Why Libertarianism Is So Dangerous.

[whippoorwill]

Why Libertarianism Is So Dangerous.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbNFJK1ZpVg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbNFJK1ZpVg

[whippoorwill]

Bump. For the funny.

[AlexAmore]

That's a pretty far-fetched hypothetical.

[green73]

I'm convinced! Finally a statist who got through to me.

I'm off to add TradionalConservative to my friends list.

[heavenlyboy34]

lolz :D

[Cutlerzzz]

Lul

[anaconda]

The video was entertaining. But he forgot the absolute worst case scenario: that the thugs would convince the peaceful residents to allow them to impose an income tax and manage their money supply.

[QuickZ06]

I'm convinced! Finally a statist who got through to me.

I'm off to add TradionalConservative to my friends list.

http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/4222/roflcopterym.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/571/roflcopterym.png/)

[QuickZ06]

Great video, thanks for posting!

[Christian Liberty]

That's a pretty far-fetched hypothetical.

The insinuation is that it already happened. Its called The State.

That video actually made me seriously consider anarcho-capitalism again, although I once again realized that it doesn't matter (Between minarchy and anarchy.) Minarchy is easier to argue for.

I'm convinced! Finally a statist who got through to me.

I'm off to add TradionalConservative to my friends list.

What's wrong with TraditionalConservative?

[gwax23]

When did Libertarianism become synonymous with anarcho capitalism.

[green73]

When did Libertarianism become synonymous with anarcho capitalism.

Hard to say when the tipping point was. Sometime after enough intelligent people (those who can reason) got turned onto it.

[jkr]

where's that bear looking over the wall pic at...

[gwax23]

Hard to say when the tipping point was. Sometime after enough intelligent people (those who can reason) got turned onto it.

Hah. So anyone who doesnt support anarchism is stupid?

[green73]

where's that bear looking over the wall pic at...

???

http://ct.politicomments.com/ol/pc/sw/i53/2/1/18/pc_2e3da79c21024f2cc647cfbaf16da6a5.jpg

[green73]

Hah. So anyone who doesnt support anarchism is stupid?

Not as intelligent.

[LibertyEagle]

When did Libertarianism become synonymous with anarcho capitalism.

It hasn't.

[LibertyEagle]

Not as intelligent.

:rolleyes:

[gwax23]

Not as intelligent.


How do Anarcho Capitalism propose we achieve their ideal society? Since Ive yet to see any of them in favor of pragmatic approaches to reduce government. Its either all or nothing....

[Christian Liberty]

Hard to say when the tipping point was. Sometime after enough intelligent people (those who can reason) got turned onto it.

Anarcho-capitalism is certainly a type of libertarianism, but its not the ONLY type. Even if you discount "Left" libertarians and "Fiscally conservative, socially liberal" libertarians (And I agree, they don't really count) you've still got anarcho-capitalism, minarchism, certain types of constitutionalism*, and classical liberalism.

*Constitutionalism is tricky because theoretically you could support near infinite government at the state level and still be a constitutionalist. In reality, however, most people who self-identify as being strict constructionists are at least libertarian leaning.

The bottom line for me is not precisely what philosophy you subscribe to, but that you are clearly and strongly opposed to the establishment. A classical liberal who is deeply opposed to the way things are and is willing to fight (Not necessarily with violence, although it theoretically could be, but certainly politically, philosophically, and educationally) against the system and expose it for the evil that it is is INFINITELY more useful than the ancap who really doesn't care and is willing to settle for things as they are.

I'm personally a minarchist, but anarchists, constitutionalists, and classical liberals are not my enemy. Leviathan is my enemy. That's the bottom line. Leviathan is the enemy of a libertarian.



The video was entertaining. But he forgot the absolute worst case scenario: that the thugs would convince the peaceful residents to allow them to impose an income tax and manage their money supply.

[green73]

How do Anarcho Capitalism propose we achieve their ideal society? Since Ive yet to see any of them in favor of pragmatic approaches to reduce government. Its either all or nothing....

All that is believed is that it is a far superior, moral, and natural order of society.

[LibertyEagle]

Not as intelligent.

You are not helping your argument. ROFLMAO

[green73]

You are not helping your argument. ROFLMAO

That means a lot coming from you.

[Christian Liberty]

You are not helping your argument. ROFLMAO

I admit I'm not totally sure whether he's being serious or not. I occasionally have to remind some of these people that Ron Paul is not an anarchist. I have to remind them that even Lew Rockwell, who is, admits to the fact that Ron is not.

I think its laughable that ANYONE here would claim to be as intelligent as Ron Paul, we're certainly all a lot less useful...

[Christian Liberty]

That means a lot coming from you.

Is there any particular reason it "Means a lot" (I assume you're being sarcastic)? I haven't been here long enough to know what this means...

[green73]

Anarcho-capitalism is certainly a type of libertarianism, but its not the ONLY type. Even if you discount "Left" libertarians and "Fiscally conservative, socially liberal" libertarians (And I agree, they don't really count) you've still got anarcho-capitalism, minarchism, certain types of constitutionalism*, and classical liberalism.

*Constitutionalism is tricky because theoretically you could support near infinite government at the state level and still be a constitutionalist. In reality, however, most people who self-identify as being strict constructionists are at least libertarian leaning.

The bottom line for me is not precisely what philosophy you subscribe to, but that you are clearly and strongly opposed to the establishment. A classical liberal who is deeply opposed to the way things are and is willing to fight (Not necessarily with violence, although it theoretically could be, but certainly politically, philosophically, and educationally) against the system and expose it for the evil that it is is INFINITELY more useful than the ancap who really doesn't care and is willing to settle for things as they are.

I'm personally a minarchist, but anarchists, constitutionalists, and classical liberals are not my enemy. Leviathan is my enemy. That's the bottom line. Leviathan is the enemy of a libertarian.

Anarchy is libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion.

[LibertyEagle]

I admit I'm not totally sure whether he's being serious or not. I occasionally have to remind some of these people that Ron Paul is not an anarchist. I have to remind them that even Lew Rockwell, who is, admits to the fact that Ron is not.

I think its laughable that ANYONE here would claim to be as intelligent as Ron Paul, we're certainly all a lot less useful...

Oh, he's serious. That's the sad thing.

[LibertyEagle]

Anarchy is libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion.

In the same way that smoking pot leads to shooting up heroin. :)

[gwax23]

Anarcho-capitalism is certainly a type of libertarianism, but its not the ONLY type. Even if you discount "Left" libertarians and "Fiscally conservative, socially liberal" libertarians (And I agree, they don't really count) you've still got anarcho-capitalism, minarchism, certain types of constitutionalism*, and classical liberalism.

*Constitutionalism is tricky because theoretically you could support near infinite government at the state level and still be a constitutionalist. In reality, however, most people who self-identify as being strict constructionists are at least libertarian leaning.

The bottom line for me is not precisely what philosophy you subscribe to, but that you are clearly and strongly opposed to the establishment. A classical liberal who is deeply opposed to the way things are and is willing to fight (Not necessarily with violence, although it theoretically could be, but certainly politically, philosophically, and educationally) against the system and expose it for the evil that it is is INFINITELY more useful than the ancap who really doesn't care and is willing to settle for things as they are.

I'm personally a minarchist, but anarchists, constitutionalists, and classical liberals are not my enemy. Leviathan is my enemy. That's the bottom line. Leviathan is the enemy of a libertarian.


Well said few points I want to make.

I think in the most simplest sub division of Libertarian it would be Anarchist and Minarchists.

