Refuting Anarchy - Ludwig von Mises, Frederick Hayek, Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman

[Poptech]

It is common for proponents of liberty to fall under the spell of anarchy through the "anarcho-capitalist" writings of some libertarian scholars affiliated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute such as the late Murray Rothbard. While I respect Professor Rothbard's writings and many of his works on the great depression, the fed and monetary policy, I part ways when he moves to the abolition of government entirely as did many of his libertarian contemporaries such as the late Ludwig von Mises, Frederick Hayek, Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman. The Ludwig von Mises institute is a fantastic knowledge base of economic works (many completely free) and I encourage everyone to seek it out. But I feel the need to offer this warning as the person who the institute is named after (Ludwig von Mises) did not support anarchy,

"In an anarchist society is the possibility entirely to be excluded that someone may negligently throw away a lighted match and start a fire or, in a fit of anger, jealousy, or revenge, inflict injury on his fellow man? Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints. Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace."

- Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism (http://mises.org/books/liberalism.pdf) (pp. 36-37) (PDF)

"The anarchists overlook the undeniable fact that some people are either too narrow-minded or too weak to adjust themselves spontaneously to the conditions of social life. Even if we admit that every sane adult is endowed with the faculty of realizing the good of social cooperation and of acting accordingly, there still remains the problem of the infants, the aged, and the insane. We may agree that he who acts antisocially should be considered mentally sick and in need of care. But as long as not all are cured, and as long as there are infants and the senile, some provision must be taken lest they jeopardize society. An anarchistic society would be exposed to the mercy of every individual. Society cannot exist if the majority is not ready to hinder, by the application or threat of violent action, minorities from destroying the social order. This power is vested in the state or government."

- Ludwig von Mises, Human Action (http://mises.org/Books/humanaction.pdf) (pp. 149) (PDF)

"A shallow-minded school of social philosophers, the anarchists, chose to ignore the matter by suggesting a stateless organization of mankind. They simply passed over the fact that men are not angels. They were too dull to realize that in the short run an individual or a group of individuals can certainly further their own interests at the expense of their own and all other peoples' long-run interests. A society that is not prepared to thwart the attacks of such asocial and short-sighted aggressors is helpless and at the mercy of its least intelligent and most brutal members. While Plato founded his Utopia on the hope that a small group of perfectly wise and morally impeccable philosophers will be available for the supreme conduct of affairs, anarchists implied that all men without any exception will be endowed with perfect wisdom and moral impeccability. They failed to conceive that no system of social cooperation can remove the dilemma between a man's or a group's interests in the short run and those in the long run."

"Government as such is not only not an evil, but the most necessary and beneficial institution, as without it no lasting social cooperation and no civilization could be developed and preserved. It is a means to cope with an inherent imperfection of many, perhaps of the majority of all people. If all men were able to realize that the alternative to peaceful social cooperation is the renunciation of all that distinguishes **** sapiens from the beasts of prey, and if all had the moral strength always to act accordingly, there would not be any need for the establishment of a social apparatus of coercion and oppression. Not the state is an evil, but the shortcomings of the human mind and character that imperatively require the operation of a police power. Government and state can never be perfect because they owe their raison d'etre to the imperfection of man and can attain their end, the elimination of man's innate impulse to violence, only by recourse to violence, the very thing they are called upon to prevent."

- Ludwig von Mises, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science (http://mises.org/books/ultimate.pdf) (pp. 98-99) (PDF)


Minarchists (limited government libertarians) and Constitutional Conservatives can rest easy knowing they are in the company of some of liberties greatest figures,

Ludwig von Mises, Frederick Hayek, Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman

[Joe3113]

How interesting...

Poptech's Latest Cry for Attention re:You know you're a libertarian/ancap when...
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/11289.aspx

[Andrew-Austin]

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/10600.aspx

link to the same exact thread he created on Mises.org....

One guy pointed out:
In every instance where Mises attacked "anarchism", he implied that "anarchism" implies the absence of law. And, therefore, Mises never did refute and never even attempted to refute any variant of anarchism which resembles anarchocapitalism.

Mises didn't address anarcho-capitalism, the free market production of security and dispute resolution, he addressed the more common anarcho-socialism/communism.

Mises' protege Rothbard and the living indviduals who now constitute the LvMI stand on his shoulders, and thus can embrace what he got right while expanding on what he didn't realize.

[newbitech]

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/10600.aspx (http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/10600.aspx)

link to the same exact thread he created on Mises.org....

One guy pointed out:

Mises didn't address anarcho-capitalism, the free market production of security and dispute resolution.


maybe because you can't have anarcho-capitalism without anarchy. just a thought.

[Andrew-Austin]

maybe because you can't have anarcho-capitalism without anarchy. just a thought.

They are two different terms describing entirely different concepts, when you look at how Mises viewed the word.

Don't be a smart ass.

"Anarchy", like "capitalism" means different things to different people.

If someone tells you they think capitalism does not work in any ideal manner, and they then proceed to define capitalism as what we consider corporatism/crony interventionism, you would have to agree no? But you would have to realize this person has not addressed pure free market capitalism.

[Joe3113]

maybe because you can't have anarcho-capitalism without anarchy. just a thought.

In order for this sentence to make any sense; you are going to have to define your use of the words

(1) anarcho-capitalism

(2) anarchy

Thank you.

[heavenlyboy34]

Mises also said "There is really no essential difference between the unlimited power of the democratic state and the unlimited power of the autocrat."

and "Government is essentially the negation of liberty."

and "Government means always coercion and compulsion and is by necessity the opposite of liberty."

and "The government pretends to be endowed with the mystical power to accord favors out of an inexhaustible horn of plenty. It is both omniscient and omnipotent. It can by a magic wand create happiness and abundance."

and "There is no remedy for the inefficiency of public management."

Sounds like the OP is cherry-picking.:p

[tremendoustie]

"In an anarchist society is the possibility entirely to be excluded that someone may negligently throw away a lighted match and start a fire or, in a fit of anger, jealousy, or revenge, inflict injury on his fellow man? Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints. Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace."


Of course we should compel those who would not, to respect the rights of others. No one is suggesting that we do not use force against, theieves, murderers, and the like. All I propose is that the government itself not become a violater of those rights.



"The anarchists overlook the undeniable fact that some people are either too narrow-minded or too weak to adjust themselves spontaneously to the conditions of social life. Even if we admit that every sane adult is endowed with the faculty of realizing the good of social cooperation and of acting accordingly, there still remains the problem of the infants, the aged, and the insane. We may agree that he who acts antisocially should be considered mentally sick and in need of care. But as long as not all are cured, and as long as there are infants and the senile, some provision must be taken lest they jeopardize society. An anarchistic society would be exposed to the mercy of every individual. Society cannot exist if the majority is not ready to hinder, by the application or threat of violent action, minorities from destroying the social order. This power is vested in the state or government."

And yet again, force will be used against those who would harm others. Mises appears to miss the point entirely.



