PDA

View Full Version : Stefan Molyneux?




jbrace
01-09-2010, 02:55 AM
****

rp08orbust
01-09-2010, 03:01 AM
There are plenty of threads on Stefan Molyneux. Here's one: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=210186&highlight=rp08orbust

Bman
01-09-2010, 03:10 AM
Overall I like Stephan. I do think one of the goals of society should be to think of ways of eliminating force control, I think Stephan gives some interesting insight to how this can happen. I disagree with his idea that one should not run for office, or waste their time trying to minimalize the size of government.

newbitech
01-09-2010, 03:48 AM
I think Molyneux is over hyped. He makes some wild conclusions that I absolutely do not relate to. I think he appeals to an anti-authority crowd, and while I have anti-authority proclivities, I am not prepared to completely toss out the idea of government, and I am certainly not prepared to encourage people to act out independently from their parents if they are not ready to do so. If Ron Paul appeals to college "kids" 20-25, Molyneux I think is setting the bar a little lower maybe 13-19 year old's.

His arguments are also susceptible to practicality. He has even gone so far as to contradict his advocacy of eliminating "the state", by saying "the state" is the best proof that anarchy works. Supposedly this is because "the state" functions in an anarchy. So I have come to the conclusion that since Molyneux can't really explain how an anarchy would really function, AND he believes "the state" is the best example of an anarchy, his ideology is fatally flawed.

PreDeadMan
01-09-2010, 04:57 AM
I cherry pick various topics of this brilliant man for his podcast. The man is so frigging intelligent i'm currently reading his book everyday anarchy. I download his podcasts on foreign policy when he debates various other topics also :)

torchbearer
01-09-2010, 08:15 AM
I think Molyneux is over hyped. He makes some wild conclusions that I absolutely do not relate to. I think he appeals to an anti-authority crowd, and while I have anti-authority proclivities, I am not prepared to completely toss out the idea of government, and I am certainly not prepared to encourage people to act out independently from their parents if they are not ready to do so. If Ron Paul appeals to college "kids" 20-25, Molyneux I think is setting the bar a little lower maybe 13-19 year old's.

His arguments are also susceptible to practicality. He has even gone so far as to contradict his advocacy of eliminating "the state", by saying "the state" is the best proof that anarchy works. Supposedly this is because "the state" functions in an anarchy. So I have come to the conclusion that since Molyneux can't really explain how an anarchy would really function, AND he believes "the state" is the best example of an anarchy, his ideology is fatally flawed.

our current government, that follows no law of the land- does exist in anarchy. this is what you get- mafia rule with armed thugs to enforce their mandates and collect their protection money.
it is another form of tyranny. i don't see why anyone would want that.

TotalLiberty
01-09-2010, 08:58 AM
I think Molyneux is over hyped. He makes some wild conclusions that I absolutely do not relate to. I think he appeals to an anti-authority crowd, and while I have anti-authority proclivities, I am not prepared to completely toss out the idea of government, and I am certainly not prepared to encourage people to act out independently from their parents if they are not ready to do so. If Ron Paul appeals to college "kids" 20-25, Molyneux I think is setting the bar a little lower maybe 13-19 year old's.

His arguments are also susceptible to practicality. He has even gone so far as to contradict his advocacy of eliminating "the state", by saying "the state" is the best proof that anarchy works. Supposedly this is because "the state" functions in an anarchy. So I have come to the conclusion that since Molyneux can't really explain how an anarchy would really function, AND he believes "the state" is the best example of an anarchy, his ideology is fatally flawed.

Molyneux has volumes of podcasts and books on how anarchy would function, so clearly you have not really studied his works.

TotalLiberty
01-09-2010, 08:59 AM
our current government, that follows no law of the land- does exist in anarchy. this is what you get- mafia rule with armed thugs to enforce their mandates and collect their protection money.
it is another form of tyranny. i don't see why anyone would want that.

The point is that people generally operate with voluntary interactions, so why would anyone want force at the point of a gun in their lives?

torchbearer
01-09-2010, 09:03 AM
The point is that people generally operate with voluntary interactions, so why would anyone want force at the point of a gun in their lives?

it is not that they ask for a gun in their face, they ask for the gun in their neighbors face, then eventually it gets into theirs too.
people clamor for "smoking ban laws" to force government on other people. never themselves. same with drugs laws etc.
no one ask for their own prison. they ask to imprison others. before you know it, they are building a prison system for all of us.

jbrace
01-09-2010, 09:24 AM
****

torchbearer
01-09-2010, 09:26 AM
Torch, do you listen to what he says?