Within both groups you have further Sub Divisions. For Anarchists you have Anarcho Capitalists and those weird Left Wing ideologies that Chomsky promotes. In the minarchist camps you have constitutionalists, classical liberals, conservatives, objectivists etc etc.

Honestly though I would argue Classical Liberalism in its truest form as promoted by Ludwig von mises is minarchism. Thats what I define myself as. A government only their for justice system and defense.

Anarcho capitalists have no plan or means to achieve even their crazy system, they dont support political action, compromises, pragmatic solutions, or anything really. At least none that I have conversed with. They cant explain how new governments wouldnt arise if they ever where to even achieve their anarcho capitalist society and thethat in and of itself is impossible in my view.

[green73]

I admit I'm not totally sure whether he's being serious or not. I occasionally have to remind some of these people that Ron Paul is not an anarchist. I have to remind them that even Lew Rockwell, who is, admits to the fact that Ron is not.

I think its laughable that ANYONE here would claim to be as intelligent as Ron Paul, we're certainly all a lot less useful...

Ron Paul cannot be outspoken as an ancap. It's his great compromise. Rand makes many in his efforts; this has been Ron's. And it's been wildly successfully, for he's created more ancaps in the last six years than had been created in the previos 50. But the whole of the Rothbardian intellectual apparatus of which Ron comes from is ancap.

[gwax23]

I admit I'm not totally sure whether he's being serious or not. I occasionally have to remind some of these people that Ron Paul is not an anarchist. I have to remind them that even Lew Rockwell, who is, admits to the fact that Ron is not.

I think its laughable that ANYONE here would claim to be as intelligent as Ron Paul, we're certainly all a lot less useful...


The anarcho capitalist types usually respond with this "yea man I used to be into the whole ron paul thing till I saw the light. Now its all pointless"

or "Ron paul is secretly a anarchist. All that supported the constitution and such is a cover up. Youll See! Youll all See!!! *sniffs a line of coke right about here and then passes out on a fillipino hooker* "

Dont mind my depictions of the typical anarcho capitalist.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

In the same way that smoking pot leads to shooting up heroin. :)

The gateway philosophy: leads to the harder, socially-rejected Anarchism.

[green73]

In the same way that smoking pot leads to shooting up heroin. :)

^^^ This is what I mean when I say 'not as intelligent'.

[Christian Liberty]

Anarchy is libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion.

I can't really disagree. Its also a pain in the butt to actually argue for, and almost impossible to actually implement in the real world. Neither minarchy or anarchy can be implemented without at least a sizable, vocal minority behind them. But if you get that sizable, vocal minority, the minarchist state can prevent the sheep from ruling by force. In anarcho-capitalism, there's nobody to stop them.

I can't imagine any anarcho-capitalist society other than maybe on a small island functioning with less aggression than a perfect minarchist state. So while I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying here, I also don't really think its practical. More importantly, it doesn't matter. Minarchists agree with anarchists 98% of the time. Why obsess over the other 2%? Debating is of course fun, but to divide the liberty movement with it is silly. We're on the same team. We want pretty darn close to the same thing. This is like a fight over whether prime rib or filet mingon is better when we're being forced to eat stale bread (Anyone who does NOT like steak please reconstruct this analogy to your liking.) Both of us would STRONGLY prefer each other's society over the status quo.

I will remind you again that Ron Paul picked minarchy as well.


Oh, he's serious. That's the sad thing.

LOL.

Needless division.

[green73]

The gateway philosophy: leads to the harder, socially-rejected Anarchism.

Another genius chimes in.

[Christian Liberty]

Well said few points I want to make.

I think in the most simplest sub division of Libertarian it would be Anarchist and Minarchists.

Within both groups you have further Sub Divisions. For Anarchists you have Anarcho Capitalists and those weird Left Wing ideologies that Chomsky promotes. In the minarchist camps you have constitutionalists, classical liberals, conservatives, objectivists etc etc.

Honestly though I would argue Classical Liberalism in its truest form as promoted by Ludwig von mises is minarchism. Thats what I define myself as. A government only their for justice system and defense.

Anarcho capitalists have no plan or means to achieve even their crazy system, they dont support political action, compromises, pragmatic solutions, or anything really. At least none that I have conversed with. They cant explain how new governments wouldnt arise if they ever where to even achieve their anarcho capitalist society and thethat in and of itself is impossible in my view.

Well, technically a "Minarchist" would support government being limited to police, courts, and defense. I don't really want to fight over terminology, but I would consider someone who supports a slightly bigger government than this, say maybe roads, schools, maybe a very limited safety net, would be a moderate libertarian, but not a "Minarchist" per say. They'd be something else, a classical liberal, a constitutionalist, something else.

I should mention that I don't really consider Rand a libertarian, more a libertarian leaning conservative. I can see libertarians arguing over exactly how small of a role it should have in society but I can't see how a libertarian would include controlling what people choose to consume in that. Yet Rand doesn't want to legalize drugs.

I think there's some validity to what Walter Block says here about the types of libertarianism, although I might be willing to make room for a fourth type as well, whereas Block seems not to...

http://lewrockwell.com/block/block218.html

Personal life choices is a line I would absolutely draw though. War would have to be another one. Libertarians MUST support the NAP when it comes to personal life choices and a noninterventionist foreign policy. Those two things, along with a relatively limited government economic program (How limited would depend on what "Grade" of libertarianism one falls under, precisely, but still fairly limited, I consider socialists to be "Something else" even if they claim to be libertarian) are essentials, IMO.


Ron Paul cannot be outspoken as an ancap. It's his great compromise. Rand makes many in his efforts; this has been Ron's. And it's been wildly successfully, for he's created more ancaps in the last six years than had been created in the previos 50. But the whole of the Rothbardian intellectual apparatus of which Ron comes from is ancap.

Rand compromises way more, and that's kinda his MO anyway. Rand wants to win. Ron never cared. So I don't really see this type of "Fib" as being in his character. Although its possible (I missed this when I posted the first time).

I often talk like an anarchist myself, but I'm still not one.


The anarcho capitalist types usually respond with this "yea man I used to be into the whole ron paul thing till I saw the light. Now its all pointless"

or "Ron paul is secretly a anarchist. All that supported the constitution and such is a cover up. Youll See! Youll all See!!! *sniffs a line of coke right about here and then passes out on a fillipino hooker* "

Dont mind my depictions of the typical anarcho capitalist.

It depends on which one. Some ancaps are better than others in this regard. Rothbard was pretty darn politically pragmatic, probably even more so than I would be. Some withdraw from the political process altogether, and I think that's a mistake. the opposite extreme, of course, is to support the "Lesser of two evils" no matter what and that's also a mistake.


The gateway philosophy: leads to the harder, socially-rejected Anarchism.

[green73]

I can't really disagree. Its also a pain in the butt to actually argue for, and almost impossible to actually implement in the real world. Neither minarchy or anarchy can be implemented without at least a sizable, vocal minority behind them. But if you get that sizable, vocal minority, the minarchist state can prevent the sheep from ruling by force. In anarcho-capitalism, there's nobody to stop them.

I can't imagine any anarcho-capitalist society other than maybe on a small island functioning with less aggression than a perfect minarchist state. So while I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying here, I also don't really think its practical. More importantly, it doesn't matter. Minarchists agree with anarchists 98% of the time. Why obsess over the other 2%? Debating is of course fun, but to divide the liberty movement with it is silly. We're on the same team. We want pretty darn close to the same thing. This is like a fight over whether prime rib or filet mingon is better when we're being forced to eat stale bread (Anyone who does NOT like steak please reconstruct this analogy to your liking.) Both of us would STRONGLY prefer each other's society over the status quo.

