win the game in my efforts. I have just decided to fight in a manner different than an-caps.

The key is I am not a Constitutionalist bc I am not arguing following the law just because the law is good. It is only a means to an end in that it provides a framework to better facilitate debate and power. Law ultimately should be based in morality, and that is often not the case with governmental coercion. I believe in a limited government but only in the force of law to the extent I need others to recognize force of law to allow government to function at all.

By Nozick's analysis, I meant the idea that anarchy will ultimately lead to some entity exerting its own monopoly on violence.

What I meant by the short duration of human lives and the problem of perception is that the concept of a free market is based on the consumer acting in his or her best interest. While competition is an important aspect that helps create free trade in our world, the fact that people die and that fraud and propaganda will always exist means that you will never have a truly free market when you have to reinvent the wheel and reteach all consumer knowledge to people, a type of "reinventing the wheel". Thus, i believe government has a role in creating an arbitrary framework to better facilitate markets, even though the government itself is a flawed mechanism. It also provides a framework to better facilitate consumer knowledge. Of course, the people will still have to check their own government too.

[klamath]

Do you really think they'd be foolish enough to invade a country with 80 million gun owners and no government to obtain a surrender from?
80 million gun owners shooting in 80 million different directions won't stop 100 thousands guns aimed in precise directions.

[Pod]

80 million gun owners shooting in 80 million different directions won't stop 100 thousands guns aimed in precise directions.

We`ll all shoot in one direction: Between the eyes.

[mdh]

You know me, I'm a rabid anarchist. Waving black flags is what I do. :)

Read some Lysander Spooner for a great take on the constitution.

Anarchists who wouldn't vote for Ron Paul get what they get, though, which is worse than what we'd get if Paul were president. Good ole fashioned logic, there, but for some reason some anarchists don't get it. Anarchism is perfection, but when you let perfect become the enemy of good, you're doing yourself harm.

[TGGRV]

We`ll all shoot in one direction: Between the eyes.
You forgot to add the fact that they would just bomb the country really well first. You'd shoot down stealth jet planes with a shotgun?

[ARealConservative]

That's like saying a preacher doesn't sin.

no, it's like saying jesus doesn't sin.

[Brassmouth]

You forgot to add the fact that they would just bomb the country really well first. You'd shoot down stealth jet planes with a shotgun?

What would they bomb? And what would that accomplish?

[Scofield]

80 million gun owners shooting in 80 million different directions won't stop 100 thousands guns aimed in precise directions.

How are those 100 thousand guns going to get into the country? Dock in Mexico and walk/drive up through Mexico and cross the border?

Do you really believe Mexico or Canada would allow a foreign nation to dock in their country, only for them to march to the United States to try conquer us?

You're delusional if you think anyone could/would invade the continental United States.

[Young Paleocon]

no, it's like saying jesus doesn't sin.

No I'll stick with my original. Even though someone preaches morality doesn't mean they follow what they say. Nor, on second thought, due I think it is a requirement for an anarcho-capitalist to not vote. Don't think that's in the official rulebook.

[South Park Fan]

You forgot to add the fact that they would just bomb the country really well first. You'd shoot down stealth jet planes with a shotgun?

Putting aside what good it would do to bomb the country, you're forgetting that without government there wouldn't be anything preventing civilians from acquiring weapons capable of shooting stealth jet planes.

[Dr.3D]

Now from looking at the poll results, I finally understand what happened when I made a logical statement and got an illogical response.

I was making a statement about the current situation in this country and the person responding was responding as if we were in some future situation they would like this country to be in. The response really blew my mind, but now, I can understand what was happening.

[mczerone]

You forgot to add the fact that they would just bomb the country really well first. You'd shoot down stealth jet planes with a shotgun?

In a free society, a "well regulated militia" would own, maintain, and keep ready such anti-aircraft guns, if there was a need for it.

So lets start by selling our heavy arms to our own citizens, who will be able to provide defense for any willing buyer (individual or voluntary group) that feels threatened from those horrible invaders you warn about.

[JeNNiF00F00]

How are those 100 thousand guns going to get into the country? Dock in Mexico and walk/drive up through Mexico and cross the border?

Do you really believe Mexico or Canada would allow a foreign nation to dock in their country, only for them to march to the United States to try conquer us?

You're delusional if you think anyone could/would invade the continental United States.

Never say Never. Think about what the NWO is trying to do. They can use many tactics to get to us if they had the power and that is exactly what they are doing right now. Gaining more and more power by the day.

[mport1]

Used to be a constitutionalist/minarchist before I realized the contradictions and other problems with the philosophy and became an anarchist.

For those who are curious about anarchy, I have a few reading suggestions. Give it a chance before you knock it.

Start with this article - Stefan Molyneux's concept of Dispute Resolution Organizations (DROs) - http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html and http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux2.html

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

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

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

[mport1]

Saying that, doesn't make it true about them all. I bet you can find several anarchists that voted for Ron Paul.

I did :)

[heavenlyboy34]

Used to be a constitutionalist/minarchist before I realized the contradictions and other problems with the philosophy and became an anarchist.

For those who are curious about anarchy, I have a few reading suggestions. Give it a chance before you knock it.

Start with this article - Stefan Molyneux's concept of Dispute Resolution Organizations (DROs) - http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html) and http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux2.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux2.html)

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

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

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

I also recommend the above reading. Good stuff! :D:):cool:

[Brassmouth]

Used to be a constitutionalist/minarchist before I realized the contradictions and other problems with the philosophy and became an anarchist.

For those who are curious about anarchy, I have a few reading suggestions. Give it a chance before you knock it.

Start with this article - Stefan Molyneux's concept of Dispute Resolution Organizations (DROs) - http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html) and http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux2.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux2.html)

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

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

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

Someone sticky this. In every forum. Forever.

[Vessol]

I just can't get over the fact that most "anarchists" I've met in my life were idiots whom said the word "dude" a bit excessively and political attitude was "no rules dude! fuck government, yeah dude!".

If I didn't get that taste most of my high school years I'm sure I'd have a more pleasant view of anarchism.

[Kludge]

I just can't get over the fact that most "anarchists" I've met in my life were idiots whom said the word "dude" a bit excessively and political attitude was "no rules dude! fuck government, yeah dude!".

If I didn't get that taste most of my high school years I'm sure I'd have a more pleasant view of anarchism.

The only anarchist I knew in high school was a Christian anarchist, and a public school teacher (English & Oral Comm.).

Goes to show how important it is to lead by example...

[CCTelander]

I just can't get over the fact that most "anarchists" I've met in my life were idiots whom said the word "dude" a bit excessively and political attitude was "no rules dude! fuck government, yeah dude!".

If I didn't get that taste most of my high school years I'm sure I'd have a more pleasant view of anarchism.

I've met my share of that type too. I used to refer to them as "rebels without a clue."

But you've got to admit, the vast majority of anarchists here don't even come close to fitting that mold.

[Vessol]

I've met my share of that type too. I used to refer to them as "rebels without a clue."