"A shallow-minded school of social philosophers, the anarchists, chose to ignore the matter by suggesting a stateless organization of mankind. They simply passed over the fact that men are not angels. They were too dull to realize that in the short run an individual or a group of individuals can certainly further their own interests at the expense of their own and all other peoples' long-run interests. A society that is not prepared to thwart the attacks of such asocial and short-sighted aggressors is helpless and at the mercy of its least intelligent and most brutal members. While Plato founded his Utopia on the hope that a small group of perfectly wise and morally impeccable philosophers will be available for the supreme conduct of affairs, anarchists implied that all men without any exception will be endowed with perfect wisdom and moral impeccability. They failed to conceive that no system of social cooperation can remove the dilemma between a man's or a group's interests in the short run and those in the long run."


And yet again, society should be prepared to thrwart such attacks. That does not imply that we need an organzation which is permitted to itself violate the rights of others.


"Government as such is not only not an evil, but the most necessary and beneficial institution, as without it no lasting social cooperation and no civilization could be developed and preserved.

Yes, without an organization to use agressive violence to extort money from the populace, and compel peaceful members of the minority to obey the whims of the majority, there could be no such thing as cooperation. Riiiigght.



It is a means to cope with an inherent imperfection of many, perhaps of the majority of all people. If all men were able to realize that the alternative to peaceful social cooperation is the renunciation of all that distinguishes **** sapiens from the beasts of prey, and if all had the moral strength always to act accordingly, there would not be any need for the establishment of a social apparatus of coercion and oppression.


Because all men are not willing to peacfully cooperate, and some evil men may resort to coersion and oppression, we must set up an organization dedicated to coersion and oppression, and invite all of those evil men in to take over its reigns. Brilliant.



Not the state is an evil, but the shortcomings of the human mind and character that imperatively require the operation of a police power. Government and state can never be perfect because they owe their raison d'etre to the imperfection of man and can attain their end, the elimination of man's innate impulse to violence, only by recourse to violence, the very thing they are called upon to prevent."


Yet, yet, yet again, no one is proposing that we do away with defensive violence.

[__27__]

This thread is win.

[newbitech]

Less successful than his investigations in the fields of general praxeology and economics are the author's occasional observations concerning the philosophy of law and some problems of the penal code. But disagreement with his opinions concerning these matters cannot prevent me from qualifying Rothbard's work as an epochal contribution to the general science of human action, praxeology, and its practically most important and, up to now, best-elaborated part, economics.Mises Reviews Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State (http://mises.org/daily/3380)

I highlighted the parts in red that someone needs to explain.

Is Mises referring to something other than anarcho-capitalism here?

If so, to what exactly is he referring?

[specsaregood]

Can't help but hear this song in my head when I read the word anarchy or anarchist.



Through the best of times,
Through the worst of times,
Through Nixon and through Bush,
Do you remember '36?
We went our seperate ways.
You fought for Stalin.
I fought for freedom.
You believe in authority.
I believe in myself.
I'm a molotov cocktail.
You're Dom Perignon.
Baby, what's that confused look in your eyes?
What I'm trying to say is that
I burn down buildings
While you sit on a shelf inside of them.
You call the cops
On the looters and piethrowers.
They call it class war,
I call it co-conspirators.

'Cause baby, I'm an anarchist,
You're a spineless liberal.
We marched together for the eight-hour day
And held hands in the streets of Seattle,
But when it came time to throw bricks
Through that Starbucks window,
You left me all alone.

You watched in awe at the red,
White, and blue on the fourth of july.
While those fireworks were exploding,
I was burning that fucker
And stringing my black flag high,
Eating the peanuts
That the parties have tossed you
In the back seat of your father's new Ford.
You believe in the ballot,
Believe in reform.
You have faith in the elephant and jackass,
And to you, solidarity's a four-letter word.
We're all hypocrites,
But you're a patriot.
You thought I was only joking
When I screamed "Kill Whitey!"
At the top of my lungs
At the cops in their cars
And the men in their suits.
No, I won't take your hand
And marry the State.

'Cause baby, I'm an anarchist,
You're a spineless liberal.
We marched together for the eight-hour day
And held hands in the streets of Seattle,
But when it came time to throw bricks
Through that Starbucks window,
You left me all alone.

[heavenlyboy34]

This thread is win.

If you consider poor contextomy "win", surrrre. :rolleyes:

[tremendoustie]

Throwing bricks through starbucks windows is nothing any ancap or voluntaryist would support.

[Poptech]

maybe because you can't have anarcho-capitalism without anarchy. just a thought.
Exactly, anarcho = anarchy or the absence of government. In none of Mises writings does he support an anarchist position of any type. The irony is in attempting to support a certain "form" or anarchy since no government exists, there is nothing to enforce your "model" or anarchy.

[Poptech]

Mises' protege Rothbard and the living indviduals who now constitute the LvMI stand on his shoulders, and thus can embrace what he got right while expanding on what he didn't realize.
Mises protege was Hayek who did not support anarchy either, Rothbard merely attended some of Mises lectures at NYU.

Anarcho-capitalism is a creation of Rothbard not Mises. If the institute was named the Murray N. Rothbard Institute I would not have a problem with it embracing anarcho-capitalism, instead it is using Mises good name to push Rothbard's theories and clarification is needed for anyone new coming into this debate.

[ronpaulhawaii]

Mises protege was Hayek who did not support anarchy either, Rothbard merely attended some of Mises lectures at NYU.

Anarcho-capitalism is a creation of Rothbard not Mises. If the institute was named the Murray N. Rothbard Institute I would not have a problem with it embracing anarcho-capitalism, instead it is using Mises good name to push Rothbard's theories and clarification is needed for anyone new coming into this debate.

+1

and welcome to the crucible of r3VOLution

:)

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

This subject doesn't require paragraphs of arguments, it doesn't require any historical digging, it doesn't require much thought at all, really.

The bottom line: do you support the use of violence against me if I don't want to participate in your pet institutions? Yes or no?

Granted, I highly doubt people like Mises, Hayek, Ron Paul, and a good chunk of their followers would want to enforce laws and taxes on peaceful anarchists, so there's plenty of room for fusionism and solidarity. But if you blatantly refuse to let me opt out of your system, you forfeit the right to complain when the molotovs come through your window.

[Poptech]

People who support a constitutionally limited government do not support "violence" as used in your propaganda fashion. These sort of juvenile arguments are tiring.


...you forfeit the right to complain when the molotovs come through your window.
Irony indeed.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

A constitutionally limited government is still a structure which claims to the right to tax me without my consent. The only logical way for them to do that is through the implied use of violence.

It's kind of like when state-liberals give you that line, "well I don't mind paying taxes for social programs." Even if I were to enjoy and support what some governmental program were doing, that's precluded by the fact that I never had a choice in the matter to begin with.

No doubt you're familiar with the line, "no taxation without representation," which was a backbone principle upon which the original U.S. was founded. And since monocentric law and arbitrary borders do not represent me, then how do you justify taxing me?

[CCTelander]

I want the last ten minutes of my life back.

[Poptech]

The limited taxation that would be required to fund a true constitutionally limited government would be in agreement with the citizens of the united states. It has nothing to do with "violence".

The attempt to label anyone who supports any form of government as some violent, evil individual or the equivalent of a social liberal is propaganda that only works on the weak minded.

Nothing is preventing you from leaving your "oppression" and setting up shop in Somalia.