I like a lot of what he says. i'm with him on self-sovereignty and how you don't need a king over you to run your life and be happy.
its the details that crumble.
he can only claim philosophical purity, but Marx could do the same. neither system works without forcing people to accept it.
you have to change the people... and all of them or the tyrants gather together to force their rule over you again.
there is a reason no one at the constitutional conventions demanded anarchy- england would just come back over and conquer us again.

specialkornflake
01-09-2010, 10:49 AM
I find his work to be excellent. I've been working through it some time now. It is taking me beyond where I was in Minarchy.

torchbearer
01-09-2010, 10:53 AM
these people will not allow others to live as sovereigns-
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/Oprah-Obama-2008.jpg

they have millions of rabid followers who believe in collectivism and the use of force.
how are you- alone in your lil' anarchist dream world going to keep them from existing and using their superior force from enslaving you again.

please point me to the Stef video that explains the real world workings to this problem of his paper philosophy.

South Park Fan
01-09-2010, 10:57 AM
these people will not allow others to live as sovereigns-
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/Oprah-Obama-2008.jpg

they have millions of rabid followers who believe in collectivism and the use of force.
how are you- alone in your lil' anarchist dream world going to keep them from existing and using their superior force from enslaving you again.

please point me to the Stef video that explains the real world workings to this problem of his paper philosophy.

You could just as easily ask that question about minarchy. If they have millions of rabid collectivist followers as you say, how could you ever hope to beat them at an election? That seems to be an even more absurd idea.

rp08orbust
01-09-2010, 10:58 AM
His arguments are also susceptible to practicality. He has even gone so far as to contradict his advocacy of eliminating "the state", by saying "the state" is the best proof that anarchy works. Supposedly this is because "the state" functions in an anarchy. So I have come to the conclusion that since Molyneux can't really explain how an anarchy would really function, AND he believes "the state" is the best example of an anarchy, his ideology is fatally flawed.

I suspect that you're referring to the observation (first made by Murray Rothbard, I believe) that stateS (plural) interact among each other in a state of anarchy, i.e., with no global super-state governing them all. This raises the question, then, of why provinces need a nation-state governing them? If they don't, then why do counties need provincial states governing them? And if they don't, then why do cities need county governments? Etc.

If my guesses are right, then it sounds like this reasoning went right over your head.

torchbearer
01-09-2010, 10:59 AM
You could just as easily ask that question about minarchy. If they have millions of rabid collectivist followers as you say, how could you ever hope to beat them at an election? That seems to be an even more absurd idea.

it would be easier to educate enough people to win an election than it would be to educate everyone to the principles of anarchy.
it will be more probable to get people to accept a small government than no government.
it will be more probable to get people to accept a land ran by the rule of law than a land of no laws.

torchbearer
01-09-2010, 11:01 AM
and the minarchy would provide security against foreign invasion and have protection against mob rule. anarchy provides for none of the above- you get a mafia ran country like we have today.

rp08orbust
01-09-2010, 11:04 AM
it would be easier to educate enough people to win an election than it would be to educate everyone to the principles of anarchy.
it will be more probable to get people to accept a small government than no government.
it will be more probable to get people to accept a land ran by the rule of law than a land of no laws.

Anarcho-capitalists do not advocate lawlessness. There can still be a "law of the land" without a group of people claiming a monopoly on its enforcement and stealing to stay in business.

torchbearer
01-09-2010, 11:07 AM
Anarcho-capitalists do not advocate lawlessness. There can still be a "law of the land" without a group of a group of people claiming a monopoly on its enforcement and stealing to stay in business.

orly?
and why should i follow your laws? how are you going to force me to accept your laws? what will you do to me if i dont follow your laws? you have no government. you have no authority to use force on anyone.

rp08orbust
01-09-2010, 11:07 AM
and the minarchy would provide security against foreign invasion and have protection against mob rule. anarchy provides for none of the above- you get a mafia ran country like we have today.