But you've got to admit, the vast majority of anarchists here don't even come close to fitting that mold.

Yes I'm seeing that for sure. I wouldn't say any I've met here fit that mold. This summer I hope to do quite a bit of reading now that uni classes are over. I'll be honest that I've only gotten political in the last year, before telling people I was a political atheist.

[Mini-Me]

This will be a long post...

First off, I want to say that if we actually had a federal government that followed the US Constitution and plenty of "mostly" free libertarian-leaning minarchist states to choose from, I'd be satisfied enough to live my life without complaining.

However, strictly speaking, my true preference is somewhere in the thin gray area between full-fledged minarchism and full-fledged anarcho-capitalism. In terms of anarcho-capitalism, I'm much more confident that certain things would work out just fine than I used to be, as long as the move to anarcho-capitalism occurred in a fair and orderly manner...here's where I'm at right now:
I mostly understand how roads would probably work under anarcho-capitalism. Privatizing currently public roads might be a sticky affair, and I certainly wouldn't want them to be handed over to some huge company...but it would work assuming it occurred according to certain rules. For example: Everyone would typically own the chunk of road bordering their own property, and they'd be responsible for paying for its upkeep. Anyone who wanted to live in the country would just have to factor in road upkeep as part of the price of having the privacy of a trillion acres (or live with a dirt road). There are tradeoffs with living in the country, because there are tradeoffs with everything. Aside from that non-issue: I imagine most urban and suburban roads would probably have certain [viral] contractual conditions on their ownership regarding minimal upkeep and right of passage between different sections of the same road, which would safeguard homes and businesses from unfriendly neighbors who might want to charge tolls for passage or disallow passage altogether. After all, people wouldn't want to buy property that DIDN'T have this kind of guarantee, because you never know when your neighbor is going to try to extort you or drive your customers away by charging tolls. "Road chunk ownership contracts" would probably also include clauses determining how access from other roads should be decided upon. (For example, maybe the "road chunk ownership contract" of Road A would include a clause saying a majority vote of road shareholders determines whether just anyone can access it from Road B - and the shareholders of both roads would probably meet together and come to a mutually beneficial decision.)
Privatizing current state and federal highways would work just fine assuming each pre-anarcho-capitalism taxpayer [within the appropriate jurisdiction] received an equal share of ownership, which they'd be free to sell to others in the future. Depending on how many people kept their initial ownership (and passed it down to children, etc.), there may or may not ever be tolls charged for passage. There would be a few minor problems, but nothing huge: Any new highways would probably be toll highways - contributing to time inefficiency (which leads to economic inefficiency) - but it's not like there aren't already toll highways anyway, so it would't be the end of the world. The market may even decide on subscription-based highways if they could stomach the technological trespassing-detection methods...or maybe not. In any case, I don't see any problems here that absolutely require the state.
Privatizing utilities isn't an insurmountable problem, either: "Road chunk ownership contracts" would include clauses determining how water-pipe-laying, sewage-pipe-laying, electrical-line-laying, etc. would be decided. In most cases, utility companies would probably negotiate with the collective owners of each road while mapping out new networks of cables and pipes, and of course there would be contractual agreements prohibitting people from cutting off access to each other, etc. Ultimately, I think the contracts would (and should) ensure that people are always free to switch utility companies as well. Although I can't imagine this realistically ever happening in a free market with decent starting conditions, the worst possible case scenario would be for a single company to have a monopoly over water and hold it all for ransom...but even if that worst case scenario ever happened, it would realistically be fixed the next day by blood in the streets anyway (non-aggression principle be damned), so I don't think that off-chance is too much to worry about. ;) As a side note, I think the future of power is solar and the future of the Internet infrastructure may be a huge network of decentralized wireless devices working a bit like Bittorrent to maximize bandwidth, but...that's beside the point.
Flowing resources like rivers and streams could be privately "owned" as well (generally by the people bordering them), although ownership here is a more complicated issue, since people downstream have every right to make use of the water as well without it being disrupted by upstream activity. Old-school English common law should suffice here.
I see no need for any kind of executive branch of government. Instead of having police who are "above the law" and who have a monopoly over protection, people could quite easily pay private insurance companies for protection against crime, investigations, criminal arrest, etc. Some would be subscription-based, some would allow pay-as-you-go, etc. I see no reason why these companies could easily coexist peacefully, as long as the people agree that the "legitimate" use of force is always determined by a system of courts that agrees on a common law, not by "goons with guns.". That's a big if, but as long as the people recognize that the moral authority rests with the courts, and as long as they only recognize courts that have not gone corrupt, it would be very difficult for any thugs to create a coercive state. (After all, it's a lot easier for an existing state to enslave a public that have been indoctrinated to worship it, than it is for a bunch of random assholes to enslave people that live and breathe liberty.)
Without an executive branch of government, there would be no centrally-determined foreign policy to speak of and no empire...which means very few countries would bother attacking an anarcho-capitalist society. Land-based invasion would be completely suicidal, considering the "gun behind every blade of grass" point. However, technologically-based attacks (missiles, etc.) from completely amoral countries could still be a threat. That's why the insurance companies offering protection would almost certainly offer technological protection against such attacks, e.g. missile shields, anti-aircraft guns, etc. Depending on their size and number, the insurance companies would either offer such protection directly or subscribe individually to other companies that specialize in that kind of defense technology. Of course, if anyone DID launch some kind of preemptive attack, I imagine there would be plenty of companies like Blackwater only too happy to send assassins overseas and kill some despots or raise some other kind of hell. (...and if a Blackwater-esque company launched a preemptive attack on its own - overseas or not - I doubt the anarcho-capitalist courts would be too happy about it).
Without an executive branch of government, I see no need for a standing legislative branch: Without an executive branch to execute arbitrary laws and spend tax money, there's no need to Congresscritters to create a budget. Without an executive branch to fight war, there's no need for Congresscritters to declare it. If we stick to a system of common law based on libertarian rights, there's no need for Congresscritters to create arbitrary laws every hour of every day.
Heck, I even see how the courts can be privatized...as long as they all agree on a system of common law, and the degree to which each court follows the common law determines its legitimacy (in the eyes of the other courts and ultimately the people). Some courts would be subscription-based, and others would be "pay-as-you-go." Ultimately, the loser in a civil case (violation of contract, etc.) would reimburse the winner's court costs. Criminal cases would either be investigated and prosecuted by the victim's court or protection insurance company, and the defendant's court or protection insurance company would pay for the defense (obviously, there would be competition for quality of representation). If all else fails and either side does not have the requisite insurance, they'd technically pay out of pocket, but I have a feeling that there would be some pretty big charities involved who would take on cases on behalf of truly disadvantaged people. Finally, if convicted, the defendant would owe full restitution for both the crime and the investigative and court costs.
Obviously, full restitution is not always possible, because money will never bring back loved ones, lost limbs, dignity lost in a rape, etc. People have spoken about indentured servitude as an option for restitution, and that's a possibility, but there will always be dangerous [often repeat] violent offenders who will not respect their sentences...and for them, there's pretty much no option other than "eye for an eye" or prison. "Eye for an eye" is a dangerous proposition, since we don't want a court to authorize the killing or permanent maiming of someone who we later find to be wrongfully convicted...so we're left with prison as a necessity. So, who pays for prison sentences when there are no taxpayers? Insurance is pretty unlikely in this case, because applying for such insurance would generally mean you think it's reasonably likely you might end up in prison, and that would make you pretty uninsurable. ;) Ultimately, it would be up to the convict to pay his own way. If he can't pay out of pocket, his family won't/can't pay, and charity won't pay, then it's up to the prison to determine how to put him to work to pay his own way. To prevent conflicts of interest and payola, not only should ALL verdicts and sentences be determined by a jury, but convicts should get their choice of prison...assuming the prison actually meets the definition of a prison as written into the common law. Obviously, they'll pick the one with the best reputation for treating prisoners. This kind of competition between prisons will prevent misery profiteers from getting unduly rich off of prisoner labor, and it will also prevent prisons from being able to unfairly undercut market prices of goods (thereby eliminating any incentive a jury might have to deliver unfair prison sentences just because they will result in cheaper goods on the market).