[tremendoustie]

Exactly, anarcho = anarchy or the absence of government. In none of Mises writings does he support an anarchist position of any type. The irony is in attempting to support a certain "form" or anarchy since no government exists, there is nothing to enforce your "model" or anarchy.

The functions of government which prosecute real crime should remain. If another "model" of anarchy would be one in which people harm others, I absolutely propose to use force to prevent it.

You, like mises, are conflating the agressively violent component of government, which should be eliminated, with the use of force to protect innocents, which should remain,

[Poptech]

The functions of government which prosecute real crime should remain.
If any function of government remains then government remains and you do not have anarchy. Without government any private court would have no power to prosecute anyone. Who would show up to a private court unless the threat of imprisonment existed? Anarchist's arguments are illogical.

[CCTelander]

The limited taxation that would be required to fund a true constitutionally limited government would be in agreement with the citizens of the united states. It has nothing to do with "violence".


Really? Then if I refuse to pay those taxes, you'd just leave me the hell alone and go on with your life? Or, would guys with guns show up to "encourage" me to do my "civic duty?" Nope, no violence there. What horseshit.



The attempt to label anyone who supports any form of government as some violent, evil individual or the equivalent of a social liberal is propaganda that only works on the weak minded.


Puh-lease. I have absolutely no doubt that most people who support "limited" government are well-meaning, and have nothing but the best of intentions. You, on the other hand, seem to fail to perceive the fact that a great deal of evil is committed by people who believe they're doing good.



Nothing is preventing you from leaving your "oppression" and setting up shop in Somalia.

Ah! The old "love it or leave it" argument. It just never gets old, does it? Grow up.

[tremendoustie]

The limited taxation that would be required to fund a true constitutionally limited government would be in agreement with the citizens of the united states. It has nothing to do with "violence".


Correction: it would be in agreement with some of the citizens of the united states, who would use the threat of violence to extort money from the remainder of the citizens of the united states.

"The citizens" is not some monolithic entity with one opinion, or will.



The attempt to label anyone who supports any form of government as some violent, evil individual or the equivalent of a social liberal is propaganda that only works on the weak minded.


Nice ad-hominem, but it's exactly violence. What would you have done to the man who lives peacefully within this geographic region, if he does not want your "minarchist" services, nor wants to pay for them? Say, for example, he'd rather manage his own protection by himself, rather than pay for police, or has found a competitor which he prefers. Would you bust down his door and haul him off in chains? Take his house?



Nothing is preventing you from leaving your "oppression" and setting up shop in Somalia.

Ah, the go-to phrase of tyrants, socialists, and neocons everywhere. Nice try, but you don't own the country. I think I'll stay right here on the land which I own, and you do not, and resist extortionists and thugs such as you apparently support.

[Poptech]

Really? Then if I refuse to pay those taxes, you'd just leave me the hell alone and go on with your life? Or, would guys with guns show up to "encourage" me to do my "civic duty?" Nope, no violence there. What horseshit.
A constitutionally limited government would require some funding, this is the reality. If you want no government Somalia welcomes you. I fully support your choice to leave whenever you want.


Puh-lease. I have absolutely no doubt that most people who support "limited" government are well-meaning, and have nothing but the best of intentions. You, on the other hand, seem to fail to perceive the fact that a great deal of evil is committed by people who believe they're doing good.
I have no utopian ideals. I am just not an extremist propagandist who uses distortions and half-truths to push anarchism.


Ah! The old "love it or leave it" argument. It just never gets old, does it? Grow up.
Why are none of the "brave" anarchists living in Somalia instead of hiding behind the protection of the U.S. Military?

[tremendoustie]

If any function of government remains then government remains and you do not have anarchy. Without government any private court would have no power to prosecute anyone. Who would show up to a private court unless the threat of imprisonment existed? Anarchist's arguments are illogical.

If a person did not show up in court, they would be more likely to lose the case. If they lost the case, they absolutely would be compelled to comply with the ruling, which in most cases would be restitution. It would be not entirely unlike the current system, except that competititon would be permitted, would not be funded by force, and would not enforce victimless crime. I also would propose it be more oriented towards restitution than jail.

I suggest checking out this book here, for more ideas on the subject. Feel free to skip to what you find interesting (I myself am not a fan of some of the pseudo-philosophy at the beginning).

http://mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf

[CCTelander]

A constitutionally limited government would require some funding, this is the reality. If you want no government Somalia welcomes you. I fully support your choice to leave whenever you want.


I have no utopian ideals. I am just not an extremist propagandist who uses distortions and half-truths to push anarchism.


Why are none of the "brave" anarchists living in Somalia and instead hiding behind the protection of the U.S. Military?

Have you got ANYTHING but ad hominem to offer? Anything at all? My bet is no.

And, I'm through wasting my time with you. Have a nice day.

[newbitech]

A constitutionally limited government is still a structure which claims to the right to tax me without my consent. The only logical way for them to do that is through the implied use of violence.

It's kind of like when state-liberals give you that line, "well I don't mind paying taxes for social programs." Even if I were to enjoy and support what some governmental program were doing, that's precluded by the fact that I never had a choice in the matter to begin with.

No doubt you're familiar with the line, "no taxation without representation," which was a backbone principle upon which the original U.S. was founded. And since monocentric law and arbitrary borders do not represent me, then how do you justify taxing me?


the slogan was referring to the lack of representation in parliament. The slogan is "minarchist" no?

[Poptech]

Correction: it would be in agreement with some of the citizens of the united states, who would use the threat of violence to extort money from the remainder of the citizens of the united states.
An agreement with a majority of it's citizens. A true constitutional republic allows for states to govern and tax in different ways, offering individuals a choice of how little government they prefer. Taxation is not violence as you wish to propagandize it.


What would you have done to the man who lives peacefully within this geographic region, if he does not want your "minarchist" services, nor wants to pay for them? Say, for example, he'd rather manage his own protection by himself, rather than pay for police, or has found a competitor which he prefers. Would you bust down his door and haul him off in chains? Take his house?
Give him the option to leave. You can freely live in Somalia.


Ah, the go-to phrase of tyrants, socialists, and neocons everywhere. Nice try, but you don't own the country. I think I'll stay right here on the land which I own, and you do not, and resist extortionists and thugs such as you apparently support.
The go-to phrases for anarchists are "violence", "neo-cons" ect... No I don't own the country, I am a citizen of the country and thus abide by it's laws decided upon by out government. If I disagree with any (as I do), I attempt to have them changed.

How is your resistance of the IRS going? When you use the word "violence" repetitively does that work well in convincing them not to tax you?

[Poptech]

If a person did not show up in court, they would be more likely to lose the case. If they lost the case, they absolutely would be compelled to comply with the ruling, which in most cases would be restitution. It would be not entirely unlike the current system, except that competititon would be permitted, would not be funded by force, and would not enforce victimless crime. I also would propose it be more oriented towards restitution than jail.
Who cares if they lost the case? It is anarchy! Why would they be compelled to do anything? Who collects the restitution? Your argument is illogical.

Please I've read all these books.

[Poptech]

Have you got ANYTHING but ad hominem to offer? Anything at all? My bet is no.