So why isn't the freedom movement calling for a constitutionally limited global government to protect us from the nascent global mafia that we all fear is coming? If we don't get one fast, the NWO is going to roll right over our national government.

torchbearer
01-09-2010, 11:11 AM
So why isn't the freedom movement calling for a constitutionally limited global government to protect us from the nascent global mafia that we all fear is coming? If we don't get one fast, the NWO is going to roll right over our national government.

i don't think any minarchist wants a government that big. perhaps you fools need to read more jefferson and less stef.
its about local self-government. a rule of law, and close government you can touch and control.
each person can live as they want in a minarchy.
you could even get together with your anarchist kin and find a nice patch of land to live on without people fucking with you.
for instance, a free state, in a minarchy, would truly be a free state. it would compete against the other states.

Travlyr
01-09-2010, 11:14 AM
I am ready for anarchy. No doubt in my mind that most people are 10 - 20 years away, but I could live it.

I have a start of a plan on how to get there if anybody is interested.

torchbearer
01-09-2010, 11:15 AM
I am ready for anarchy. No doubt in my mind that most people are 10 - 20 years away, but I could live it.

I have a start of a plan on how to get there if anybody is interested.

oh please, i have to hear this plan.

rp08orbust
01-09-2010, 11:16 AM
orly?
and why should i follow your laws? how are you going to force me to accept your laws? what will you do to me if i dont follow your laws? you have no government. you have no authority to use force on anyone.

If you steal from me, I have the moral authority to arrest you for it (at which point I have the moral obligation to provide you with a fair trial). If I am not physically capable of doing so myself, I have the moral authority to persuade or pay others to help me in my just cause. Organizations to assist people like me (i.e., de facto governments) will already exist, and I may choose to avail myself of those instead.

Anarcho-capitalists also do not advocate the abolition of all non-profit social service organizations. It is only when such organizations become coercive, i.e., funded through theft and claiming monopoly status in their areas of operation--that they become "states".

torchbearer
01-09-2010, 11:18 AM
If you steal from me, I have the moral authority to arrest you for it (at which point I have the moral obligation to provide you with a fair trial). If I am not physically capable of doing so myself, I have the moral authority to persuade or pay others to help me in my just cause. Organizations to assist people like me (i.e., de facto governments) will already exist, and I may choose to avail myself of those instead.

Anarcho-capitalists also do not advocate the abolition of all non-profit social service organizations. It is only when such organizations become coercive, i.e., funded through theft and claiming monopoly status in their areas of operation--that they become "states".

well, on my land- i have the moral authority to have whatever laws i want in my kingdom. you don't have habeas corpus- you don't have a right to a trial or anything. you break my laws- you will be shot.
my laws aren't posted and change with my mood.
I guess you have a plan for forcing your morality on everyone to make sure they behave so your model will work?

Travlyr
01-09-2010, 11:19 AM
oh please, i have to hear this plan.

Okay. It is not fast (10-20 years)... it will take a lot of educating... but it will be fun.

torchbearer
01-09-2010, 11:19 AM
Okay. It is not fast (10-20 years)... it will take a lot of educating... but it will be fun.

ok. fire away. start with years 1-5.

rp08orbust
01-09-2010, 11:21 AM
i don't think any minarchist wants a government that big. perhaps you fools need to read more jefferson and less stef.
its about local self-government. a rule of law, and close government you can touch and control.

Pardon me for asking another foolish question then: When is the last time you touched and controlled the US federal government? Or your state government? Or your county government?


each person can live as they want in a minarchy.

Orly? So I don't have to pay any taxes to your minarchist government? And if I want to set up a court that does a better job of providing fair trials and upholding natural human rights than yours does, then you can't put me out of business? If so, then what you're describing is essentially anarcho-capitalism.

torchbearer
01-09-2010, 11:23 AM
Pardon me for asking another foolish question then: When is the last time you touched and controlled the US federal government? Or your state government? Or your county government?



Orly? So if I don't have to pay any taxes to your minarchist government? And if I want to set up a court that does a better job of providing fair trials and upholding natural human rights than yours does, then you can't put me out of business? If so, then what you're describing is essentially anarcho-capitalism.

we currently live in a minarchist society?
and no- minarchy would allow for local self- governments. their would be no need to pay taxes to another local community.

rp08orbust
01-09-2010, 11:25 AM
well, on my land- i have the moral authority to have whatever laws i want in my kingdom. you don't have habeas corpus- you don't have a right to a trial or anything. you break my laws- you will be shot.
my laws aren't posted and change with my mood.
I guess you have a plan for forcing your morality on everyone to make sure they behave so your model will work?