So, I "get" most of anarcho-capitalism, I like the morality of the non-aggression principle, and I'd like to follow it all the way through IF it's practically viable. I even agree that most of it is definitely viable, and I think it would be a great experiment to try out over some area [alongside a nearby minarchist Constitutional republic probably], but I still have the following hangup:

For all this to work, I can't get around the idea that private courts absolutely MUST agree upon some common law (and of course, it would have to be a very libertarian common law based on rights for this to be called anything close to "anarcho-capitalism" or "minarchism"). My thinking is that this law should be written down in stone in some unchanging territorial Constitution. Of course, this would create a monopoly of law over a given jurisdiction, and the law itself would essentially become "the government" over a certain area. The legitimacy of courts would be determined by peer acceptance and ultimately public acceptance of verdicts. Each private court would have every incentive to generally respect the verdicts of other courts with high public acceptance and reject the verdicts of other courts with low public acceptance...and ultimately, the people and their hired protection will have every incentive as well to respect/disrespect verdicts based on the same criteria. Rather than the state, the people's loyalty would be to the common law that the courts must follow, but they would still have reverence for the authority of that law. So, in a way, this is just a mini-minarchist government, minus the state, not full-blown anarcho-capitalism. ;)

The reason I have this hangup is that I don't buy into the idea that law itself can be bought and sold as commodities without any problems whatsoever. Don't get me wrong: It would definitely work, because it's been done before (with the tuath system in Ireland, which lasted a thousand years!), but the idea sounds a little too much like gang membership to permit permanent peace between people. ;) It seems as though such an idea makes courts pretty irrelevant in most cases, since disputes between different people would be primarily solved by agreements between the different "law-offering" protection insurance agencies. The problem is this: What happens if these agencies have an irreconcilable dispute? They might go to a private court to settle the dispute, but that court would have to be agreed upon. That poses a huge problem for the uninsured, who will have no such prior agreement with anyone. If there is not a commonly-recognized system of legitimate and authoritative courts following an authoritative common law, and there are no prior agreements about which court should be chosen in the event of a dispute, then the uninsured have no reasonable recourse whatsoever. The other person/protection agency they are up against will simply have no incentive to consent to the dispute-settling authority of any small pay-as-you-go court. If we extend this problem a little bit, we see that without a common authoritative law, the larger protection agencies won't even have to make agreements with the smaller ones: They can just ignore them, and there will be no recourse for the smaller ones except for violence...and they'll lose.

Although I disdain the very idea of human beings having authority over others, the only way to ensure social harmony is if everyone is on the same page about what the law is and who decides disputes. At the moment, I see no alternative other than creating some Constitutionally-defined system of common law over a given jurisdiction...and the only way it will work is if people are as fanatically reverent of that law as they are of the state today.

So, errm...I'm not sure if I should be technically considered a minarchist or an anarcho-capitalist, and I'd probably be happy with either, but the wall of text above is where I'm at right now.

[TGGRV]

In a free society, a "well regulated militia" would own, maintain, and keep ready such anti-aircraft guns, if there was a need for it.

So lets start by selling our heavy arms to our own citizens, who will be able to provide defense for any willing buyer (individual or voluntary group) that feels threatened from those horrible invaders you warn about.

Yes, I bet people will donate money to build a fleet of F22s. You're delusional. But again, you're proof that anarchy is just a power vacuum that in no time is going to be filled by a dictatorship/oligarchy.

[Theocrat]

In a free society, a "well regulated militia" would own, maintain, and keep ready such anti-aircraft guns, if there was a need for it.

So lets start by selling our heavy arms to our own citizens, who will be able to provide defense for any willing buyer (individual or voluntary group) that feels threatened from those horrible invaders you warn about.

How does anarchy guarantee that those private individuals who buy heavy arms will not ever use them against others who cannot afford to purchase them on their own? What stops a Rothschild from killing a Rothbard in a pure anarchy?

[Mini-Me]

Yes, I bet people will donate money to build a fleet of F22s. You're delusional. But again, you're proof that anarchy is just a power vacuum that in no time is going to be filled by a dictatorship/oligarchy.

This isn't really a fair criticism though, because defense technology would not necessarily rely on donations, and it would probably be funded by the people who you buy protection insurance from. No country in their right mind would launch a land invasion in a country of well-armed anarcho-capitalists, so they could never hope to occupy a significant amount of land by conquest. Since there's no imperialist foreign policy to speak of without a state to speak of, only a few truly despotic foreign states would ever have the audacity to launch an unprovoked attack on anarcho-capitalist territory. It would require pointless, aimless savagery to the tune of North Korea attacking Denmark for the fun of it, and they'd have literally nothing to gain for their money and efforts except sadistic satisfaction. The only kind of government that would be actually likely to do something like that is a jealous one world government, irate that part of the world refuses its jurisdiction. Are F22's really still necessary for defense when you have anti-aircraft guns, missile shields, well-armed ports, etc. to defend against air-based and water-based attacks, and no state exists to instigate conflicts? If so, the insurance rates just went up. ;) If people in some geographical area don't want that kind of protection, well hey...that's their own risk to take. I have a feeling enough people would pay their share here, especially along the coasts and areas bordering other countries, considering the amount needed is MUCH, MUCH less than we spend on "defense" (empire and standing army) today.

[Mini-Me]

How does anarchy guarantee that those private individuals who buy heavy arms will not ever use them against others who cannot afford to purchase them on their own? What stops a Rothschild from killing a Rothbard in a pure anarchy?

Although you'll never agree with anarcho-capitalism for the same reason you'll never even agree with libertarianism (you want a state that can control people's behavior based on Biblical rules), I think I can answer your current question: I think you're just getting too caught up on the word "anarchy" here and equating it with lawlessness. The absence of a state does not really mean the absence of "government" altogether.

What stops a Rothschild from killing a Rothbard under anarcho-capitalistic governance? Something very similar to the same thing that keeps a Rothschild from killing a Rothbard under the rule of a state: The people's reverence for the authority of the law and the courts over the legitimate use of force.