I will remind you again that Ron Paul picked minarchy as well.


You keep saying you're relatively new to all this. That bodes well for you. Unlike a lot of people who've been exposed to the philosophy for many years and only go so far with it. From all the accounts I've heard it takes anywhere from six months to two years to become an ancap. Some less, some a little more. Some people can never cross the bridge. There are a number of reasons for this. I don't know them all; I don't think anyone does. It could be genetic, it could be purely metaphysical. But, if you can reason, are a truth-seeker, honest with yourself, moral, and have a consciousness that expands beyond the size of a golf ball, you should make it.

[Christian Liberty]

You keep saying you're relatively new to all this. That bodes well for you. Unlike a lot of people who've been exposed to the philosophy for many years and only go so far with it. From all the accounts I've heard it takes anywhere from six months to two years to become an ancap. Some less, some a little more. Some people can never cross the bridge. There are a number of reasons for this. I don't know them all; I don't think anyone does. It could be genetic, it could be purely metaphysical. But, if you can reason, are a truth-seeker, honest with yourself, moral, and have a consciousness that expands beyond the size of a golf ball, you should make it.

I should clarify, I'm not so much AGAINST anarcho-capitalism as I just think the questiion (When compared to minarchy) is mostly pointless and irrelevant. Neither can be supported without a strong freedom movement. Anarchy requires even more support than minarchy to "Function" IMO. If it happened and it worked, I wouldn't be lobbying to get the state back. I'm just not sure it can work in a desirable fashion.

But yeah, I am pretty darn new. In 2010 I was a bit of a contradiction, as I've stated, but mostly a neocon. In 2011, Ron Paul started waking me up. I would be comfortable saying I was a constitutionalist by 2011, and within the libertarian spectrum by 2012. I remember telling a teacher as recently as the beginning of this school year that I "Wasn't necessarily saying we should legalize cocaine" when arguing for pot legalization. I would never say that anymore, in fact, I almost laugh that I ever believed that. So you never know. I could be laughing at myself that I ever supported any government whatsoever by the beginning of next year. Wouldn't totally surprise me. I would never split off from the rest of the liberty movement though. Not worth it, we agree with each other at least 85% of the time, and that's if you count the paleocons. More like 95% if we're just talking about libertarians.

I'm a truth seeker. I don't know where I'm going to end up.

[paulbot24]

Hell of a funny video. Sometimes you just want to find something on here to brighten your day and that did the trick.

[Natural Citizen]

One of the things that I see as truly dangerous in scope is that many "libertarians" confuse government controlled markets with a free market. These are effectively neoconservatives promoting fascism but just don't know it. Either that or they're genuinly neoconservatives playing like libertarians for whatever reason.

[gwax23]

FreedomFanatic:

Well said yet again. I seem to agree with you on a lot. I will read the linked article. Thanks for that.

[green73]

I should clarify, I'm not so much AGAINST anarcho-capitalism as I just think the questiion (When compared to minarchy) is mostly pointless and irrelevant. Neither can be supported without a strong freedom movement. Anarchy requires even more support than minarchy to "Function" IMO. If it happened and it worked, I wouldn't be lobbying to get the state back. I'm just not sure it can work in a desirable fashion.

But yeah, I am pretty darn new. In 2010 I was a bit of a contradiction, as I've stated, but mostly a neocon. In 2011, Ron Paul started waking me up. I would be comfortable saying I was a constitutionalist by 2011, and within the libertarian spectrum by 2012. I remember telling a teacher as recently as the beginning of this school year that I "Wasn't necessarily saying we should legalize cocaine" when arguing for pot legalization. I would never say that anymore, in fact, I almost laugh that I ever believed that. So you never know. I could be laughing at myself that I ever supported any government whatsoever by the beginning of next year. Wouldn't totally surprise me. I would never split off from the rest of the liberty movement though. Not worth it, we agree with each other at least 85% of the time, and that's if you count the paleocons. More like 95% if we're just talking about libertarians.

I'm a truth seeker. I don't know where I'm going to end up.

I think you'll end up just fine.

[gwax23]

Double post.

[Christian Liberty]

@green- I'm much more worried about not ending up TO cynical and depressed over the state of our country (Unless that's a good thing) than I am about the ancap/minarchist divide.

[Reece]

Anarcho capitalists have no plan or means to achieve even their crazy system, they dont support political action, compromises, pragmatic solutions, or anything really. At least none that I have conversed with. They cant explain how new governments wouldnt arise if they ever where to even achieve their anarcho capitalist society and thethat in and of itself is impossible in my view.

I know multiple anarcho-capitalists (and am one personally) that is not against political action. There is a point where I am no longer willing to compromise, as I am sure there is a point where you are no longer willing to compromise.

I am suspicious though that you are more willing to compromise than ancaps (although it is certainly possible). If there were two choices on a ballot, either getting rid of the state entirely (all forms of it, federal state and local) or keeping things the way they are, which would you choose? I know there are many people who would not be willing to choose the "abolish the state" option. If anarcho-capitalists are flawed for not compromising to minarchism, wouldn't minarchists be similarly flawed for not compromising to anarcho-capitalism?

There have been many explainations on why a new government would be unlikely to arise, although I don't think many anarcho-capitalists would deny that it is possible. Even this video touches on that, and brings up the point that at worst we would be left with a state again.

[gwax23]

I know multiple anarcho-capitalists (and am one personally) that is not against political action. There is a point where I am no longer willing to compromise, as I am sure there is a point where you are no longer willing to compromise.

I am suspicious though that you are more willing to compromise than ancaps (although it is certainly possible). If there were two choices on a ballot, either getting rid of the state entirely (all forms of it, federal state and local) or keeping things the way they are, which would you choose? I know there are many people who would not be willing to choose the "abolish the state" option. If anarcho-capitalists are flawed for not compromising to minarchism, wouldn't minarchists be similarly flawed for not compromising to anarcho-capitalism?

There have been many explainations on why a new government would be unlikely to arise, although I don't think many anarcho-capitalists would deny that it is possible. Even this video touches on that, and brings up the point that at worst we would be left with a state again.

I would vote for no state at all in that possibility. But thats an extreme case that doesnt illustrate my points well.

While I appreciate you an ancap notcompletely disregarding political action and compromise you are the minority in that movement.

I agree with Ancaps on 99% of things. I just believe the government should provide the courts, police, and defense. So on 99% of the issues I would vote with ancaps in agreement.

Problem is the people we are dealing with arent fellow libertarian or ancaps they are statists. Hence something like a voucher program for schools I would vote for since its better than the status quo but many ancaps wouldnt vote for that. Would you? Even though I would prefer complete privatization its not a feasible option now so I would promote vouchers as a way to work our way towards that.

If you and other ancaps do realize that a state would emerge then why do you continue to support Anarcho Capitalism? Why not support Minarchism which has a historical track record of at least being possible unlike anarchocapitalism.?

[heavenlyboy34]

I would vote for no state at all in that possibility. But thats an extreme case that doesnt illustrate my points well.

While I appreciate you an ancap notcompletely disregarding political action and compromise you are the minority in that movement.

I agree with Ancaps on 99% of things. I just believe the government should provide the courts, police, and defense. So on 99% of the issues I would vote with ancaps in agreement.

Problem is the people we are dealing with arent fellow libertarian or ancaps they are statists. Hence something like a voucher program for schools I would vote for since its better than the status quo but many ancaps wouldnt vote for that. Would you? Even though I would prefer complete privatization its not a feasible option now so I would promote vouchers as a way to work our way towards that.