And, I'm through wasting my time with you. Have a nice day.
Can't answer the question?

Why are none of the "brave" anarchists living in Somalia instead of hiding behind the protection of the U.S. Military?

[tremendoustie]

A constitutionally limited government would require some funding, this is the reality. If you want no government Somalia welcomes you. I fully support your choice to leave whenever you want.


And I fully remind you that you do not own the country.

Somalia has plenty of wannabe governments -- local gangs, etc. I oppose those as well.

I might as well say, "Why don't you move to north korea?". That's not the form of government you support, and Somalia is not the form of society I support.



I have no utopian ideals. I am just not an extremist propagandist who uses distortions and half-truths to push anarchism.


More slurs with no substance.



Why are none of the "brave" anarchists living in Somalia and instead hiding behind the protection of the U.S. Military?

The U.S. Military with it's interventionist policies puts us in far more danger than we would be in otherwise, not to mention its enabling of tyranny at home. How many family members of the hundreds of thousands of innocents that have been killed as a direct result of the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan will become enemies of america in the future?

I would be happy to help pay for a local milita, as the founders intended, rather than the world trotting enforcers of hegemony we have today.

[CCTelander]

Can't answer the question?

Why are none of the "brave" anarchists living in Somalia instead hiding behind the protection of the U.S. Military?

It's actually funny that you should imply that government here in the US protects anyone at all, since government at all levels has repeatedly and catagorically denied any such responsibility to protect us or our property. Try again with something that resembles reality.

[tremendoustie]

Who cares if they lost the case?


The victim, and the protection agency representing the victim.



It is anarchy! Why would they be compelled to do anything?


Because force will be used against them by said protection agency (or others) to compel you to make good to their victim.



Who collects the restitution?

The victim's protection agency, to be given to the victim.



Your argument is illogical.


I know it may be a mind-blower, but the only way to provide protection for innocent people, is not a monopoly which funds itself through extortion.



Please I've read all these books.

It seems to me that if you had, you would understand the idea of protection agencies.

[Poptech]

And I fully remind you that you do not own the country, tyrant. Why don't you move to north korea?
I just stated that I never claimed to own the country, I am a citizen of the country. Does calling people "tyrants" work as well as the repetitive use of the word "violence"? North Korea is not a constitutionally limited government, so why would I move there?


Somalia has plenty of wannabe governments -- local gangs, etc. I oppose those as well.
What? I thought anarchy was utopia? How can local gangs exist with no police force?


The U.S. Military with it's interventionist policies puts us in far more danger than we would be in otherwise, not to mention its enabling of tyranny at home. How many family members of the hundreds of thousands of innocents that have been killed as a direct result of the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan will become enemies of america in the future?
Supporting the existence of an all volunteer U.S. Military and supporting interventionist policies are two different things. But you could be rid of this burden in Somalia, why are you not there?


I would be happy to help pay for a local milita, as the founders intended, rather than the world trotting enforcers of hegemony we have today.
You can do this now in Somalia! I told you this is your ideal.

[Poptech]

It's actually funny that you should imply that government here in the US protects anyone at all, since government at all levels has repeatedly and catagorically denied any such responsibility to protect us or our property. Try again with something that resembles reality.
If this is true then why are you not living in a true anarchist society like Somalia? You have a chance to live the dream! Go for it man!

[Poptech]

The victim, and the protection agency representing the victim.
So what if they "care", this is anarchy! What are they going to do about it?


Because force will be used against them by said protection agency (or others) to compel you to make good to their victim.
You support violence? Hyprocrite!!!


The victim's protection agency, to be given to the victim.
Who gives them the power to use violence against me? Are you a tyrant?


I know it may be a mind-blower, but the only way to provide protection for innocent people, is not a monopoly which funds itself through extortion.
The other way is through private armies that does whomever pays them the most wants?


It seems to me that if you had, you would understand the idea of protection agencies.
Oh I understand the illogic of it all too well.

[tremendoustie]

An agreement with a majority of it's citizens.


Ah, and majority opinion in support of an action magically makes it moral? What if the majority wanted 100% taxes on the minority, would that be morally legitimate? How about slavery, as the majority supported at one time?



A true constitutional republic allows for states to govern and tax in different ways,

That certainly would be far better than what we have now, but it's still theft.



offering individuals a choice of how little government they prefer.


Sounds good to me, as long as you don't make people leave the land they own in order to make that choice.



Taxation is not violence as you wish to propagandize it.


Let's see, a group of individuals sends a letter to me every year, explaining to me that if I don't send them money they will come with guns, bust down my door, and throw me in jail. Or, they'll steal my house, and come with guns to kick me out of it, once the new "owners" want to move in.

Yep, sounds like violence to me.



Give him the option to leave. You can freely live in Somalia.


IT. IS. NOT. YOUR. LAND.

Get it yet?

You have no right to kick someone off their own land because they don't send you money. That's called extortion. The majority does not own the land either.



The go-to phrases for anarchists are "violence", "neo-cons" ect... No I don't own the country, I am a citizen of the country and thus abide by it's laws decided upon by out government. If I disagree with any (as I do), I attempt to have them changed.


Can laws ever be immoral, and illegitimate, even if supported by a majority? What about laws forcing people to send slaves back to their "owners". Were they legitimate? Would you have obeyed them?

If not, what determines whether a law is legitimate or not?

I don't disagree with working in the system to try to change laws, by the way, but that in no way implies that the current laws are legitimate, or moral.



How is your resistance of the IRS going? When you use the word "violence" repetitively does that work well in convincing them not to tax you?

Nope. It wouldn't work well against street gangs, or Al Capone either. They also tend to not have consciences vulnerable to the people they are extorting money from.

[tremendoustie]

I just stated that I never claimed to own the country, I am a citizen of the country. Does calling people "tyrants" work as well as the repetitive use of the word "violence"? North Korea is not a constitutionally limited government, so why would I move there?


Somalia is not a voluntary society, so why would I move there?



What? I thought anarchy was utopia? How can local gangs exist with no police force?


Anarchy can be downright horrible, just as government can. I don't support any kind of "anarchy", just as you don't support any kind of "government".

I support the non agression principle. There are plenty of people who violate it who are not part of government, and I oppose them as well. This country just has more of the government class of criminal, and less of the classes common in somalia.



Supporting the existence of an all volunteer U.S. Military and supporting interventionist policies are two different things.


Yes. I actually agree with the founders, to a large extent, on the subject of the military. We should have militas in time of peace, who can join together and form armies when attacked (or operate independently, which has proven to be a very effective strategy).



But you could be rid of this burden in Somalia, why are you not there?

You can do this now in Somalia! I told you this is your ideal.

As I told you, Somalia does not match what I am proposing, any more than North Korea matches what you are proposing. Also, I live here, and care about my friends and neighbors here.

[tremendoustie]

You support violence? Hyprocrite!!!


I support defensive violence. This includes defense against attack, as well as restitution.

What I oppose is the initiation of agressive violence against a person who has not harmed others. This seems to be a common confusion, both by you and Mises.



Who gives them the power to use violence against me? Are you a tyrant?