As long as we're talking about anarcho-capitalism with a common law (probably Constitutional), which may or may not be considered pure anarcho-capitalism, law and order without the state apparatus would work pretty much the same as today. The primary difference is that the payment plan for the courts and police (protection insurance agencies) would be different, and it would probably be organized in some way similar to what I described a few posts back. Whereas people today are indoctrinated to be loyal to the state - the actors that supposedly carry out the law - people under the kind of anarcho-capitalism I'm thinking of would instead owe their loyalty to the common law itself, and they would judge the legitimacy of courts and their decisions based on their faithfulness to that law. I think the law would probably have to be a territorial monopoly, like the state is today, but technically speaking, I think the concept of a state - i.e. a tax-funded monopoly over the courts and police services, at the most basic level - is actually pretty superfluous to the core idea of "government."

Similarly, consider the following situation: The people are loyal to a libertarian common law and revile the concept of a coercive state (of course, anarcho-capitalism could only work with the consent of a certain percentage of people, but that goes for any system of government). They generally respect the private court system's authority over disputes, but only while the courts remain true to the law; large courts know that if they betray the people, they will face their wrath. In this kind of climate, just how much money do you think a company like Blackwater would have to spend to turn enough heavy arms on the people to establish themselves as a state for...eh, longer than three days? ;) For all their murder and extortion, there's probably not enough money in the world that would save them from the wrath of the people's small arms and molotov cocktails. It would be the last mistake they ever made. Even today, when the United States government has the largest and most powerful military in the world, there is no physical, logistical, etc. reason why the people of the United States could not handily defeat that military and quickly take out its leadership. The only reason the government and military are so powerful is because they have the power of mindshare in the people: People worship the state and its perceived moral authority over everything. In a free society where everyone respects a common law instead, they will not bow before some random thugs with guns.

[TGGRV]

This isn't really a fair criticism though, because defense technology would not necessarily rely on donations, and it would probably be funded by the people who you buy protection insurance from. No country in their right mind would launch a land invasion in a country of well-armed anarcho-capitalists, so they could never hope to occupy a significant amount of land by conquest. Since there's no imperialist foreign policy to speak of without a state to speak of, only a few truly despotic foreign states would ever have the audacity to launch an unprovoked attack on anarcho-capitalist territory. It would require pointless, aimless savagery to the tune of North Korea attacking Denmark for the fun of it, and they'd have literally nothing to gain for their money and efforts except sadistic satisfaction. The only kind of government that would be actually likely to do something like that is a jealous one world government, irate that part of the world refuses its jurisdiction. Are F22's really still necessary for defense when you have anti-aircraft guns, missile shields, well-armed ports, etc. to defend against air-based and water-based attacks, and no state exists to instigate conflicts? If so, the insurance rates just went up. ;) If people in some geographical area don't want that kind of protection, well hey...that's their own risk to take. I have a feeling enough people would pay their share here, especially along the coasts and areas bordering other countries, considering the amount needed is MUCH, MUCH less than we spend on "defense" (empire and standing army) today.
So why would people who live on the coast pay for protecting people who live in land too? Why would the defense insurance cover everyone if not everyone pays?

And countries fight for resources, control, spheres of influence too, not because that country has an imperialistic foreign policy. Or just out of people being brainwashed into it through religion or other ways.

[Mini-Me]

So why would people who live on the coast pay for protecting people who live in land too? Why would the defense insurance cover everyone if not everyone pays?
Essentially, people would pay for their own defense [insurance], and it's kind of incidental if their money ends up protecting others as well. People on the coast would probably be willing to defend the people inland in the event of an air-based attack, even if they didn't "owe it to them"...but if they really wanted, they could always threaten to leave the heartland hanging out to dry if more of the protection companies there didn't start chipping in. ;) Seriously, just think about all the neocons today who are foaming at the mouth for more and more money to be spent on our gigantic empire: Do you really think the people in today's United States would not willingly spend the <1% of that number that it would actually take to reasonably defend the country from air-based attacks?

If you say no, I think you're really underestimating the willingness of people to voluntarily spend money. Think about all the money people spend on charity, even with the taxes we have today. If you've read The Revolution: A Manifesto, you probably remember the page where Ron Paul mentioned the government's request for $121 million to be spent on the National Endowment for the Arts in 2006...and compared it to the private donations to the arts that year of $2.5 billion! Think about all the money people spend tipping waiters and waitresses - technically, it's not mandatory, but most people do it anyway because of the social expectation and their own feelings of fairness. I think defense is important enough that there would be a pretty big social expectation for people to chip in here as well. Heck, if a significant number of people considered defense technology to be extremely important, there would be public shaming of cheapskates who didn't pay their way. Companies run by more "hawkish" people who are serious about this may be so pissed that they wouldn't even hire anyone unwilling to help pay for defense. There are LOTS of ways to convince people to fork over their share of defense money without literally creating a state to take that money by force. ;) Plus, what people consider a fair amount of protection will always fluctuate from time to time based on geopolitical factors, so if people really start to legitimately fear attack by some foreign empire, they'll be much more eager to fork over their money.

Also, the coast vs. mainland issue is actually pretty moot due to the economic reasons people live on the coast in the first place: Port cities are lucrative, because they're the hub of all international commerce. (Eventually, I think a lot of drinking water will come from desalination plants as well, and it will be much cheaper on the coasts than in some barren desert in the middle of the country.) The more people, companies, etc. refuse to live on the coast out of fear (and refusal to pay for protection to cover that fear), the less competition the companies there will have, and the more lucrative it will be to do business there, rewarding the companies who do and making defense insurance "a drop in the bucket." In other words, the economic bonuses of living closer to commercial hubs will pay for the defense insurance required.




And countries fight for resources, control, spheres of influence too, not because that country has an imperialistic foreign policy. Or just out of people being brainwashed into it through religion or other ways.
Well, fighting for resources, control, and spheres of influence with an anarcho-capitalist society essentially means fighting for control of land and waterways though. I think we both know that no country is going to invade an anarcho-capitalist society by land ("a rifle behind every blade of grass" and all that)...but if they were really so brainwashed that they'd do it anyway, they're free to come and be slaughtered. We could always sell their flesh and organs as delicacies on the international market (okay, bad joke).