If you and other ancaps do realize that a state would emerge then why do you continue to support Anarcho Capitalism? Why not support Minarchism which has a historical track record of at least being possible unlike anarchocapitalism.?
The government doesn't "provide" that. It steals from your neighbors and buys it for you. It's important to make these distinctions because if it's not done, people begin looking at the regime as a benevolent overlordship rather than what it really is.

[gwax23]

The government doesn't "provide" that. It steals from your neighbors and buys it for you. It's important to make these distinctions because if it's not done, people begin looking at the regime as a benevolent overlordship rather than what it really is.

How could a market enforce the law equally for all?

It cant thats why these things are a necessary evil.

[green73]

How could a market enforce the law equally for all?

It cant thats why these things are a necessary evil.

1) Your asking the question shows you haven't researched it.
2) Your answering it (having not researched it) shows what a putz you are. Sorry.

[Wesker1982]

great video

[gwax23]

1) Your asking the question shows you haven't researched it.
2) Your answering it (having not researched it) shows what a putz you are. Sorry.

Please enlighten this putz.

Actually screw it insulting people is the strategy that wins people over to your movement, silly me. (Second time in the thread youve insulted people for not grasping your "intellectually superior belief system" without defending it or explaining it in detail even when people [me] pose a direct question regarding it)

[Reece]

I would vote for no state at all in that possibility. But thats an extreme case that doesnt illustrate my points well.

While I appreciate you an ancap notcompletely disregarding political action and compromise you are the minority in that movement.

I agree with Ancaps on 99% of things. I just believe the government should provide the courts, police, and defense. So on 99% of the issues I would vote with ancaps in agreement.

Problem is the people we are dealing with arent fellow libertarian or ancaps they are statists. Hence something like a voucher program for schools I would vote for since its better than the status quo but many ancaps wouldnt vote for that. Would you? Even though I would prefer complete privatization its not a feasible option now so I would promote vouchers as a way to work our way towards that.

If you and other ancaps do realize that a state would emerge then why do you continue to support Anarcho Capitalism? Why not support Minarchism which has a historical track record of at least being possible unlike anarchocapitalism.?

I do have quite a few problems with vouchers even compared to the current system, although I do think it's a slight improvement. So yes, I would probably vote for vouchers over the current system.

I don't think a state would emerge. I think a state could emerge, and I think it would be unlikely, especially if there was a strong movement behind anarcho-capitalism before the state was gotten rid of. While there are no examples of pure anarcho-capitalism in existence, there are plenty of examples of stateless societies, and most were very close to how I think an anarcho-capitalist society would function.

While the possibility of a state forming is always possible, the likelihood is very small, as people would be likely to switch to cheaper competitors if any protection agency became "state-like," as the costs would increase. Bands of individuals would be unlikely to take over land either, even if their protection agencies were unable to stop them (which I think would be unlikely as well, because people would be unlikely to pay for a service that is unable to protect them from general threats). It is likely agencies protecting people nearby would want to stop them before they became a problem, as once they became a problem costs would go up considerably for the agencies.

[gwax23]

I do have quite a few problems with vouchers even compared to the current system, although I do think it's a slight improvement. So yes, I would probably vote for vouchers over the current system.

I don't think a state would emerge. I think a state could emerge, and I think it would be unlikely, especially if there was a strong movement behind anarcho-capitalism before the state was gotten rid of. While there are no examples of pure anarcho-capitalism in existence, there are plenty of examples of stateless societies, and most were very close to how I think an anarcho-capitalist society would function.


While the possibility of a state forming is always possible, the likelihood is very small, as people would be likely to switch to cheaper competitors if any protection agency became "state-like," as the costs would increase. Bands of individuals would be unlikely to take over land either, even if their protection agencies were unable to stop them (which I think would be unlikely as well, because people would be unlikely to pay for a service that is unable to protect them from general threats). It is likely agencies protecting people nearby would want to stop them before they became a problem, as once they became a problem costs would go up considerably for the agencies.

Those competing protection agencies would develop into other states no? Theres not one state now theres many competing states.

These states must be very likely to rise considering we live in a world that is made up solely of them. Its not an accident. What stopped Anarcho Capitalism like society from rising with the beginning of humanity? If it is natural after all.

Its very likely to rise but thats a mute point because we would never get anywhere close to a anarcho capitalist society save for some apocalyptic like event.

I am curious about these examples that where close enough to anarchocapitalism in your view to be worth mentioning. What happened to them?

Also I thank you for having a civil discourse with me. I pose these questions to you not to be rude or insulting but out of genuine curiosity. Unlike some other posters in this thread who after being asked basic questions about their beliefs resort to name calling....

Lastly the voucher systems proposed come in different shapes and sizes but In general I agree all of them regardless of their shape or size are a step up from the current system.

[otherone]

How could a market enforce the law equally for all?

It cant thats why these things are a necessary evil.

You believe the law is enforced equally for all in our present system?

[Christian Liberty]

I know multiple anarcho-capitalists (and am one personally) that is not against political action. There is a point where I am no longer willing to compromise, as I am sure there is a point where you are no longer willing to compromise.

I am suspicious though that you are more willing to compromise than ancaps (although it is certainly possible). If there were two choices on a ballot, either getting rid of the state entirely (all forms of it, federal state and local) or keeping things the way they are, which would you choose? I know there are many people who would not be willing to choose the "abolish the state" option. If anarcho-capitalists are flawed for not compromising to minarchism, wouldn't minarchists be similarly flawed for not compromising to anarcho-capitalism?

There have been many explainations on why a new government would be unlikely to arise, although I don't think many anarcho-capitalists would deny that it is possible. Even this video touches on that, and brings up the point that at worst we would be left with a state again.

Yes, I'd much rather get rid of the state entirely than keep the state that we have. Although, as Somalia shows, JUST abolishing the state isn't enough. You also need a culture of freedom. This is true for minarchy too, but I think you can get away with more "Non-libertarians" in a minarchist society than you can in an anarchist society.

But yes, if given those choices, I'd try anarchy, I mean, why not?

As for compromise, yeah, there is a line. I'm not saying you have to support tweedledee, who agrees with you five percent of the time, over tweedledum, who agrees with you never. That's pretty close to how I felt in 2012 with Obama/Romney. I couldn't vote for either of them, and the fact that I was 17 is not the biggest reason for that.

That said, I don't understand why some ancaps wouldn't even, say, vote for Ron Paul even though they're like 95% in agreeement.

There's a point where the waters get a little murky. I can understand why libertarians would have different opinions on guys like Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, or... in a few select situations, even Dennis Kucinich. (for the record, I would vote for Paul or Johnson, but would not vote for Kucinich even though I do respect him.) I personally won't compromise, much, on foreign policy or on guns. Kucinich fails that second test, which would discount me from supporting him. Economics is less important to me because other than Ron Paul, nobody is going to do anything near what I want anyway. Even Rand Paul has a 17% tax rate, albeit with a big exemption. 7% might be more of a start. And the debt... Everyone, even Ron Paul for that matter, and this kind of annoys me, seems willing to steal from me to pay the darn thing off. We need to default on it. I am not responsible for the stupid voting of my ancestors.




The government doesn't "provide" that. It steals from your neighbors and buys it for you. It's important to make these distinctions because if it's not done, people begin looking at the regime as a benevolent overlordship rather than what it really is.

Well, they do technically provide it still. That they don't really do it in an ethical manner doesn't mean they don't do it.

Sadly, I think its a necessary evil though.


1) Your asking the question shows you haven't researched it.
2) Your answering it (having not researched it) shows what a putz you are. Sorry.

[Reece]

Those competing protection agencies would develop into other states no? Theres not one state now theres many competing states.