If each person who set foot on your land individually and explicitly consented to those conditions, then I couldn't object to your kingdom. But show me any state that governs with the unanimous consent of its citizens?

torchbearer
01-09-2010, 11:29 AM
If each person who set foot on your land individually and explicitly consented to those conditions, then I couldn't object to your kingdom. But show me any state that governs with the unanimous consent of its citizens?

I just told you that you don't have any rights in your an-cap model once you leave your property. I just told you that any property owner can do to you what they will. including keeping you hostage indefinitely.

and you want me to show you a government of unanimous consent?
ok- let's start with my home town Lone Pine. 200 people in about 15 family groups. A farm community with a voluntary government- voluntary community projects funded by those who want to use those services. among them including a community water well and volunteer fire department.
100 consent for the state of Lone Pine.

rp08orbust
01-09-2010, 11:31 AM
we currently live in a minarchist society?

You tell me. Does it matter what we call it?


and no- minarchy would allow for local self- governments. their would be no need to pay taxes to another local community.

Just how local and how "self" can these governments be? And who decides when a government has gotten too "local" to be legitimate?

Size isn't the real issue. The real issues is whether a government, of whatever size, exists through coercion or not. A voluntary organization that provided services over the entire planet would be perfectly consistent with anarcho-capitalist principles.

torchbearer
01-09-2010, 11:31 AM
post above yours.

Travlyr
01-09-2010, 11:32 AM
So why isn't the freedom movement calling for a constitutionally limited global government to protect us from the nascent global mafia that we all fear is coming? If we don't get one fast, the NWO is going to roll right over our national government.

Alright... "Be the change you want to see in the world" - Ghandi

We organize a liberty corporation that supports the republic while working toward anarchy (not chaos) ie. a lot of educating.

We own for-profit schools, communications, energy, broadcasting, PACs, and other for-profit industries to combat the NWO industries.

We model the corporation after the constitutional principals to limit corruption, term limits, pay structures, checks & balances.

rp08orbust
01-09-2010, 11:32 AM
and you want me to show you a government of unanimous consent? ok- let's start with my home town Lone Pine. 200 people in about 15 family groups. A farm community with a voluntary government- voluntary community projects funded by those who want to use those services. among them including a community water well and volunteer fire department.
100 consent for the state of Lone Pine.

If this government uses no coercion, then it is, by definition, a voluntaryist system.

torchbearer
01-09-2010, 11:35 AM
If this government uses no coercion, then it is, by definition, a voluntaryist system.

but it is still a government. we have laws to protect the rights of all in the area.
services are provided by the central government of lone pine. a minarchist example.

Travlyr
01-09-2010, 11:52 AM
I've recently learned of this man and was directed to some of his podcast from his website: http://www.freedomainradio.com/Videos.aspx. I've lurked on this board for awhile now and have never heard of him. (Maybe I've just been reading the wrong threads :p) He's a very compelling guy to say that least and his philosophy is intriguing.-- Just thought I'd share just in-case some others were interested. Those of you that are familiar of him, Do you like him, hate him, indifferent?

I like him and I could live in a laissez faire free-market capitalistic anarchy.

Rancher
01-09-2010, 12:15 PM
Alright... "Be the change you want to see in the world" - Ghandi

We organize a liberty corporation that supports the republic while working toward anarchy (not chaos) ie. a lot of educating.

We own for-profit schools, communications, energy, broadcasting, PACs, and other for-profit industries to combat the NWO industries.

We model the corporation after the constitutional principals to limit corruption, term limits, pay structures, checks & balances.

Will this work?

Met Income
01-09-2010, 12:18 PM
but it is still a government. we have laws to protect the rights of all in the area.
services are provided by the central government of lone pine. a minarchist example.

Voluntary governments work better than coercive, monopolistic governments. And no one knows exactly how a voluntaryist society would work - just that the State is immoral and should not exist for that reason.

TotalLiberty
01-09-2010, 01:45 PM
it is not that they ask for a gun in their face, they ask for the gun in their neighbors face, then eventually it gets into theirs too.
people clamor for "smoking ban laws" to force government on other people. never themselves. same with drugs laws etc.
no one ask for their own prison. they ask to imprison others. before you know it, they are building a prison system for all of us.

Exactly! So would you agree that changing the very idea of the need for government is the first thing we should work on changing, rather than trying to tackle politics?

newbitech
01-09-2010, 02:30 PM
Molyneux has volumes of podcasts and books on how anarchy would function, so clearly you have not really studied his works.


no, I have not and I told you why. I think he talks down to people, he makes emotional pleas and is basically selling a fantasy to people who aren't ready to start changes in their own lives.