When it comes to waterways, that's somewhat trickier. Because an anarcho-capitalist society would have such an efficient economy, its companies would be selling goods at extremely low prices. Most other countries would WANT to trade with them, and those countries would need the anarcho-capitalist society as a trading partner far more than vice-versa. If one troublesome nation decided to create some kind of blockade or take out merchant ships - whether for control, out of spite, or for psychotic religious reasons - other countries' economies would be so negatively affected that they'd likely consider it an attack on themselves and therefore intervene (unless the aggressor was a completely dominant empire). Otherwise, well - anarcho-capitalist courts aren't exactly going to condemn heavily-armed merchant ships traveling in large packs who fight back against a hostile foreign navy. Moreover, the hostile country's ships would probably be considered free game for pirates. What anarcho-capitalist jury is going to convict pirates in an anarcho-capitalist court for attacking the ships of a country that is maliciously attacking the anarcho-capitalist society's merchant ships? With a virtual guarantee that the pirates attacking a hostile country's ships will not be convicted or extradited, that would create a whoooole lot of incentive for people to turn pirate. ;) Seriously, if people think the problem with mere Somalian pirates is bad, no country in their right mind would ever dare face the consequences of waging war on an anarcho-capitalist society's peaceful merchant ships...especially if the society spans a geographical area even a fraction of the size of the current United States. (To clarify: Of course, piracy would not be permitted under ordinary circumstances, and extradition of criminals would be just as commonplace as today to avoid unnecessary conflict. After all, allowing piracy across the board would not only be antithetical to the principles of a libertarian society, but it would also give every country in the world a constant economic incentive to launch an invasion.)

If some nation ever wanted to launch some sustained attack on peaceful anarcho-capitalists - which would be an insane loss of money without any economic benefit, but let's assume they did, because people are crazy like that - the people of an anarcho-capitalist society would be just as pissed off and ready to fight back as the people anywhere else...and considering the strength an anarcho-capitalist economy would have, they'd have a significant economic advantage. You'd see militias organizing and gearing up to go kick some ass, weapons companies ramping up manufacturing like crazy, and social pressure to fund the defense effort among the populace similar to the pressure to buy "war bonds" during the World Wars. Just because the people wouldn't have a state to worship doesn't mean they would have no pride or dignity, or that they would take abuse lying down. :D Interestingly, I think that despite not having state-worship, an entirely free society would still have its own brand of "national pride" develop (minus the nation part), because the fiercely independent people would recognize their uniquely free situation in the world and be unwilling to let any usurper take it away from them.

Finally, in the extremely unlikely event that foreign armies might actually defeat the anarcho-capitalists...they'd still have a hell of a time occupying the country and setting up a state, because there would be no existing state apparatus to take over that any of the people recognized as legitimate! It wouldn't be impossible to do, but it would take considerably more effort than it would take to overthrow a nation of similar geographical area and population and install a puppet government there. The British eventually overthrow the essentially anarchist system in Ireland and established a state...but it literally took them centuries to do it.

[acptulsa]

This isn't really a fair criticism though, because defense technology would not necessarily rely on donations, and it would probably be funded by the people who you buy protection insurance from.

And who sells you 'protection insurance'? Sounds like a genuine mafia product to me...

More shades of Athens. First the mob rule, then the demand for 'tribute', then the slope gets even more slippery.

[TurtleBurger]

How does anarchy guarantee that those private individuals who buy heavy arms will not ever use them against others who cannot afford to purchase them on their own? What stops a Rothschild from killing a Rothbard in a pure anarchy?

The worst criticism that skeptics can make of anarchy is that eventually some members will form a new state. That may be true, but that means we are currently living in the worst-case scenario. It's like saying "I won't buy a car, because maybe someday it will break down and I will have to walk." Guess what, if you don't buy that car you are walking for sure.

[fisharmor]

Mini-Me,
It's very tempting to get hung up on roads and interstates when discussing this.
Please remember:

-Beginning in WWII a 15% tax was placed on passenger rail travel.
-That tax was not removed until the 1970s,
-which was the same time the Eisenhower interstate system was being implemented using tax dollars.
-Also, car travel is orders of magnitude less efficient than rail travel.
-Roads are generally subsidized by the entire society, but
-rails are privately owned, and the individual owners not only have to maintain them out of pocket, but pay taxes on them.
-EDIT: forgot to mention that ALL RAIL WAS NATIONALIZED IN THE 1930s, and never quite recovered.

So the clear conclusion is that in even a minarchist society, roads would simply not be the issue they are.

What would the road system look like if there was no government?
It would look suspiciously like a rail system. And we have historical proof that private rail systems work and work GREAT, if you just leave them the hell alone and refuse to subsidize inefficient competitors.

Also, sprawl, box stores, and deforestation wouldn't exist. There's a reason you can't walk to market anymore. If not for the direct involvement of government, you still would.

[acptulsa]

-EDIT: forgot to mention that ALL RAIL WAS NATIONALIZED IN THE 1930s, and never quite recovered.

I think you've got your date wrong, or you're overstating the case rather drastically. The railroads were nationalized during the last years of WWI, and even though the government made a disaster of the effort the 'temporary wartime' nationalization didn't get undone until after Harding replaced Wilson in 1921.

[Mini-Me]

And who sells you 'protection insurance'? Sounds like a genuine mafia product to me...

More shades of Athens. First the mob rule, then the demand for 'tribute', then the slope gets even more slippery.

I agree that my terminology is pretty suggestive, but who sells you protection insurance today? ;) The state does, without competition, and they take your tribute whether you like it or not. Ultimately, the state is just the "biggest mafia in town" once you take away the layers of glamor, and that doesn't even exclude a genuinely limited Constitutional republic (which, don't get me wrong, I would still be quite happy with). No matter what system you're living under, you should pretty much count on paying your protection money to the mafia. The difference with the kind of anarcho-capitalist society I'm considering is that, unlike today, the courts wouldn't actually allow any mafias to legally harm you if you chose not to subscribe. (Under a more gang-based system like the tuath system of Celtic Ireland, that wouldn't be the case, since unaffiliated people could potentially be considered unprotected outlaws...but that's precisely why I prefer a system based on a Constitutional common law. Honestly though, if you take a brief look at even Celtic history, it seems a whole lot less barbaric than just about everyone else's history, even though they essentially based their legal system on decentralized gangs for a thousand years.)

The key here is that the people's loyalty and reverence must remain with the common law of an anarcho-capitalist society, rather than any particular actors whose job it is to enforce that law. As long as the courts fear retribution from the fiercely independent people if they were to betray them and try to enslave them, and as long as any "cop companies" fear the same, there's no reason why different "cop companies" (insurance agencies) couldn't compete in the "protection" market. What's so bad about people choosing which "cop company" to subscribe to, which will patrol their neighborhoods, show up on call after a robbery, etc.? Unlike today's cops, they'd actually have a legal, contractual responsibility to help out their customers...whereas today's cops have no actual legal obligation to help anyone in trouble. Similarly, we have bounty hunters even today, so we're not complete strangers to the idea of private individuals arresting suspected criminals (especially if they're legally liable for any harm done, since they're not considered "special"), etc. Underneath the unfamiliar, murky waters of the word "anarchy," that's really all the difference boils down to regarding the "cops."

By the way, thanks for the railroad info guys...I sometimes forget to turn my creativity switch on and remember that a free society could potentially find better ways to handle logistics than we do today. I have to go for now, but I'll check this thread out later and see how it's going. :)

[mport1]

I just can't get over the fact that most "anarchists" I've met in my life were idiots whom said the word "dude" a bit excessively and political attitude was "no rules dude! fuck government, yeah dude!".

If I didn't get that taste most of my high school years I'm sure I'd have a more pleasant view of anarchism.