These states must be very likely to rise considering we live in a world that is made up solely of them. Its not an accident. What stopped Anarcho Capitalism like society from rising with the beginning of humanity? If it is natural after all.

Its very likely to rise but thats a mute point because we would never get anywhere close to a anarcho capitalist society save for some apocalyptic like event.

I am curious about these examples that where close enough to anarchocapitalism in your view to be worth mentioning. What happened to them?

Also I thank you for having a civil discourse with me. I pose these questions to you not to be rude or insulting but out of genuine curiosity. Unlike some other posters in this thread who after being asked basic questions about their beliefs resort to name calling....

Lastly the voucher systems proposed come in different shapes and sizes but In general I agree all of them regardless of their shape or size are a step up from the current system.

On historical examples:

There was Ireland, which was taken over by the British.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su9OqvBbSD0

Iceland, which had the problem of not allowing new chieftains by law (although, it could be sold and people could choose any chieftain, and so it functioned as a semi-anarchist society). This, in the end, is what pretty much ended it, as people switched to the services of another country in essence instead.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long1.html

The early west (which was ended as the US government expanded).

http://mises.org/daily/4108/The-Not-So-Wild-Wild-West

There are other examples as well, like early Pennsylvania (ended as Britain retook it), Somalia (ended when the US/UN placed a government there), etc.

They mainly seem to disappear because of too small a population to fight back for too long (like Ireland, although it did hold for quite a while) or because of non-anarcho-capitalist parts of it (like Iceland). In any case, I think it would be interesting at the very least to test it out on a large society like the US.

It really depends on how one defines a state in order to decide whether these protection agencies would be considered states. I take the Rothbardian position (here: http://mises.org/daily/2429) on that: "(1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as "taxation"; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area." Protection agencies would be unlikely to do either, as customers would flee from there service to another one. The other service would be happy to get additional customers.

On natural rise of the state, I'm fairly sure it started in a similar way to how the video described (groups of people raided smaller groups or individuals, and eventually settled). In a much more primitive society, most people would not value protection over the cost of it. They would be likely to take the risk, as they would not be very rich in the first place. I would imagine that the costs of the continual theft was also lower than the cost to fight back, as it is today. However, a state would be much more difficult to establish today because of the quicker spread of information, the greater wealth of people, etc. Also, violent intervention in the market is never good for the people being acted violently toward (otherwise they would accept the service voluntarily). Even if a state did reform, people would be better off during that time.

Thank you for discussing this with me as well :)

[Brett85]

What's wrong with TraditionalConservative?

I'm not an anarchist, which seems to be a requirement for posting here. :)

[Christian Liberty]

1) Your asking the question shows you haven't researched it.
2) Your answering it (having not researched it) shows what a putz you are. Sorry.

Being mean isn't helping your cost. Truth be told, anarcho-capitalism is complex as heck, it took me over a year to even be able to partially comprehend it, (And I STILL don't comprehend the David Friedman version, Rothbard's system is simpler since the law code is the same everywhere in a territorial area) while minarchism can be explained and justified in five minutes. If you aren't willing to explain the theory, I think you're wasting your time advocating it. especially since most people are MUCH more hostile to this than the minarchists you're dealing with on here.

Please enlighten this putz.

Actually screw it insulting people is the strategy that wins people over to your movement, silly me. (Second time in the thread youve insulted people for not grasping your "intellectually superior belief system" without defending it or explaining it in detail even when people [me] pose a direct question regarding it)

I throw the insults too, I'm afraid, just not at the ancaps and the classical liberals and such. They are "On my team" as it were. But against a hardcore statist, I'm probably ten times that mean over the internet, and about half as mean in real life...

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not an anarchist, which seems to be a requirement for posting here. :)

They'd probably call Ron Paul himself a statist if he came here...:)

Which is technically correct, of course, the opposite of a statist is an anarchist, technically. However, that's not what most people mean when they say "Statist."

For the record, I have no issues with you, I don't agree with you on everything (Such as Afghanistan) but you're reasonable enough...

Frankly, you anarchists should probably just switch to "Voluntarist" as the word you're currently using has too much undeserved negative stigma.

[Reece]

Yes, I'd much rather get rid of the state entirely than keep the state that we have. Although, as Somalia shows, JUST abolishing the state isn't enough. You also need a culture of freedom. This is true for minarchy too, but I think you can get away with more "Non-libertarians" in a minarchist society than you can in an anarchist society.

But yes, if given those choices, I'd try anarchy, I mean, why not?

As for compromise, yeah, there is a line. I'm not saying you have to support tweedledee, who agrees with you five percent of the time, over tweedledum, who agrees with you never. That's pretty close to how I felt in 2012 with Obama/Romney. I couldn't vote for either of them, and the fact that I was 17 is not the biggest reason for that.

That said, I don't understand why some ancaps wouldn't even, say, vote for Ron Paul even though they're like 95% in agreeement.

There's a point where the waters get a little murky. I can understand why libertarians would have different opinions on guys like Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, or... in a few select situations, even Dennis Kucinich. (for the record, I would vote for Paul or Johnson, but would not vote for Kucinich even though I do respect him.) I personally won't compromise, much, on foreign policy or on guns. Kucinich fails that second test, which would discount me from supporting him. Economics is less important to me because other than Ron Paul, nobody is going to do anything near what I want anyway. Even Rand Paul has a 17% tax rate, albeit with a big exemption. 7% might be more of a start. And the debt... Everyone, even Ron Paul for that matter, and this kind of annoys me, seems willing to steal from me to pay the darn thing off. We need to default on it. I am not responsible for the stupid voting of my ancestors.

Somalia apparently improved (even relatively to neighboring countries) during the time when it was stateless. I don't know if you've read this: http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf. Although, certainly Somalia was not doing as well as some places with a state, so I definitely agree culture and other factors are very important as well.

I don't know if I would be able to vote for Kucinich; war is the highest factor on my "list", but he does fall on so many other areas. Maybe would depend on the office. For president, I probably would; for congress, where he has little influence over foreign policy and would mainly only impact other items, probably not then.

I voted for Johnson in the general, and couldn't vote for any presidential candidate in the primary (as it counted as actually electing delegates, and I was not 18 at the time). My compromise "line" goes a bit further than him. I'd be willing to vote for Lee for instance, but probably not Cruz.

[Christian Liberty]

Somalia apparently improved (even relatively to neighboring countries) during the time when it was stateless. I don't know if you've read this: http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf. Although, certainly Somalia was not doing as well as some places with a state, so I definitely agree culture and other factors are very important as well.

I don't know if I would be able to vote for Kucinich; war is the highest factor on my "list", but he does fall on so many other areas. Maybe would depend on the office. For president, I probably would; for congress, where he has little influence over foreign policy and would mainly only impact other items, probably not then.

I voted for Johnson in the general, and couldn't vote for any presidential candidate in the primary (as it counted as actually electing delegates, and I was not 18 at the time). My compromise "line" goes a bit further than him. I'd be willing to vote for Lee for instance, but probably not Cruz.

War is highest for me too, with guns being second.

I would have voted for Gary were I not still 17 at the time (Noticed you're 18 too.... Cool, young libertarians FTW!). Obviously it goes without saying I would have voted for Ron in the primary. I don't know much about Lee, but so far he's OK. I wouldn't vote for Cruz, as I've mentioned he betrayed his oath of office by voting to give medical records to the Feds, so he's a traitor, not to mention a warmongerer. I'm supporting Rand for now, although I understand he's definitely toeing the line right now.

The main reason I couldn't vote for Kucinich, respect him though I do, anyone who trusts government with a monopoly on weapons is NOT on the right side...