If he influences people to explore more in depth topics then that is great, that cannot hurt. I didn't need Molyneux's brand of self-government to figure out what I need to do, but if others think it helps them, great. The guy just completely turns me off with is esoteric approach to liberty and freedom.

Chaohinon
01-09-2010, 02:33 PM
There's nothing wrong with emotional pleas. Justice and truth are things best felt by your gut.

newbitech
01-09-2010, 02:34 PM
I suspect that you're referring to the observation (first made by Murray Rothbard, I believe) that stateS (plural) interact among each other in a state of anarchy, i.e., with no global super-state governing them all. This raises the question, then, of why provinces need a nation-state governing them? If they don't, then why do counties need provincial states governing them? And if they don't, then why do cities need county governments? Etc.

If my guesses are right, then it sounds like this reasoning went right over your head.


Nope referring to his Proof of Anarchy that he says that he is embarrassed that he didn't think of sooner. (guess he doesn't pay attention to Rothbard if what you said is true).

No the reasoning didn't go over my head unless you want to also claim that the reasoning went over Molyneux's head as well. But, if you care to know, I will tell you why that reasoning is flawed. But, regardless if you listen to Molyneux's version its pretty absurd and has been enough for me to ignore the guy, hell he completely disses Rothbard.

newbitech
01-09-2010, 02:47 PM
There's nothing wrong with emotional pleas. Justice and truth are things best felt by your gut.

I can think of a couple things wrong with relying on the gut for truth and justice. Complacency and apathy.

inibo
01-09-2010, 08:20 PM
I cherry pick various topics of this brilliant man for his podcast. The man is so frigging intelligent i'm currently reading his book everyday anarchy. I download his podcasts on foreign policy when he debates various other topics also :)

Everyday Anarchy is a well done bit of writing.

inibo
01-09-2010, 08:55 PM
and the minarchy would provide security against foreign invasion and have protection against mob rule. anarchy provides for none of the above- you get a mafia ran country like we have today.

I'm trying track it down, but I can't find it just this second. I recently read an interesting article about how the Nazis had an easy time of invading Norway because once the King (Queen?) told the people to stop resisting the Nazi's simply took over the existing state infrastructure. They put Nazis mayors and police chiefs in every town. All the tools of control were in place. They didn't have to defeat the people, they just took over the government.

Ooh, ooh. Found it...
Excerpted and slightly edited so it makes sense without the whole article.

The [Obama Nobel Acceptance] speech skillfully pronounced a passion for peace, while alleging a necessity for war. The phrase that most caught my attention was his claim that "A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies." Surely nobody in that largely graying audience in Oslo City Hall could fail to catch that allusion to recent Scandinavian history.

It is vital to notice the unspoken premise behind the President's remarks about "just wars"--namely, that governments exist. Wars are, indeed, the prime business of governments so that's unsurprising; but he was presupposing that the world in which wars are sometimes unhappily unavoidable is one operated by governments; usually in these days, nation-states. His speech did not contemplate a world in which governments do not exist...

Hitler took over the governments of Austria and Czechoslovakia without a shot being fired. Finland, Italy, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria also cooperated willingly to differing degrees, although Yugoslavia was (surprise!) complicated. His conquest of Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg and France was preceded by unusually short campaigns lasting from a few days to a few weeks, each ending in the surrender of the defenders.

Notice, once a government capitulates, its population is captured. The whole machinery of its régime of control is merely taken over by the invader; its own police and bureaucracy are operated for the benefit of the conqueror, and he can run the country with a modest force of occupation. The real people just swap one government for another.

Let us suppose that in 1939 and 1940 Hitler's was the only government in the region--that all others were zero-government societies, all of whose populations understood what freedom means and what governments mean, and therefore repudiated the latter and declined to work for them, exactly as the situation will be here, in and after about 2027 (http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/davies/davies14.html). On that premise (which of course would have been contemplated by nobody in Oslo City Hall last week), there would have been no government either to oppose Hitler or to surrender to him; the choice that Obama referenced would not have existed. If German troops had marched in any particular direction, there would have been no government force to oppose them--but then what? How would they have exploited anything they happened to want? What, from Hitler's point of view, would have been the point of sending them in the first place?