Those are dumb teenagers that don't understand what anarchism really is. Anarchy is not about no rules. We believe rules are very important. It is about getting away from the idea of a government that maintains the monopoly ability of initiating violence.

Voluntaryists (I prefer this term because it doesn't have a bad conotation) are simply people who carry out the non-aggression principle to its logical conculsion. You cannot have a government without violating this principle because a government by its very nature uses initiatory force.

[PaulaGem]

If total anarchism can be proven to me to be compatible with biblical Christianity, then I'm there.


Actually as governmental forms go - pure Communism is more compatible with the teachings of "Jesus".

[PaulaGem]

Think it would be a great experiment to try out over some area [alongside a nearby minarchist Constitutional republic probably], but I still have the following hangup:

For all this to work, I can't get around the idea that private courts absolutely MUST agree upon some common law (and of course, it would have to be a very libertarian common law based on rights for this to be called anything close to "anarcho-capitalism" or "minarchism"). My thinking is that this law should be written down in stone in some unchanging territorial Constitution. Of course, this would create a monopoly of law over a given jurisdiction, and the law itself would essentially become "the government" over a certain area. The legitimacy of courts would be determined by peer acceptance and ultimately public acceptance of verdicts. Each private court would have every incentive to generally respect the verdicts of other courts with high public acceptance and reject the verdicts of other courts with low public acceptance...and ultimately, the people and their hired protection will have every incentive as well to respect/disrespect verdicts based on the same criteria. Rather than the state, the people's loyalty would be to the common law that the courts must follow, but they would still have reverence for the authority of that law. So, in a way, this is just a mini-minarchist government, minus the state, not full-blown anarcho-capitalism.

I'm running out of time here so did not read a whole lot of this thread but the sentence in bold struck me as odd...

In our current society peer relationships are generally destructive of independent thought and action, and even individual rights. Why would this be any different under another governmental system?

[Jeremy]

This poll should have three options. You can still be a republican without being a Constitutionalist. It's called anti-federalist.

[Dr.3D]

This poll should have three options. You can still be a republican without being a Constitutionalist. It's called anti-federalist.

Actually it does. The third option was.
Other - Please explain your position.

[PlzPeopleWakeUp]

nt

[Jeremy]

Actually it does. The third option was.
Other - Please explain your position.

Yah, but anti-federalist deserves its own option. I'm sure some people would have voted differently.

[Mini-Me]

I'm running out of time here so did not read a whole lot of this thread but the sentence in bold struck me as odd...

In our current society peer relationships are generally destructive of independent thought and action, and even individual rights. Why would this be any different under another governmental system?

Hrm...I didn't really consider that. Can you elaborate on the destructiveness of peer relationships in the adult world (no elaboration is really necessary when it comes to schoolkids ;)), particularly compared to the destructiveness of unequal heirarchical relationships? Keeping in mind that juries should decide pretty much everything of importance, part of the reason I'm not terribly concerned here is because any particular court would have a lot of incentive to follow the law faithfully: After all, every court would want customers to do business with it instead of competitors. Still, I could always be wrong. We all pretty much all know how Constitutional republics go: They start off small, and depending on how strong the Constitutional checks and balances are, they either resist growth or allow creeping growth until emerging into a full-blown leviathan state. In contrast, I look at anarcho-capitalism as more of an ambitious experiment with a lot of unknown variables. It's kind of the devil we don't know, since it hasn't been tried before in modern times as far as I know...although anarchy in Celtic Ireland was somewhat similar and supposedly worked very well, and there are other historical examples of anarchy without chaos too.

The "peer review" thing - which is little more than my best guess about the way things could be done or might work out naturally - is really just something that would come into play in the appeals process. If some one-sided rogue court kept butchering trials and getting overturned by other courts, fewer and fewer customers would trust it with their money and their fates. The public would start to consider it a kangaroo court, and it would get to the point where everyone just routinely ignored its decisions as if they never happened, including other courts. This kind of negative peer review would effectively strip a kangaroo court of any "moral authority" it ever had to compel people to follow its judgments. Sure, such a one-sided court would still have customers for a while - the ones who know they will probably win no matter what. :rolleyes: However, once a more respected court overturned that court's judgment on appeal, it would probably require the customer who won in that court (but lost the appeal) to reimburse their trial opponent for the costs of that wasted trial. Soon after, the kangaroo court would simply die out, because even the preordained winners would recognize the fruitlessness of choosing that court.

Ultimately, the real power would reside with the public (the "customers"). If things ever really got out of control and the courts all became corrupt and disrespected - and somehow no new trustworthy court entered the market that people actually trusted, respected, and flocked to (no matter how much some corrupt court tried to overturn its decisions) - then everyone involved in the corruption would likely have to fear for their heads. In a world where people did not cower before or worship an almighty state, I don't think the people would be terribly likely to respect/help enforce any corrupt court's decision to imprison the vigilante who decided to start "cleaning up house."

That's just my assessment though, and I definitely understand people's reluctance to even contemplate trying something so radically different. Some minarchists believe anarcho-capitalism couldn't ever work, and some anarcho-capitalists believe trying to keep government limited is unavoidably an exercise in futility...personally, I think both are probably viable options, if "done right."


Yah, but anti-federalist deserves its own option. I'm sure some people would have voted differently.
I think you're right, and I was actually pretty surprised when I saw it missing from the option list myself.

[PaulaGem]

Hrm...I didn't really consider that. Can you elaborate on the destructiveness of peer relationships in the adult world (no elaboration is really necessary when it comes to schoolkids ;)), particularly compared to the destructiveness of unequal heirarchical relationships? Keeping in mind that juries should decide pretty much everything of importance, part of the reason I'm not terribly concerned here is because any particular court would have a lot of incentive to follow the law faithfully: After all, every court would want customers to do business with it instead of competitors. Still, I could always be wrong. We all pretty much all know how Constitutional republics go: They start off small, and depending on how strong the Constitutional checks and balances are, they either resist growth or allow creeping growth until emerging into a full-blown leviathan state. In contrast, I look at anarcho-capitalism as more of an ambitious experiment with a lot of unknown variables. It's kind of the devil we don't know, since it hasn't been tried before in modern times as far as I know...although anarchy in Celtic Ireland was somewhat similar and supposedly worked very well, and there are other historical examples of anarchy without chaos too.

The "peer review" thing - which is little more than my best guess about the way things could be done or might work out naturally - is really just something that would come into play in the appeals process. If some one-sided rogue court kept butchering trials and getting overturned by other courts, fewer and fewer customers would trust it with their money and their fates. The public would start to consider it a kangaroo court, and it would get to the point where everyone just routinely ignored its decisions as if they never happened, including other courts. This kind of negative peer review would effectively strip a kangaroo court of any "moral authority" it ever had to compel people to follow its judgments. Sure, such a one-sided court would still have customers for a while - the ones who know they will probably win no matter what. :rolleyes: However, once a more respected court overturned that court's judgment on appeal, it would probably require the customer who won in that court (but lost the appeal) to reimburse their trial opponent for the costs of that wasted trial. Soon after, the kangaroo court would simply die out, because even the preordained winners would recognize the fruitlessness of choosing that court.