[Reece]

War is highest for me too, with guns being second.

I would have voted for Gary were I not still 17 at the time (Noticed you're 18 too.... Cool, young libertarians FTW!). Obviously it goes without saying I would have voted for Ron in the primary. I don't know much about Lee, but so far he's OK. I wouldn't vote for Cruz, as I've mentioned he betrayed his oath of office by voting to give medical records to the Feds, so he's a traitor, not to mention a warmongerer. I'm supporting Rand for now, although I understand he's definitely toeing the line right now.

The main reason I couldn't vote for Kucinich, respect him though I do, anyone who trusts government with a monopoly on weapons is NOT on the right side...

Young libertarians FTW indeed :D

I saw the medical records thing here, although I haven't seen much about his foreign policy. I knew he wasn't anti-war, but I was under the impression he was less interventionist than most others in congress; I don't really know why though, as I haven't really seen many of his votes (I've been behind recently; busy with school). Would look more into him before I voted anyway though.

[PaulConventionWV]

All that is believed is that it is a far superior, moral, and natural order of society.

And I believe unicorns are superior to horses although I've never seen one or know anything about what it is actually like.

[gwax23]

Young libertarians FTW indeed :D

I saw the medical records thing here, although I haven't seen much about his foreign policy. I knew he wasn't anti-war, but I was under the impression he was less interventionist than most others in congress; I don't really know why though, as I haven't really seen many of his votes (I've been behind recently; busy with school). Would look more into him before I voted anyway though.


19 here. Voted johnson fore presidential election.

[PaulConventionWV]

I've been said to hold beliefs very close to anarchism. So, by green's measure, I guess that means I have an IQ in the 130s or so while he is a full-blown genius. I don't believe there should even be a police force. Taxes should be voluntary. All that said, I recognize the fact that an anarchist society will never be sustained. In fact, if it ever were to happen, it may give rise to an even more oppressive state because of the complete lack of institutionalized resistance. A minarchist society may not be sustainable, but neither is anarchy, so what, really, is the advantage here? The fact that we've had some pretty minarchist governments in the past lends credence to their existence. There are no examples of anarchy except in really small, underdeveloped populations so the whole idea is fictional to begin with. I'm sure government has existed less in smaller populations, as many have pointed out, but it can never exist in a society as developed and crowded as ours. It would be nice, sure. I don't think anyone would disagree that anarchy would be great if it were practical, but sadly, I don't think it is. I honestly don't have an ideal system of government except to always push for less of it. The only way for us to maintain such a system would be if the population was educated and upheld their duty to oppose oppression, which I see as being much more likely in a minarchist society than an anarchist one, since a power structure is already in place to resist the development of even greater power.

The problem with anarchists is that they fancy themselves superior to those who believe in government. The irony is not lost on me. An air of superiority is the beginning of all elite classes who oppress the people. What's more, they are not opposed to spreading disinformation and propaganda in support of their worldview, such as the erroneous claim that "Ron Paul is an anarchist" which can never be confirmed, so those making that claim are disingenuous at best. It's also an appeal to authority, so in conclusion, the mind of the anarchist utilizes the same emotional and pyschological processes in support of anarchism that a statist uses in support of statism. The only difference is that he fails to make the connection between his own behavior and the behavior of the elite class that would soon take power were the government to disappear overnight.

[Reece]

I've been said to hold beliefs very close to anarchism. So, by green's measure, I guess that means I have an IQ in the 130s or so while he is a full-blown genius. I don't believe there should even be a police force. Taxes should be voluntary. All that said, I recognize the fact that an anarchist society will never be sustained. In fact, if it ever were to happen, it may give rise to an even more oppressive state because of the complete lack of institutionalized resistance. A minarchist society may not be sustainable, but neither is anarchy, so what, really, is the advantage here? The fact that we've had some pretty minarchist governments in the past lends credence to their existence. There are no examples of anarchy except in really small, underdeveloped populations so the whole idea is fictional to begin with. I'm sure government has existed less in smaller populations, as many have pointed out, but it can never exist in a society as developed and crowded as ours. It would be nice, sure. I don't think anyone would disagree that anarchy would be great if it were practical, but sadly, I don't think it is. I honestly don't have an ideal system of government except to always push for less of it. The only way for us to maintain such a system would be if the population was educated and upheld their duty to oppose oppression, which I see as being much more likely in a minarchist society than an anarchist one, since a power structure is already in place to resist the development of even greater power.

The problem with anarchists is that they fancy themselves superior to those who believe in government. The irony is not lost on me. An air of superiority is the beginning of all elite classes who oppress the people. What's more, they are not opposed to spreading disinformation and propaganda in support of their worldview, such as the erroneous claim that "Ron Paul is an anarchist" which can never be confirmed, so those making that claim are disingenuous at best. It's also an appeal to authority, so in conclusion, the mind of the anarchist utilizes the same emotional and pyschological processes in support of anarchism that a statist uses in support of statism. The only difference is that he fails to make the connection between his own behavior and the behavior of the elite class that would soon take power were the government to disappear overnight.

Sure, it hasn't worked in recent times; but it also hasn't been tried at all. I don't think anyone can deny that it is possible to be without a government for at least a day; so it certainly is possible to have anarchy, it just hasn't been tried. Hence, I don't think one can make a judgment that it wouldn't work purely based off historical evidence. Economically, it is sound. I see no reason then to support minarchism more than anarchism then.

I don't think one can make a blanket statement on all anarchists that we find ourselves "superior" to those who believe in a government. I certainly don't think that.

On Ron Paul, part of the problem is that he makes contradictory statements. On the one hand, he says that a completely voluntary society is the end goal, that he isn't one to disagree with Spooner, etc. On the other hand he says that he supports the Constitution, supports limited government, and other such things. Both "sides" claim Ron Paul as their own; until he directly says one way or the other in a longer format, I don't think it can really be said completely either way.

EDIT: Said "impossible" instead of "possible."

[QuickZ06]

I've been said to hold beliefs very close to anarchism. So, by green's measure, I guess that means I have an IQ in the 130s or so while he is a full-blown genius. I don't believe there should even be a police force. Taxes should be voluntary. All that said, I recognize the fact that an anarchist society will never be sustained. In fact, if it ever were to happen, it may give rise to an even more oppressive state because of the complete lack of institutionalized resistance. A minarchist society may not be sustainable, but neither is anarchy, so what, really, is the advantage here? The fact that we've had some pretty minarchist governments in the past lends credence to their existence. There are no examples of anarchy except in really small, underdeveloped populations so the whole idea is fictional to begin with. I'm sure government has existed less in smaller populations, as many have pointed out, but it can never exist in a society as developed and crowded as ours. It would be nice, sure. I don't think anyone would disagree that anarchy would be great if it were practical, but sadly, I don't think it is. I honestly don't have an ideal system of government except to always push for less of it. The only way for us to maintain such a system would be if the population was educated and upheld their duty to oppose oppression, which I see as being much more likely in a minarchist society than an anarchist one, since a power structure is already in place to resist the development of even greater power.

The problem with anarchists is that they fancy themselves superior to those who believe in government. The irony is not lost on me. An air of superiority is the beginning of all elite classes who oppress the people. What's more, they are not opposed to spreading disinformation and propaganda in support of their worldview, such as the erroneous claim that "Ron Paul is an anarchist" which can never be confirmed, so those making that claim are disingenuous at best. It's also an appeal to authority, so in conclusion, the mind of the anarchist utilizes the same emotional and pyschological processes in support of anarchism that a statist uses in support of statism. The only difference is that he fails to make the connection between his own behavior and the behavior of the elite class that would soon take power were the government to disappear overnight.