They would not have been able to take over an existing bureaucracy to control the population, for there would not have been one. Therefore, Germans would have had to supply it. Therefore, the costs of occupation would have been unacceptably high, and therefore the invasions would not have taken place.

Harry Browne visualized such a result in his delightful essay "A Visit to Rhinegold" shown in The Voluntaryist, as it related to a small fictional country somewhere near Luxembourg. It had no government, no paper money and no army, but one day in 1940 a whole raft of Germans in uniform came visiting and demanded to be taken to its Leader, but there was none. All they got were polite, puzzled smiles of welcome and offers of refreshment--to be purchased, naturally, with gold. Being ill-equipped to create a whole government bureaucracy where the very concept was foreign to every resident, the soldiers rolled their eyes, scratched their heads and moved through to deal with the French--having, as Harry says, just "stolen some cheese," an outrage long remembered.

I expect a few tl;dr responses and I butchered it pretty bad trying to get it short enough to answer your objection. I recommend reading the whole thing here: http://www.strike-the-root.com/92/davies/davies9.html

I'm not saying I expect this argument to seal the deal for hardcore minarchists, but I think it does show the "national defense" argument is not quite as iron clad as some might think.

BTW the reference to 2027 is contingent upon enough people learning the lessons of The Online Freedom Academy (http://tolfa.us/) and recommending it to others. I hereby recommend it to everyone reading this. You won't be sorry.

Met Income
01-10-2010, 12:59 AM
Nope referring to his Proof of Anarchy that he says that he is embarrassed that he didn't think of sooner. (guess he doesn't pay attention to Rothbard if what you said is true).

No the reasoning didn't go over my head unless you want to also claim that the reasoning went over Molyneux's head as well. But, if you care to know, I will tell you why that reasoning is flawed. But, regardless if you listen to Molyneux's version its pretty absurd and has been enough for me to ignore the guy, hell he completely disses Rothbard.

He has said that at the time of Proof of Anarchy, he had never heard of Rothbard. He has since read Rothbard and supports him.

tremendoustie
01-10-2010, 01:49 PM
I've recently learned of this man and was directed to some of his podcast from his website: http://www.freedomainradio.com/Videos.aspx. I've lurked on this board for awhile now and have never heard of him. (Maybe I've just been reading the wrong threads :p) He's a very compelling guy to say that least and his philosophy is intriguing.-- Just thought I'd share just in-case some others were interested. Those of you that are familiar of him, Do you like him, hate him, indifferent?

He presents some good arguments. I disagree with him on a number of points, however (voting, religion). I also think his attitude in some areas -- such as familial relations -- is very wrong. He also tends to appropriate arguments made by philosophers in the past, as his own.

tremendoustie
01-10-2010, 01:56 PM
I just told you that you don't have any rights in your an-cap model once you leave your property. I just told you that any property owner can do to you what they will. including keeping you hostage indefinitely.


And you're wrong. Just because you own property doesn't mean you have a right to kidnap or murder anyone who comes on it. I've never heard any ancap or voluntaryist support that notion.



and you want me to show you a government of unanimous consent?
ok- let's start with my home town Lone Pine. 200 people in about 15 family groups. A farm community with a voluntary government- voluntary community projects funded by those who want to use those services. among them including a community water well and volunteer fire department.
100 consent for the state of Lone Pine.

You call it a "government", but couldn't you just as well call these things community organizations, charities, or non-profit businesses? I think this discussion often is more about semantics than some realize.

tremendoustie
01-10-2010, 02:06 PM
orly?
and why should i follow your laws? how are you going to force me to accept your laws? what will you do to me if i dont follow your laws? you have no government. you have no authority to use force on anyone.

This is the problem -- you're thinking in terms of "authority" -- as if a particular person or group must be given special "authority" to wield force as they choose -- otherwise, no one can wield force at all.

Consider the constitution -- according to the constitution, force may only be wielded to certain ends -- no government official has "authority" to start imprisoning people because they have a certain religion, for example. A certain group of people has limited "authority".

To envision a voluntaryist society, simply make the constitution far more restrictive -- no one may use force towards any end except defense from the aggression of others, and even then such force must be the minimum necessary. Then, expand the "certain group" to include everyone.