Ultimately, the real power would reside with the public (the "customers"). If things ever really got out of control and the courts all became corrupt and disrespected - and somehow no new trustworthy court entered the market that people actually trusted, respected, and flocked to (no matter how much some corrupt court tried to overturn its decisions) - then everyone involved in the corruption would likely have to fear for their heads. In a world where people did not cower before or worship an almighty state, I don't think the people would be terribly likely to respect/help enforce any corrupt court's decision to imprison the vigilante who decided to start "cleaning up house."

That's just my assessment though, and I definitely understand people's reluctance to even contemplate trying something so radically different. Some minarchists believe anarcho-capitalism couldn't ever work, and some anarcho-capitalists believe trying to keep government limited is unavoidably an exercise in futility...personally, I think both are probably viable options, if "done right."


I think you're right, and I was actually pretty surprised when I saw it missing from the option list myself.

I believe children who cultivate negative peer relationships pretty much turn into adults that have negative peer relationships. People in groups tend to conform to the dominant behavior in the group, the minority of people are leaders.

I just read the reply above and I'm sorry it seems like re-inventing the wheel. Substitute voters for consumers, assume the voters are actually wielding Constitutional power, and isn't it essentially the same thing?

I really believe the system we have is just fine if enough people would take the personal responsibility to make it work, that is the real failure, not the structure of the system.

Concerning peer relationships and conformity - one of my biggest gripes against the churches in this country is the emphasis on legalism, not sinning, and group conformity. They are creating sheep for the "new world order", not Spiritual enlightenment. People have to be permitted to screw up enough to learn on their own, if they are taught conformity and to avoid taking chances or stepping out of line (as most churches teach) they don't grow Spiritually.

[tremendoustie]

I didn't read this whole thread, I hope I can be forgiven for that.

I put down "other", as I am a voluntaryist. I believe it is always wrong to use aggressive (not defensive) violence.

The word anarchist, to me, implies a lack of rules. I very strongly believe in rules. I believe a person has the right to set the rules for use of his/her property. I believe the innocent should be defended, I just don't believe it needs to be done by a monopoly which itself agresses against innocent people. I also believe in justice -- meaning that those who do use aggressive violence should be made to compensate their victims.

[risk_reward]

I would have voted "Minarchist" or "Constitutionalist" only a year or even six months ago, but in hindsight, I've been on a journey from conservative statist to anarcho-capitalist for 15 years. If you truly believe in "individual sovereignty", there's nowhere else to go.

+1

[risk_reward]

If the minarchists are giving up on the Ron Paul Revolution and the anarcho-capitalists are staying, what does that say?

I think we are all still here. The more we learn the more we move toward anarcho-capitalism. I view constitutionalists as people, just like I was a few months ago, that do not fully understand the nature of property rights.

That is why I strongly recommend Butler Shaffer's new book Boundaries of Order (http://blog.mises.org/archives/009980.asp)

[Origanalist]

Poll needs more options. It appears that these days there needs to be a option for monarchist and world police-ist.

[Dr.3D]

Poll needs more options. It appears that these days there eeds to be a option for monarchist and worlld police-ist.
Since this poll is so old, how about you making up another one so we can see how things may have changed here at RPF?

[Origanalist]

Since this poll is so old, how about you making up another one so we can see how things may have changed here at RPF?

Oh boy.

[oyarde]

I support monarchy only if I am King .

[heavenlyboy34]

I support monarchy only if I am King . Speaking of-how is your kingdom faring, uncle oyarde?

[oyarde]

Speaking of-how is your kingdom faring, uncle oyarde?

As usual my Kingdom is happy and prosperous .

[Vieux Canard]

I support monarchy only if I am King .

Clearly the best form of government is a wise king. Think of Cyrus of Persia. The problem has always been succession. Thanks to advances in AI, one day soon we can create a robot to rule over us. We just need a Cyrus to program it. Of course given present realities, we will probably get Netanyahu.

[Origanalist]

Clearly the best form of government is a wise king. Think of Cyrus of Persia. The problem has always been succession. Thanks to advances in AI, one day soon we can create a robot to rule over us. We just need a Cyrus to program it. Of course given present realities, we will probably get Netanyahu.

I would be ok with Vermin Supreme.

[pcosmar]

Clearly the best form of government is a wise king. Think of Cyrus of Persia. The problem has always been succession. Thanks to advances in AI, one day soon we can create a robot to rule over us. We just need a Cyrus to program it. Of course given present realities, we will probably get Netanyahu.

Foie Gras for king?

I am concerned that there may be some foresight in your fantasy,,, but none of my wishes.

[heavenlyboy34]

I would be ok with Vermin Supreme. +a zillion :D I WANT MY PONY!!11!!!!

[Anti Federalist]

I miss Mini-Me and WRellim.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I'm a constitutionalist.

Let's say we achieve anarchy in America, how does a border town in Texas defend itself against Mexico?

[Dr.3D]

I'm a constitutionalist.

Let's say we achieve anarchy in America, how does a border town in Texas defend itself against Mexico?
As I recall, anarchists don't believe in borders anyway. :p

[pcosmar]

I'm a constitutionalist.

Let's say we achieve anarchy in America, how does a border town in Texas defend itself against Mexico?

What makes you think Mexico wants a Texas border town?

[heavenlyboy34]

As I recall, anarchists don't believe in borders anyway. :p

Not in political borders. They're used against us routinely(checkpoints, border walls, toll booths, etc). Some anarchists (foolishly) don't recognize private property in land at all. Ancaps and many others recognize it and see it as vital to civilization. Where political borders create the *illusion* of stability and security, private property boundaries create these in fact.

This book explains in depth:
https://books.google.com/books/about/Boundaries_of_Order.html?id=-k8YI_YXz5YC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://mises.org/sites/default/files/styles/slideshow/public/static-page/img/Boundaries%20of%20Order_Shaffer.jpg?itok=vM3LnQ1B

[Tywysog Cymru]

As I recall, anarchists don't believe in borders anyway. :p

So, a town in the land formerly known as Texas might be more accurate.


What makes you think Mexico wants a Texas border town?

Texas was once part of Mexico.

[fisharmor]

I'm a constitutionalist.
I was, at least marginally, at the time of the poll. So minus one from that number today.
The reason I left that mentality, never to return, because the only people who are 100% serious about following the US constitution are people who are just about to jump into anarchocapitalism.
It doesn't matter who you are or what your positions are, there is some way in which you do not wish to follow the US constitution as currently codified.
Eventually the futility of it sets in and you recognize that if you're going to be in a sad minority, may as well push for something that doesn't have a multi-century history of being nothing more than a series of fakeouts.


Let's say we achieve anarchy in America, how does a border town in Texas defend itself against Mexico?
My understanding is that a lot of people from Texas have been spending a lot of the last couple decades in Afghanistan learning a lot about how that could be handled without a functional state.

[pcosmar]

So, a town in the land formerly known as Texas might be more accurate.