The elite love your thought process.

[XTreat]

500 years ago men believed they could not live without being ruled by a divine king.

Today men believe they cannot live without being ruled by a benevolent government.

Both groups are wrong.

I am a anarchist in the sense that I believe the only moral society is one which is voluntary.

Asking how you get there is not an adequate argument against anarchism, I could ask "how are we going to get from king to representative government", the argument against anarchism must include a moral explanation of the use coercion and force.

[Intoxiklown]

Threads like this is why my post count is so low. I spend more time reading the threads, the links posted in them dealing with the statements made, and research on my own to understand what someone is talking about later.

I am so gay for you guys right now.

[XTreat]

I admit I'm not totally sure whether he's being serious or not. I occasionally have to remind some of these people that Ron Paul is not an anarchist. I have to remind them that even Lew Rockwell, who is, admits to the fact that Ron is not.

I think its laughable that ANYONE here would claim to be as intelligent as Ron Paul, we're certainly all a lot less useful...


I asked Lew personally if he thought RP was an anarchist, he said "yes." Maybe he was fucking with me or drunk, we were both drinking keg beer.

[idiom]

Implementation of rothbardism always gets tricky. Nobody actually wants to try it in a failed state somewhere. The mostly just want to hold it up as an ideal in a stable state that might never actually get close to dissolving the local government.

So we are left only with thought experiments by proponents. Usually these proposed societies are pretty dystopian from a number of points of view, primarily privacy. While a lot of libertarians want to be left alone and to their own devices with right like travel unrestricted, the rothcap systems often include things like full privatization of roads, which in a modern world means minute tracking of all travel. Things like insurance blackboxes on vehicles are lionized.

How security and courts would be handled also get interesting. Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio, suggested that a true Rothcap society might have $10,000 rewards for reporting unregistered firearms to the local 'private defense organisations'.

There are also huge philosophical splits over base assumptions that are called axioms but are really not.

There is a lot more to liberty than the rothcaps extremely narrow definition of the NAP.

[Reece]

Implementation of rothbardism always gets tricky. Nobody actually wants to try it in a failed state somewhere. The mostly just want to hold it up as an ideal in a stable state that might never actually get close to dissolving the local government.

That's because nobody wants to live in a failed state to advocate for it. In fact, you see less people advocating for every philosophy in failed states. People there have more important things to worry about then reading Rothbard or Molyneax. This doesn't mean people don't advocate for the government to be abolished there from afar; it just means people are generally going to focus on where they live.


So we are left only with thought experiments by proponents. Usually these proposed societies are pretty dystopian from a number of points of view, primarily privacy. While a lot of libertarians want to be left alone and to their own devices with right like travel unrestricted, the rothcap systems often include things like full privatization of roads, which in a modern world means minute tracking of all travel. Things like insurance blackboxes on vehicles are lionized.

Doctors also have your medical records (presumably) and stores see what you buy. Yet, neither of these are reasons to put the state in control of these services. If enough people are worried, there would be an incentive for the road companies to sign a contract to not release the data, automatically delete it after pay, or whatever they think of to make customers happier.

The privacy concern is more worrying with the government because they control other powerful services and governments in general don't have a good record of not using data like this to their advantage. I'm not worried about these private companies.


How security and courts would be handled also get interesting. Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio, suggested that a true Rothcap society might have $10,000 rewards for reporting unregistered firearms to the local 'private defense organisations'.

I wouldn't think so, but I guess it's possible. Once again though, why does that really matter? I could pay people $10,000 right now to try to get information like that.


There are also huge philosophical splits over base assumptions that are called axioms but are really not.

There is a lot more to liberty than the rothcaps extremely narrow definition of the NAP.

I'm not aware of any "huge philosophical splits." There are some splits, but not really any over major axioms. Generally it is more how those axioms are applied.

The problem with their being "a lot more to liberty" is that at some point, when it goes out of the range of these "axioms," it will have to invade on someone else's property rights. In essence then, some people will have more "liberty" than others.

[gwax23]

I've been said to hold beliefs very close to anarchism. So, by green's measure, I guess that means I have an IQ in the 130s or so while he is a full-blown genius. I don't believe there should even be a police force. Taxes should be voluntary. All that said, I recognize the fact that an anarchist society will never be sustained. In fact, if it ever were to happen, it may give rise to an even more oppressive state because of the complete lack of institutionalized resistance. A minarchist society may not be sustainable, but neither is anarchy, so what, really, is the advantage here? The fact that we've had some pretty minarchist governments in the past lends credence to their existence. There are no examples of anarchy except in really small, underdeveloped populations so the whole idea is fictional to begin with. I'm sure government has existed less in smaller populations, as many have pointed out, but it can never exist in a society as developed and crowded as ours. It would be nice, sure. I don't think anyone would disagree that anarchy would be great if it were practical, but sadly, I don't think it is. I honestly don't have an ideal system of government except to always push for less of it. The only way for us to maintain such a system would be if the population was educated and upheld their duty to oppose oppression, which I see as being much more likely in a minarchist society than an anarchist one, since a power structure is already in place to resist the development of even greater power.

The problem with anarchists is that they fancy themselves superior to those who believe in government. The irony is not lost on me. An air of superiority is the beginning of all elite classes who oppress the people. What's more, they are not opposed to spreading disinformation and propaganda in support of their worldview, such as the erroneous claim that "Ron Paul is an anarchist" which can never be confirmed, so those making that claim are disingenuous at best. It's also an appeal to authority, so in conclusion, the mind of the anarchist utilizes the same emotional and pyschological processes in support of anarchism that a statist uses in support of statism. The only difference is that he fails to make the connection between his own behavior and the behavior of the elite class that would soon take power were the government to disappear overnight.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PaulConventionWV again.

[PaulConventionWV]

Sure, it hasn't worked in recent times; but it also hasn't been tried at all. I don't think anyone can deny that it is possible to be without a government for at least a day; so it certainly is possible to have anarchy, it just hasn't been tried. Hence, I don't think one can make a judgment that it wouldn't work purely based off historical evidence. Economically, it is sound. I see no reason then to support minarchism more than anarchism then.

I don't think one can make a blanket statement on all anarchists that we find ourselves "superior" to those who believe in a government. I certainly don't think that.

On Ron Paul, part of the problem is that he makes contradictory statements. On the one hand, he says that a completely voluntary society is the end goal, that he isn't one to disagree with Spooner, etc. On the other hand he says that he supports the Constitution, supports limited government, and other such things. Both "sides" claim Ron Paul as their own; until he directly says one way or the other in a longer format, I don't think it can really be said completely either way.

EDIT: Said "impossible" instead of "possible."

That's the point, though. It's never been tried. There's a reason for that, you know. It also means you need an extraordinary amount of evidence to account for the fact that there are absolutely no examples of it working.

A lot of people say their goal is a completely voluntary society. In fact, most people do. I do. It's a great goal, but whether it can happen is another issue. Also, don't discount the idea that government could be voluntary.

[PaulConventionWV]

The elite love your thought process.

I tells it like I sees it.

[PaulConventionWV]

500 years ago men believed they could not live without being ruled by a divine king.

Today men believe they cannot live without being ruled by a benevolent government.

Both groups are wrong.

I am a anarchist in the sense that I believe the only moral society is one which is voluntary.

Asking how you get there is not an adequate argument against anarchism, I could ask "how are we going to get from king to representative government", the argument against anarchism must include a moral explanation of the use coercion and force.

I don't see why asking how we're going to get there doesn't matter. Because until then, this is all hypothetical. There will always be government. Our job is to minimize its power by fighting fire with fire.