The power, or the right? Those are two different things. They have the power because they are a protection agency, and so have more guns than you, and because all of the other protection agencies, including yours, consider their action legitimate, and will not stop them.

If they are obtaining just restitution for harm you have really inflicted on the victim, then they also have the right.



The other way is through private armies that does whomever pays them the most wants?

Not at all. Why do you suppose that those working for government are uncorruptable, but those working outside government are nothing but corrupt?

Why do you suppose government does not do what whoever pays them the most wants? Well, they do .. but even more so than they do now? Why do the police not go around killing for contract?

1. Because they are decent people.

2. Because there would be a public outcry, and the people would stand against them.

In your scenario, 1. applies to just as as great an extent. 2. Applies to a greater extent, because not only could the people pull funding at any moment, but they could hire a competitor to protect them from the tyrants -- both of which they can't do these days.



Oh I understand the illogic of it all too well.

No, you don't get it yet. I do give you credit for engaging in a real discussion, however.

[Poptech]

Ah, and majority opinion in support of an action magically makes it moral? What if the majority wanted 100% taxes on the minority, would that be morally legitimate? How about slavery, as the majority supported at one time?
Morality is subjective. Majority decisions are objective. The majority is currently attempting 100% taxes on minorities (the rich). Moral legitimacy is subjective. If the majority wanted slavery we would have it, that has been the reality of society since it began.


That certainly would be far better than what we have now, but it's still theft.
No it is a contractual agreement with the state.


Sounds good to me, as long as you don't make people leave the land they own in order to make that choice.
If the land is in the confines of the U.S. government then it falls under it's laws.


Let's see, a group of individuals sends a letter to me every year, explaining to me that if I don't send them money they will come with guns, bust down my door, and throw me in jail. Or, they'll steal my house, and come with guns to kick me out of it, once the new "owners" want to move in.

Yep, sounds like violence to me.
Violating contractual obligations has consequences. But people do not consider these consequences "violence".


IT. IS. NOT. YOUR. LAND.
I never said it was but your land is bound by contractual obligations to the U.S. government.


You have no right to kick someone off their own land because they don't send you money. That's called extortion. The majority does not own the land either.
Does this argument work with the IRS?


Can laws ever be immoral, and illegitimate, even if supported by a majority? What about laws forcing people to send slaves back to their "owners". Were they legitimate? Would you have obeyed them?

If not, what determines whether a law is legitimate or not?

I don't disagree with working in the system to try to change laws, by the way, but that in no way implies that the current laws are legitimate, or moral.
What is moral is subjective. It is illogical to use current knowledge and attempt to apply it to choices being made in a time period when this knowledge did not exist.

Government through the democratic process determines what laws are legitimate or not.

You keep bringing up the word "moral" which is subjective.


Nope. It wouldn't work well against street gangs, or Al Capone either. They also tend to not have consciences vulnerable to the people they are extorting money from.
So why do you continue to use phrases that have no effect on anything? It is illogical.

[Poptech]

Somalia is not a voluntary society, so why would I move there?
Somalia is an anarchist society. There is no such thing as a voluntary society. Either anyone can move there or someone controls who can move there (a government).


Anarchy can be downright horrible, just as government can. I don't support any kind of "anarchy", just as you don't support any kind of "government".
This is illogical. You either support a form of government or anarchy there is no other choice.


I support the non agression principle.
No you don't you support your form of aggression with your private court system to enforce your morality.


Yes. I actually agree with the founders, to a large extent, on the subject of the military. We should have militas in time of peace, who can join together and form armies when attacked (or operate independently, which has proven to be a very effective strategy).
This is similar to an all volunteer military used only in defense.


As I told you, Somalia does not match what I am proposing, any more than North Korea matches what you are proposing. Also, I live here, and care about my friends and neighbors here.
If you are proposing no government (anarchy) then it is what you are proposing, maybe not what you expected but the actual reality of no government.


I support defensive violence. This includes defense against attack, as well as restitution.
This is hypocritical to a non-aggression principle.


What I oppose is the initiation of agressive violence against a person who has not harmed others. This seems to be a common confusion, both by you and Mises.
What constitutes harm is "subjective". Trust me Mises is not confused.


The power, or the right? Those are two different things. They have the power because they are a protection agency, and so have more guns than you, and because all of the other protection agencies, including yours, consider their action legitimate, and will not stop them.

If they are obtaining just restitution for harm you have really inflicted on the victim, then they also have the right.
But they don't, I am a multi-billionaire with my own private army. Of course my private army will stop them, I pay for it with my gold mines!

So the government has no right to enforce these things but private armies do?


Not at all. Why do you suppose that those working for government are uncorruptable, but those working outside government are nothing but corrupt? Certainly not me.

Why do you suppose government does not do what whoever pays them the most wants? Well, they do .. but even more so than they do now? Why do the police not go around killing for contract?

1. Because they are decent people.

2. Because there would be a public outcry, and the people would stand against them.

In your scenario, 1. applies to just as as great an extent. 2. Applies to a greater extent, because not only could the people pull funding at any moment, but they could hire a competitor to protect them from the tyrants -- both of which they can't do these days.
Who says they are uncorruptable? Who said those outside the government are not corrupt?

How could someone who is poor pay for better protection than the Police, FBI and U.S. Military currently provide?


No, you don't get it yet. I do give you credit for engaging in a real discussion, however.
Oh I get the illogic of it.

[tremendoustie]

Morality is subjective. Majority decisions are objective. The majority is attempting 100% taxes on minorities. Moral legitimacy is subjective.

Presumably you believe there is such a thing as right and wrong. I am asking you, not Joe Shmoe, rasmussen polling, or anyone else -- do you think the majority has the moral right to take all of the property of the minority? How about enslave the majority?

How about in a smaller context? Do two muggers have the right to steal from one victim? How about kidnap them, shove a gun in their hands, and send them off to fight in a gang war? Does majority rule apply in that context as well, or do these immoral acts only become magically moral on a larger scale, when there are 100 million victims instead of one, and 200 million attackers?



If the majority wanted slavery we would have it, that has been the reality of society since it began.

I didn't ask you what would happen, I asked you whether you would consider it legitimate and moral.

However, history has shown that motivated minorities can defeat majorities.



No it is a contractual agreement with the state.


Really, contractual agreement eh? So, once you draw your imaginary lines around my farm, you'll be sending someone to my front door with a sheet of paper, asking me whether or not I and my farm would like to join your state, and pay for its services? Then, if I don't sign, you'll leave me alone?



If the land is in the confines of the U.S. government then it falls under it's laws.


Great, so I guess it's a-ok for MS-13 to enforce their will on those in their "turf", or for Al-Capone to run his protection racket in Chicago. After all, they were only terrorizing people that were in their "territory".



Violating contractual obligations has consequences. But people do not consider these consequences "violence".


I signed no contract. Don't even try to pretend that the fact that I live within the borders you arbitrarily claimed as yours, without buying or trading for them in any legitimate way, entitles you to enforce your arbitrary diktats on me.

I will say it again. Niether you, nor the government, nor the majority, owns my land. I DO. The fact that I choose to live on it constitutes no more "contract" with you than it would with the local mob.



I never said it was but your land is bound by contractual obligations to the U.S. government.