Texas was once part of Mexico.

So what makes you think they want it back?

seems like a lot of trouble for a lot of trouble.

[Raginfridus]

There is no god but Mr. God, and Terry Davis is his prophet!

I'd be OK with anything as long as it left me alone, or was otherwise reasonable, but I would like anarchy, a monarchy, or a republic.

[Tywysog Cymru]

So what makes you think they want it back?

seems like a lot of trouble for a lot of trouble.

You assume that everyone would resist. There are plenty of people too old or too young. There are also pacifists and people who will value their own life over freedom. Then there are opportunistic people who would become collaborators.

[William Tell]

You assume that everyone would resist. There are plenty of people too old or too young. There are also pacifists and people who will value their own life over freedom. Then there are opportunistic people who would become collaborators.
There seems to be this mindset among some in the liberty movement that the U.S Government is the only potential aggressor and that other governments won't fill the vacuum and get greedy.

[fisharmor]

There seems to be this mindset among some in the liberty movement that the U.S Government is the only potential aggressor and that other governments won't fill the vacuum and get greedy.

Well I am an anarchist, precisely because I recognize all states as aggressive, greedy, and vaccuum-filling by their very nature.
I fully recognize that in all cases I can point to where there was no functional state as we define it, another aggressor state came in and bayonetted their way into power.
I do not have an answer for this... but I also believe it's kind of on the state apologists to first explain why, if states are immutably agressive, violent, and greedy, why we should tolerate them at all, and why we continually have this argument, instead of the smart argument, which is how to stop them in the end game.

[pcosmar]

You assume that everyone would resist.

You assume an attack.

I do not.

[pcosmar]

Well I am an anarchist, precisely because I recognize all states as aggressive, greedy, and vaccuum-filling by their very nature.
I fully recognize that in all cases I can point to where there was no functional state as we define it, another aggressor state came in and bayonetted their way into power.
I do not have an answer for this... but I also believe it's kind of on the state apologists to first explain why, if states are immutably agressive, violent, and greedy, why we should tolerate them at all, and why we continually have this argument, instead of the smart argument, which is how to stop them in the end game.

I have an answer. Human nature (corrupted by malevolent entities).
The same reason other forms of government both exist and fail.

Our Founders understood this,, and attempted a first time experiment. A Free people and Limited government.
an "anti-authoritarian" government in concept where the people rule themselves.

I believe it a good idea that could be improved. and the best proposed so far,,, historically.

[osan]

I am an autodiathist.

"Anarchy" carries far too much baggage.

[William Tell]

Well I am an anarchist, precisely because I recognize all states as aggressive, greedy, and vaccuum-filling by their very nature.
I fully recognize that in all cases I can point to where there was no functional state as we define it, another aggressor state came in and bayonetted their way into power.
I do not have an answer for this... but I also believe it's kind of on the state apologists to first explain why, if states are immutably agressive, violent, and greedy, why we should tolerate them at all, and why we continually have this argument, instead of the smart argument, which is how to stop them in the end game.
The way I see it it's like if you live in a very small town outside a large city. Say 200 people. You see what's wrong with government in general, so you could try to convince the voters to abolish the town government on principle. Nothing wrong with that, until you get rid of the town charter and Dallas, or Chicago, or wherever you are at annexes you and makes you part of a worse system. I don't apologize for government, it frustrates me as much as anyone. Just seems to me no matter how bad the odds are we have a better chance of halfway cleaning up our own house in America than we do of convincing the whole world to abandon aggression.

Our problem is not just government, it is abuse of any kind of power which is human nature. Churches, governments, tribes, businesses, evil pops up everywhere.

[Superfluous Man]

Just seems to me no matter how bad the odds are we have a better chance of halfway cleaning up our own house in America than we do of convincing the whole world to abandon aggression.


I don't hold out any hope of ever seeing the world abandon aggression. But I'll still abandon it anyway, because that's the right thing to do.

[Vieux Canard]

I'm a Bokononist

[fisharmor]

The way I see it it's like if you live in a very small town outside a large city. Say 200 people. You see what's wrong with government in general, so you could try to convince the voters to abolish the town government on principle. Nothing wrong with that, until you get rid of the town charter and Dallas, or Chicago, or wherever you are at annexes you and makes you part of a worse system. I don't apologize for government, it frustrates me as much as anyone. Just seems to me no matter how bad the odds are we have a better chance of halfway cleaning up our own house in America than we do of convincing the whole world to abandon aggression.

Our problem is not just government, it is abuse of any kind of power which is human nature. Churches, governments, tribes, businesses, evil pops up everywhere.

I do not intend to convince the whole world to give up on aggression.

You're not apologizing for government, you're just rejecting the idea that market forces can provide goods or services that are popular.
Or you're claiming that territorial defense isn't popular.
In either case, you're assuming that it won't be possible without a state. You might be saying that states serve some sort of scarecrow role in addition to being the only valid form of defense.

This conversation always hovers around faith, or lack of faith, in markets. If there is no market for territorial defense then people have no desire for it, and it's useless to force it upon them. If there is a market for territorial defense and you believe that it can be catered to in a non-monopolistic fashion, then we can move on to the discussion of how to convince a critical mass of other people that this is the case.

Otherwise, like I wrote above, we will spin our wheels on that point.

[Tywysog Cymru]

There seems to be this mindset among some in the liberty movement that the U.S Government is the only potential aggressor and that other governments won't fill the vacuum and get greedy.

They also have the idea that in the case of America becoming anarchist, an invading foreign power would try to occupy the entire US. It's quite naive.


You assume an attack.

I do not.

Maybe Mexico wouldn't attack. But they would have many incentives to attack:

-Control of resources (plenty of oil in Texas)
-Much of the US was formerly Mexican territory
-There wouldn't be any organized force to resist invasion
-They wouldn't face any of the consequences of invading a sovereign nation

[pcosmar]

-There wouldn't be any organized force to resist invasion
-They wouldn't face any of the consequences of invading a sovereign nation

Those are both an assumption.

and a good deterrents to an attack plan,

There may well be a local force to contend with and consequences for invasion.
(:see Afghanistan, )

[Ender]

I have an answer. Human nature (corrupted by malevolent entities).
The same reason other forms of government both exist and fail.

Our Founders understood this,, and attempted a first time experiment. A Free people and Limited government.
an "anti-authoritarian" government in concept where the people rule themselves.

I believe it a good idea that could be improved. and the best proposed so far,,, historically.

What the Founders "attempted" isn't on the choice list.

The Articles of Confederation was to insure small government with locals directing their own laws. The central gov was to be pretty much powerless, except for defense & international trade.

The Constitution was a Hamiltonian coupe for a large central gov controlled by elites. It has worked beautifully.

The PROBLEM is that Americans have been raised in public schools to be servants and worshippers of the coupe, instead of actually learning about, and living, real freedom and how it can operate in a community.

[Weston White]

Ideology is a spectrum, one may simultaneously be both or neither or a combination of other ideologies. So says Rainbow Snatch, thus, be it so.