So, while a constitutional government has a small group of people exercising somewhat limited authority (and the people will restrain them if they exceed those limits), a voluntaryist society has everyone exercising very limited authority (and the people will restrain them if they exceed those limits).

jbrace
01-10-2010, 08:49 PM
Here's a questions I've always had: How can you have property rights in a Anarcho-capitalism? It would seem like it would hinge on who could defend their own property and if they didn't have the resources they would be overtaken. This may come from another community needing to expand because of population increasing, or just plan old greed/evil. Like Torch pointed out, I don't see how anyone can agree that allowing people to create their own laws for their land would be a good idea. I'm sure it would work well for the honest and humane man, but their are some people that aren't rational etc. It almost seems just as Utopian as socialism. It would take an enlightenment of the majority and some major changes. Even if that happened I don't know how long it would last. BTW: I'm not attacking Cap- Anarchy, I just don't know much about it and would like to know how some of you would answer those questions.

inibo
01-10-2010, 08:55 PM
If you really want to get a good grounding in anarcho-captitalist philosophy you should check out The Online Freedom Academy (http://tolfa.us). It is a good systematic presentation. The problem with trying to answer specific questions is you get bogged down in details that usually only lead to more questions. You have to grasp the underlying concepts first. Then the questions begin to answer themselves.

But to address your specific question he is a good short introduction: The Stateless Society (http://freedomainradio.livejournal.com/589.html)

http://strike-the-root.com is another good resource. There are plenty of others, but you really should check out The Online Freedom Academy (http://tolfa.us). You won't be sorry.

tremendoustie
01-10-2010, 11:26 PM
Here's a questions I've always had: How can you have property rights in a true anarchy. It would seem like it would hinge on who could defend their self the best to keep their property and it would lead to warfare at some point. Whether it be a community needing to expand because of population increasing, or just plan old greed.


The problem is, you are comparing apples and oranges -- you are assuming a population predominantly made up of people who have no interest in justice, who readily use and to tolerate the use of violence for unjust reasons.

Then, when you think of a society with a government, you imagine a populace interested in justice, and property rights.

If most people were as you suppose -- having no interest in justice -- the government would have no interest in justice either. The only reason theft is illegal, for example, is because the people demand of their government that it be made illegal.

A populace thus interested in maintaining property rights would choose to support protection agencies who would defend property rights -- and would also do so themselves. In other words, if they demand it of their government, they would demand it of an alternative agency as well.




Like Torch pointed out, I don't see how anyone can agree that allowing people to create their own laws for their land would be a good idea.


That's not the idea of voluntaryism at all, I'm not sure how this false notion got started. Voluntaryism simply states that aggressive violence is wrong. As I pointed out to torch, if you use excessive, or aggressive violence on your own property, you should be stopped.



I'm sure it would work well for the honest and humane man, but their are some people that aren't rational etc.


If a person is aggressively violent (which includes excessive violence), he should be stopped, forcibly.



It almost seems just as Utopian as socialism. It would take an enlightenment of the majority and some major changes.


It would -- but so would constitutionalism. If there is no enlightenment, there will be no liberty.

And consider that governments are invariably worse than the populace. If people are untrustworthy, politicians are less so -- why would we then hand them the power? The creation of one institution with a monopoly on aggressive violence invariably attracts the most power hungry and corrupt among us -- and those most skillful at deception and manipulation best succeed at it.

Creating such an institution does not solve the problem of humanity's imperfection -- you have not imported angels to run that institution, after all. And since it has no competitors, and can obtain funding by force, when it goes rogue it is nearly irresistible.

I trust average people more than I trust those most motivated to and capable of obtaining political power.

The average man will not break into his neighbors house and pawn his TV set -- the average politician does the equivalent every day. It is only because of the delusion of "majority rule" -- the idea that the majority can morally do things which would be immoral for any of them as individuals -- that these practices continue. This is the delusion that must be ended.



Even if that happened I don't know how long it would last. BTW: I'm not attacking Cap- Anarchy, I just don't know much about it and would like to know how some of you would answer those questions.

I think you ask good questions :).

Met Income
01-10-2010, 11:30 PM
The problem is, you are comparing apples and oranges -- you are assuming a population predominantly made up of people who have no interest in justice, who readily use and to tolerate the use of violence for unjust reasons.

Then, when you think of a society with a government, you imagine a populace interested in justice, and property rights.

If most people were as you suppose -- having no interest in justice -- the government would have no interest in justice either. The only reason theft is illegal, for example, is because the people demand of their government that it be made illegal.