Oh, "my land" is bound by contract now. I had no idea clumps of dirt could sign contracts, how facinating. Tell me, how did this contract come to be?



Does this argument work with the IRS?


Your definition of moral truth is the IRS?



What is moral is subjective. It is illogical to use current knowledge and attempt to apply it to choice being made in a time period when this knowledge did not exist.


I asked you what you would do, as your current self, if you were placed in that situation. Grow a moral principle or two, and a spine.



Government through the democratic process determines what laws are legitimate or not.


So, say the democratic process determines that all Jews shall be burned. Would you pull the lever? Drive them to the death camps? Help track them down?

Or would you have the modicum of decency required to say, "I don't care what the majority said, I consider burning innocent people morally wrong, and I will stand against it!"



So why do you continue to you continue to use phrases that have no effect on anything? It is illogical.

I speak the truth, and hope that enough people will stand with me for liberty, so that a difference can be made. More are every day.

[heavenlyboy34]

I speak the truth, and hope that enough people will stand with me for liberty, so that a difference can be made. More are every day.


I stand with you, sir, and I admire your courage and moral/political consistency. :cool:

[CCTelander]

If this is true then why are you not living in a true anarchist society like Somalia? You have a chance to live the dream! Go for it man!

I provide this for the benefit of others since it's crystal clear to me that you have absolutely no interest in actually learning anything.

During the early morning hours of March 16, 1975 two men (Marvin Kent and James Morse) broke into a house occupied by three women in Washington DC. They found Mrs. Miriam Douglas and her four year old daughter asleep, at which point "...The men entered Douglas' second floor room, where Kent forcer Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her." (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 4 (D.C. 1981)) This happened in front of her daughter.

The two other women in the house, Carrolyn Warren and Joan Taliaferro, heard Douglas' screams and called the police. Within 3 minutes four squad cars were dispatched to the house, but the call was radioed out as a "Code 2," a lower priority call than the "Code 1" usually used for crimes in progress.

Warren and Taliaferro crawled out a window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to show up. When the police arrived, they knocked on the front door, received no response, and just left.

The two women crawled back in through the window and called the police AGAIN. The call was logged as "investigate the trouble," but no officers were dispatched.

The men then kidnapped all three women. They forced the women at knifepoint to go to Kent's apartment where "...For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse." (Id.)

The three victims sued DC and the officers involved for negligently failing to provide adequate police protection, but their case was dismissed. No jury ever heard any of the evidence.

The court stated that "official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection." According to the court, this rule "rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." (Id. emphasis added)

The Supreme Court itself ruled that one has no constitutional right to state protection in DeShaney v. Winnebego County Dep't. of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 109 S. Ct. 998, 103 L. Ed. 2d 249 (1989). Every jurisdiction in the country has upheld similar rulings. It's part of the "qualified immunity" that government claims for itself. It's one of the most well-settled issues in American Jurisprudence.

Government, AT ANY LEVEL, has no positive duty to protect your life, liberty, or property. They tell you flat out, if you bother to look, that this is the case.

Now, go ahead and tell us all about the "protection" that we an-caps enjoy thanks to government again. It just gets funnier every time you mention it.

[Poptech]

Presumably you believe there is such a thing as right and wrong. I am asking you, not Joe Shmoe, rasmussen polling, or anyone else -- do you think the majority has the moral right to take all of the property of the minority? How about enslave the majority?

How about in a smaller context? Do two muggers have the right to steal from one victim? How about kidnap them, shove a gun in their hands, and send them off to fight in a gang war? Does majority rule apply in that context as well, or do these immoral acts only become magically moral on a larger scale, when there are 100 million victims instead of one, and 200 million attackers?
What is right and wrong is subjective. I believe in private property rights, that doesn't make that belief any less subjective. The beliefs we agree on in a democratic process becomes law.


I didn't ask you what would happen, I asked you whether you would consider it legitimate and moral.
What I consider legitimate and moral is subjective, so is what society agress on but society has agreed on these issues.


However, history has shown that motivated minorities can defeat majorities.
Only through the use of superior firepower and tactics. Not in any democratic sense.


Really, contractual agreement eh? So, once you draw your imaginary lines around my farm, you'll be sending someone to my front door with a sheet of paper, asking me whether or not I and my farm would like to join your state, and pay for its services? Then, if I don't sign, you'll leave me alone?
This has already been agreed upon when your state joined the union. But yes for future territorial acquisitions this would be true.


Great, so I guess it's a-ok for MS-13 to enforce their will on those in their "turf", or for Al-Capone to run his protection racket in Chicago. After all, they were only terrorizing people that were in their "territory".
Neither are the government and thus have no such powers.


I signed no contract. Don't even try to pretend that the fact that I live within the borders you arbitrarily claimed as yours, without buying or trading for them in any legitimate way, entitles you to enforce your arbitrary diktats on me.
You did when you bought the property which was already bound by these obligations.


I will say it again. Niether you, nor the government, nor the majority, owns my land. I DO. The fact that I choose to live on it constitutes no more "contract" with you than it would with the local mob.
Again, I never said they did but the contractual obligations to the state don't change regardless of ownership.


Oh, "my land" is bound by contract now. I had no idea clumps of dirt could sign contracts, how facinating. Tell me, how did this contract come to be?
When did your state join the union?


Your definition of moral truth is the IRS?
I have yet to use the word moral in any argument.


I asked you what you would do, as your current self, if you were placed in that situation. Grow a moral principle or two, and a spine.
Morality is subjective, so there is no specific principle I would be "growing".


So, say the democratic process determines that all Jews shall be burned. Would you pull the lever? Drive them to the death camps? Help track them down?
Which is why the founding fathers created the U.S. Constitution to prevent things like this from happening.


I speak the truth, and hope that enough people will stand with me for liberty, so that a difference can be made. More are every day.
Liberty and anarchy are two different things.

[Poptech]

I provide this for the benefit of others since it's crystal clear to me that you have absolutely no interest in actually learning anything.
Translate - I cannot handle your arguments and will attempt to circumvent them with shock stories.


During the early morning hours of March 16, 1975 two men....
This is why we have the second amendment.


The three victims sued DC and the officers involved for negligently failing to provide adequate police protection,
They sound like progressive liberals.


Now, go ahead and tell us all about the "protection" that we an-caps enjoy thanks to government again. It just gets funnier every time you mention it.
Who said you cannot protect yourself? Does the second amendment not exist? Who said you cannot hire private protection? Do private security firms not exist?

You sound like a whiny progressive liberal not a libertarian.

[tremendoustie]

Somalia is an anarchist society. There is no such thing as a voluntary society. Either anyone can move there or someone controls who can move there (a government).

By "voluntary society" I mean one in which a majority of the populace supports the non agression principle, and the instutions are arranged according to that principle.



This is illogical. You either support a form of government or anarchy there is no other choice.


That's completely untrue. There are varieties of societies, just as there are varieties of governments. If you wish to think of it this way, I support a government organized according to the non-agression principle, with a constitution that reads: "This government may not initiate violence against any person. Violence may only be used in self-defense, or defense of innocents"



No you don't you support your form of aggression with your private court system to enforce your morality.

Defending an innocent person from attack, or obtaining restitution for them, is not agressive, it is defensive.

It's the threat of violence, or use of it, on a peaceful person who is not harming you or others, which is agressive. The extortion you propose is a good example of it.

Of course I am standing for what I believe is morally right, and I am pointing out how illogical and self-contradictiory your current moral principles, or lack therof, are.



This is similar to an all volunteer military used only in defense.


That's exactly what it is. As long, of course, as it is funded by willing subscribers, not by force.

I also do think a modular approach is superior to a centrally planned army.



If you are proposing no government (anarchy) then it is what you are proposing, maybe not what you expected but the actual reality of no government.


"If you are proposing government, then North Korea is what you are proposing, maybe not what you expected, but the actual reality of government."

I am not proposing Somalia, and you are not proposing North Korea.

I don't propose that the government should just be ended, by the way, and believe everything will then be hunky-dory. I propose that people adopt the non-agression principle, and oppose all forms of agressive violence, whether by governments, gangs, mobs, or criminals.

If such an effort is strong enough to obtain independence from the hugely powerful Federal Government, it will be more than strong enough to oppose any subsequent attempts by petty tyrants.



This is hypocritical to a non-aggression principle.


No, not at all. Defensive does not equal agressive. In fact, they are practically antonyms. I support your right to defend yourself from an attacker. I do not think you have a right to go attack someone.



What constitutes harm is "subjective".


That is why courts of arbitration are so helpful to resolve disputes between individuals who believe they have been harmed. You would not be required to use one, but if you go obtain "restitution" yourself, and a respected court of arbitration later determines that it believes you have gone after the wrong person, or inappropriate restitution, you're going to be in a heap of trouble.



Trust me Mises is not confused.


Trust me, he is. He keeps imagining that the proposal is that violence not be used to stop violent criminals.



But they don't, I am a multi-billionaire with my own private army. Of course my private army will stop them, I pay for it with my gold mines!


Why do you think this does not happen now? Why is the federal government more powerful? Because the federal government is funded by average people, and put together, average people are far more powerful than any tycoon. The same would be true in a voluntaryist society. The respected protection agencies, funded by average individuals, would be far more powerful than anything any individual could muster.



So the government has no right to enforce these things but private armies do?


The government has the right to go after those who harm others, certainly, and the right to obtain restitution for victims. I support them when they do.



Who says they are uncorruptable? Who said those outside the government are not corrupt?


I think there are generaly a mixture of corrupt, and non-corrupt people in society. The question is, how can corrupt people be held accountable, and kept out of positions of power? As I expained, if you are free to withdraw support from a particular agency or group at any time, and if there is competition, they are far more accountable than otherwise. We see it in the market all the time: competition and free trade hold companies in check, while monopolies, especially forced onces, lead to waste and abuse.

The federal government is practically entirely unaccountable, which is why we see it attract the most power-hungry and corrupt individuals in the country -- and we see it make corrupt even those who might be relatively honest in other circumstances.



How could someone who is poor pay for better protection than the Police, FBI and U.S. Military currently provide?


They would subscribe to a large protection agency -- same as they do now, with the FBI and police. The only difference would be that it is not a forced monopoly.

If they are truly destitute, charitable options would be available, and it is also likely that protection agencies, wishing to look good, would provide service free of charge to the truly poor. We see the exponential growth of "charitable consumption" already, today. Many companies proudly advertize that they help the poor, or donate a certain percentage to charity.

[CCTelander]

Translate - I cannot handle your arguments and will attempt to circumvent them with shock stories.


This is why we have the second amendment.


They sound like progressive liberals.


Who said you cannot protect yourself? Does the second amendment not exist? Who said you cannot hire private protection? Do private security firms not exist?

You sound like a whiny progressive liberal not a libertarian.

ROTFLMAO!

That's ALL you got out of the post? Really?

Apparently you missed the part where the government flat out tells you they have no obligation to protect your life, liberty and property. You know, all that unimportant stuff you minarchists claim IS THE PRIMARY LEGITIMATE PURPOSE of government? BTW, that INCLUDES military "protection," which you seem to be big on.

What a complete waste of time this is.

Fortunately, I have a little time on my hands right now.

[CCTelander]

Translate - I cannot handle your arguments and will attempt to circumvent them with shock stories.

What "arguments?" You haven't provided any, Just the usual whinning and ad hominem.

Try again.

[Andrew-Austin]

I provide this for the benefit of others since it's crystal clear to me that you have absolutely no interest in actually learning anything.

I could tell that by looking at his clone thread on Mises.org.
No one should waste time trying to communicate with turds.




This is why we have the second amendment.


They sound like progressive liberals.


Who said you cannot protect yourself? Does the second amendment not exist? Who said you cannot hire private protection? Do private security firms not exist?

You sound like a whiny progressive liberal not a libertarian.

Wow, just wow. You are one hopeless son of a bitch.

[CCTelander]

No, you don't get it yet. I do give you credit for engaging in a real discussion, however.

I think you're giving him WAY too much credit. He's just another troll looking to "debunk" things he doesn't even understand. But hey, have fun with it at least!

[CCTelander]

I could tell that by looking at his clone thread on Mises.org.
No one should waste time trying to communicate with turds.

Yeah, I've read some of his stuff over on Mises. But I have some time to kill, so...;)

[tremendoustie]

What is right and wrong is subjective. I believe in private property rights, that doesn't make that belief any less subjective. The beliefs we agree on in a democratic process becomes law.


And if the rest of people believe an act you find morally repugnant is ok, and make it law, would you then support that morally repugnant act, because the majority said so?



What I consider legitimate and moral is subjective, so is what society agress on but society has agreed on these issues.


But your acts are, or should be, determined by what you believe to be right. Society is not here right now -- you are -- so I am interested in what you believe.



Only through the use of superior firepower and tactics. Not in any democratic sense.


Sure, democracy by definition means majority rule. But, there are other ways of fighting besides "firepower and tactics". Civil disobedience is a powerful tactic as well, as are the development of underground economies. Popular educational efforts are important too.

Also, I do not completely agree that a motivated minority is not useful in politics. Even in politics, the motivated minority can be heard more loudly than the apathetic majority. Turnout is one way. Donations, and grassroots activism are others. I think we saw (and see) this in the Ron Paul Revolution.



This has already been agreed upon when your state joined the union. But yes for future territorial acquisitions this would be true.


No, the majority voted, and forced the minority to "join" the union whether they liked it or not. What's more, land at that time was mostly doled out by King George, not aquired in any legitimate way.

I am interested in your response to the following scenario:

Suppose at the creation of the world I find myself living near two other people. Now, suppose myself, and my first neighbor, wish to steal from the other. My second neighbor simply wishes to live in peace. My first neighbor and I hold a “constitutional convention”, and determine by two thirds majority, that we will have a democracy. We then vote to steal from our neighbor, and the motion passes by two thirds majority, which of course is binding, since we have already determined that we shall live in a democracy. It’s now the law that we shall take the property of our neighbor, and since there are two of us and one of him, overwhelm him by force and do so immediately. Or, of course, we could give him a chance to leave, at which point we get his farm anyway.

Do you believe this scenario is any different, or more moral, than common theft?