A populace thus interested in maintaining property rights would choose to support protection agencies who would defend property rights -- and would also do so themselves. In other words, if they demand it of their government, they would demand it of an alternative agency as well.




That's not the idea of voluntaryism at all, I'm not sure how this false notion got started. Voluntaryism simply states that aggressive violence is wrong. As I pointed out to torch, if you use excessive, or aggressive violence on your own property, you should be stopped.



If a person is aggressively violent (which includes excessive violence), he should be stopped, forcibly.



It would -- but so would constitutionalism. If there is no enlightenment, there will be no liberty.

And consider that governments are invariably worse than the populace. If people are untrustworthy, politicians are less so -- why would we then hand them the power? The creation of one institution with a monopoly on aggressive violence invariably attracts the most power hungry and corrupt among us -- and those most skillful at deception and manipulation best succeed at it.

Creating such an institution does not solve the problem of humanity's imperfection -- you have not imported angels to run that institution, after all. And since it has no competitors, and can obtain funding by force, when it goes rogue it is nearly irresistible.

I trust average people more than I trust those most motivated to and capable of obtaining political power.



I think you ask good questions :).

A++ response!

Epic
01-10-2010, 11:37 PM
Here's a questions I've always had: How can you have property rights in a Anarcho-capitalism? It would seem like it would hinge on who could defend their own property and if they didn't have the resources they would be overtaken. This may come from another community needing to expand because of population increasing, or just plan old greed/evil. Like Torch pointed out, I don't see how anyone can agree that allowing people to create their own laws for their land would be a good idea. I'm sure it would work well for the honest and humane man, but their are some people that aren't rational etc. It almost seems just as Utopian as socialism. It would take an enlightenment of the majority and some major changes. Even if that happened I don't know how long it would last. BTW: I'm not attacking Cap- Anarchy, I just don't know much about it and would like to know how some of you would answer those questions.

How can you feed yourself in anarcho-capitalism? It seems like it would hinge on who could make enough food for themselves and if they didn't have the resources they would starve.

Are these serious questions? No. The division of labor is natural, and does not depend on government.

jbrace
01-11-2010, 01:22 AM
The problem is, you are comparing apples and oranges -- you are assuming a population predominantly made up of people who have no interest in justice, who readily use and to tolerate the use of violence for unjust reasons.

Then, when you think of a society with a government, you imagine a populace interested in justice, and property rights.

If most people were as you suppose -- having no interest in justice -- the government would have no interest in justice either. The only reason theft is illegal, for example, is because the people demand of their government that it be made illegal.

A populace thus interested in maintaining property rights would choose to support protection agencies who would defend property rights -- and would also do so themselves. In other words, if they demand it of their government, they would demand it of an alternative agency as well.




That's not the idea of voluntaryism at all, I'm not sure how this false notion got started. Voluntaryism simply states that aggressive violence is wrong. As I pointed out to torch, if you use excessive, or aggressive violence on your own property, you should be stopped.



If a person is aggressively violent (which includes excessive violence), he should be stopped, forcibly.



It would -- but so would constitutionalism. If there is no enlightenment, there will be no liberty.

And consider that governments are invariably worse than the populace. If people are untrustworthy, politicians are less so -- why would we then hand them the power? The creation of one institution with a monopoly on aggressive violence invariably attracts the most power hungry and corrupt among us -- and those most skillful at deception and manipulation best succeed at it.

Creating such an institution does not solve the problem of humanity's imperfection -- you have not imported angels to run that institution, after all. And since it has no competitors, and can obtain funding by force, when it goes rogue it is nearly irresistible.

I trust average people more than I trust those most motivated to and capable of obtaining political power.

The average man will not break into his neighbors house and pawn his TV set -- the average politician does the equivalent every day. It is only because of the delusion of "majority rule" -- the idea that the majority can morally do things which would be immoral for any of them as individuals -- that these practices continue. This is the delusion that must be ended.



I think you ask good questions :).
To sum it up: "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others?

-Thomas Jefferson

Met Income
01-12-2010, 11:48 AM
To sum it up: "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others?

-Thomas Jefferson

You have it backwards. If you can't trust humans, why would you give certain humans a monopoly of violence against the rest?

Mini-Me
01-12-2010, 11:51 AM
You have it backwards. If you can't trust humans, why would you give certain humans a monopoly of violence against the rest?

Itchy trigger finger today? ;) jbrace's Jefferson quote essentially argues that exact point.