Neither are the government and thus have no such powers.


Ah! So, it's the magical word "government" that's needed!! I should call the MS-13 gang up, and let them know. All they need to do is call themselves "the MS-13 government", and they can terrorize the populace with the full approval of Poptech.



You did when you bought the property which was already bound by these obligations.


B.S. At no time did anyone go around with a clipboard. At best it was majority rule among white male property owners.

Not that majority rule would be legitimate either, but about 12,000 people, out of a population of 3 million, voted on the original constitution. I guess that might matter to you if you actually believed in majority rule. I'm guessing you don't really, you're just a cheerleader for the current government, no matter how illegitimate it is.



Again, I never said they did but the contractual obligations to the state don't change regardless of ownership.


No legitimate contract has, or ever has, existed. Morover, even if it had, people sign contracts, not land. Those people are all dead.



When did your state join the union?


I asked how, not when. I'm dying to hear how a bunch of people who do not own my land can get together, and because they outnumber me, not only force me to join their union, but force all those who possess my land for perpetuity to be subject to the whims of their gang.



I have yet to use the word moral in any argument.


It's a pity. I rather respect those who chose their actions based on moral principle a great deal more than those who chose them based on sticking a wet finger in the air, or looking at rasmussen.



Morality is subjective, so there is no specific principle I would be "growing".


You have no moral principles whatsoever. Except, apparently, that we all are obligated to do whatever the majority says. Fantastic.



Which is why the founding fathers created the U.S. Constitution to prevent things like this from happening.


Say the constitution gets amended, to say that all Jews must be burned. Would you then burn them? Or would you ***gasp*** do what you believe to be morally right, rather than what is popular?



Liberty and anarchy are two different things.

You're right. Liberty is the freedom to choose what you will do with your own life, and money, as long as you don't harm others. I will stand against all who seek to infringe on the liberty of others, whether they be governments, gangs, mobs, "businesses", or individuals.

The government, currently, seems to be the greatest violator of those rights.

[Joe3113]

+1

and welcome to the crucible of r3VOLution

:)

Outstanding.. you welcome the obvious troll.

You can't deny he is a troll by the way.. his actions are crystal clear (same thread, spamming over different places).

How unprofessional. It is clear you only accept him because of the content he is preaching, since you obviously agree with it.

Pathetic.

[tremendoustie]

I don't agree with you Curlz. He seems to be engaging in a somewhat reasoned conversation, which is more than most are willing to do, and most of us were minarchists or constitutionalists at one point.

I welcome him as well.

I want all people who believe in more liberty to join the R3volution. The reason minarchists and constitutionalists should welcome us
is the same reason we should welcome them. Divded we fall, together we stand.

[CCTelander]

Outstanding.. you welcome the obvious troll.

You can't deny he is a troll by the way.. his actions are crystal clear (same thread, spamming over different places).

How unprofessional. It is clear you only accept him because of the content he is preaching, since you obviously agree with it.

Pathetic.

The guy has LOTS of posts over on Mises, and what, like 20 here? Maybe he's part of that horrible "Mises Troll" conspiracy we've heard about. A sleeper maybe? :D

[LibertyEagle]

The guy has LOTS of posts over on Mises, and what, like 20 here? Maybe he's part of that horrible "Mises Troll" conspiracy we've heard about. A sleeper maybe? :D

Nah, their goal was to convert minarchists to anarchists. ;)

[CCTelander]

[QUOTE=tremendoustie;2412171]I don't agree with you Curlz. He seems to be engaging in a somewhat reasoned conversation, which is more than most are willing to do.[QUOTE]

I have a great deal of respect for you tremendoustie, both for your positions and your patience, but I've got to disagree.

The guy came in here spewing ad hominems and, quite frankly, still manages to work at least a few into almost every post. I seriously doubt he's interested in actually exchanging ideas and learning from the process.

But, I COULD be wrong, so take it for what it's worth.

[CCTelander]

Nah, their goal was to convert minarchists to anarchists. ;)

Like I said, maybe he's a sleeper. ;)

[LibertyEagle]

Outstanding.. you welcome the obvious troll.

You can't deny he is a troll by the way.. his actions are crystal clear (same thread, spamming over different places).

How unprofessional. It is clear you only accept him because of the content he is preaching, since you obviously agree with it.

Pathetic.

Debate him on the subject, if you wish. But, please do not name-call.

[LibertyEagle]

Like I said, maybe he's a sleeper. ;)

Doubtful, since he is arguing contrary to the agenda.

Debate him if you wish, but please leave the moderating to the moderators.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[CCTelander]

If an anarcho-capitalist came in here with less than 20 posts and started acting like an asshole telling mini-archists they we're going to change the law and if you don't like it move to Somalia... Oh wait some anarcho-capitalists did come in not all that long ago and the mini-archists on the forum went ape shit banning people crying conspiracy.

Yeah. Maybe I was a little too subtle with my own comments?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[__27__]

If you consider poor contextomy "win", surrrre. :rolleyes:

I forget I haven't spent enough time here regularly for you to understand my thick sarcasm. The thread is 'win' not for the OP, but for the sufficient and reasoned response from ancap defenders, and the OP's resort to ad-hominem. After 7 pages I stand by my original comment.

Just another "But my boots are pink and have pretty laces, certainly you feel better with them crushing your windpipe than those old guard statists and their black jackboots, no?" minarchist.


P.S. - I can't wait for '10 and '12 campaigns to get in full gear so we can put the infighting back on hold. ;)

[LibertyEagle]

If an anarcho-capitalist came in here with less than 20 posts and started acting like an asshole telling mini-archists they we're going to change the law and if you don't like it move to Somalia... Oh wait some anarcho-capitalists did come in not all that long ago and the mini-archists on the forum went ape shit banning people crying conspiracy.

He's quoting Mises, for &^%$^ sake. That's not exactly the sign of a troll.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[LibertyEagle]

Hello, this is Ron Paul Forums; not the Rothbard or Mises forums. If you think the OP has quoted Mises out of context, then either prove that in this thread, or flag the post that you are having a problem with and make the case to the Mods.

Either way, stop derailing this thread.

[TortoiseDream]

i think the main thing i disagree with mises here (sorry to bring us back to the OP) is his assumption that these terrible things cannot happen in a state-governed society. i think most anarcho-capitalist are well aware of the "evils" of men as much as any statist are. the question is how to control these evils. i think they can be controlled in non-violent ways, i.e. without a state. i think the free-market and a free society is equipped with many mechanisms to not only discourage such behavior but also to prevent and punish it without violence.

as an anarcho-cap i believe in order, but order through self government.

[CCTelander]

i think the main thing i disagree with mises here (sorry to bring us back to the OP) is his assumption that these terrible things cannot happen in a state-governed society. i think most anarcho-capitalist are well aware of the "evils" of men as much as any statist are. the question is how to control these evils. i think they can be controlled in non-violent ways, i.e. without a state. i think the free-market and a free society is equipped with many mechanisms to not only discourage such behavior but also to prevent and punish it without violence.

as an anarcho-cap i believe in order, but order through self government.

The best detrrent to immoral behavior is a practical moral alternative. The free market provides them in abundance.