[PaulConventionWV]

Implementation of rothbardism always gets tricky. Nobody actually wants to try it in a failed state somewhere. The mostly just want to hold it up as an ideal in a stable state that might never actually get close to dissolving the local government.

So we are left only with thought experiments by proponents. Usually these proposed societies are pretty dystopian from a number of points of view, primarily privacy. While a lot of libertarians want to be left alone and to their own devices with right like travel unrestricted, the rothcap systems often include things like full privatization of roads, which in a modern world means minute tracking of all travel. Things like insurance blackboxes on vehicles are lionized.

How security and courts would be handled also get interesting. Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio, suggested that a true Rothcap society might have $10,000 rewards for reporting unregistered firearms to the local 'private defense organisations'.

There are also huge philosophical splits over base assumptions that are called axioms but are really not.

There is a lot more to liberty than the rothcaps extremely narrow definition of the NAP.

I knew there was something about Stefan Molyneux that stunk to high heaven. Now I know what it is. Not only is he a 'private statist', but he has no idea what the hell he's talking about. A $10,000 reward for unregistered firearms? HAHAHAHA!

[QueenB4Liberty]

Anarcho-capitalism is certainly a type of libertarianism, but its not the ONLY type. Even if you discount "Left" libertarians and "Fiscally conservative, socially liberal" libertarians (And I agree, they don't really count) you've still got anarcho-capitalism, minarchism, certain types of constitutionalism*, and classical liberalism.

*Constitutionalism is tricky because theoretically you could support near infinite government at the state level and still be a constitutionalist. In reality, however, most people who self-identify as being strict constructionists are at least libertarian leaning.

The bottom line for me is not precisely what philosophy you subscribe to, but that you are clearly and strongly opposed to the establishment. A classical liberal who is deeply opposed to the way things are and is willing to fight (Not necessarily with violence, although it theoretically could be, but certainly politically, philosophically, and educationally) against the system and expose it for the evil that it is is INFINITELY more useful than the ancap who really doesn't care and is willing to settle for things as they are.

I'm personally a minarchist, but anarchists, constitutionalists, and classical liberals are not my enemy. Leviathan is my enemy. That's the bottom line. Leviathan is the enemy of a libertarian.

Libertarianism is a form of statism. Anarcho-capitalists believe in no state. Although the libertarians are better than conservatives, they still believe in a state. And a statist is a statist. I don't believe anyone else has authority over me. I used to be a libertarian, until I thought about it hard enough. Being part of the government does NOT give you the authority to steal, rape, murder, etc. But yet the government thinks it has its own set of rules. An anarchist doesn't have to be led into by violence. If enough people stopped believing in the state, they'd either have to kill us all (which would be violent but it's not something we're asking for) or they'd have to back off. If 100 million people refused to pay taxes, what are they going to do?

[Reece]

That's the point, though. It's never been tried. There's a reason for that, you know. It also means you need an extraordinary amount of evidence to account for the fact that there are absolutely no examples of it working.

A lot of people say their goal is a completely voluntary society. In fact, most people do. I do. It's a great goal, but whether it can happen is another issue. Also, don't discount the idea that government could be voluntary.

It has never been tried in modern times in a complex society. The fact that it has never been tried in this small amount of time in only a select few places means very little, I would think. And there are "pockets" of anarchism even in modern society. Much of international trade, small trades (when the cost of bringing fraud to court are too high, the court would just throw it out, or there isn't any evidence of the fraud), and many transactions on the Internet are all examples of human interaction totally outside the range of the state. Total anachism would in a way just expand this and even make it easier, as the state could no longer stop property enforcement if it didn't exist.

If the government was voluntary it wouldn't fit under what I consider as a "government"; I would then have no problem with its existence.

[heavenlyboy34]

Being mean isn't helping your cost. Truth be told, anarcho-capitalism is complex as heck, it took me over a year to even be able to partially comprehend it, (And I STILL don't comprehend the David Friedman version, Rothbard's system is simpler since the law code is the same everywhere in a territorial area) while minarchism can be explained and justified in five minutes. If you aren't willing to explain the theory, I think you're wasting your time advocating it. especially since most people are MUCH more hostile to this than the minarchists you're dealing with on here.


I throw the insults too, I'm afraid, just not at the ancaps and the classical liberals and such. They are "On my team" as it were. But against a hardcore statist, I'm probably ten times that mean over the internet, and about half as mean in real life...
Explained, yes. Justified, no. That takes some real mental gymnastics which can (and has) filled many heavy tomes. The minarchists are to this day working almost entirely in the theoretical realm. Every time the theory is applied, it falls apart at some point. It's just too "dumb" (a technical term here rather than an insult, describing a theoretical model with a lack of comprehension of praxeology and reality as real people experience it) to work.

[idiom]

Explained, yes. Justified, no. That takes some real mental gymnastics which can (and has) filled many heavy tomes. The minarchists are to this day working almost entirely in the theoretical realm. Every time the theory is applied, it falls apart at some point. It's just too "dumb" (a technical term here rather than an insult, describing a theoretical model with a lack of comprehension of praxeology and reality as real people experience it) to work.

Whereas every time ancap theory has been applied...

[J_White]

funny but scary

[economics102]

Wow. This video is brilliant. Really impressed.


But he forgot the absolute worst case scenario: that the thugs would convince the peaceful residents to allow them to impose an income tax and manage their money supply.

I was actually expecting the worst case scenario to be that the gang convinces the people that they are ruling voluntarily because the people vote democratically to elect them. That is the biggest lie the state can tell: that democracy = non-coercion.

[heavenlyboy34]

Whereas every time ancap theory has been applied...
I'm not an ancap myself, but ancaps have produced lots of literature on historical practical applications. It's not my forte, but I've dabbled in it and found it interesting.

ETA: there are philosophies out there aside of minarchism and anarcho-capitalism, you know.

[Christian Liberty]

Explained, yes. Justified, no. That takes some real mental gymnastics which can (and has) filled many heavy tomes. The minarchists are to this day working almost entirely in the theoretical realm. Every time the theory is applied, it falls apart at some point. It's just too "dumb" (a technical term here rather than an insult, describing a theoretical model with a lack of comprehension of praxeology and reality as real people experience it) to work.

When talking to someone sufficiently intelligent, I have had this problem. One of my college-level teachers, a libertarian-leaning conservative, caught me in a bit of a logical contradiction when he asked me if I wanted to privatize the military.

Most people, admittedly including myself, struggle to figure out how a stateless society can work.

The bottom line is ANY kind of freedom being sustained requires vigilance and sufficient support. The difference is that in minarchism, a freedom-loving, active minority can stop everyone else from infringing on their freedom if they can set the system up. Anarcho-capitalism, there will ALWAYS be "Legitimate" "Defense organizations" violating people's rights.

What philosophy do you subscribe to, and how does it work?

[idiom]

On the theory that there will always be a bigger bully, the minarchists want to be the bully, and as small a bully as possible.

The left generally wants to be the bully and with a lot of power because they would use the bully's power for good.

The An-caps want the bully to work for the highest bidder, on the basis that the market will create a lot of bullies with varying amounts of power and good behavior that will hopefully keep an eye on each other. The nice part is you are not forced to bid for any particular bully.

The fascists want to be the bully because they were born to it.

[AGRP]

What's wrong with TraditionalConservative?

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcw4ov7sIU1rrzoiu.gif

[heavenlyboy34]

When talking to someone sufficiently intelligent, I have had this problem. One of my college-level teachers, a libertarian-leaning conservative, caught me in a bit of a logical contradiction when he asked me if I wanted to privatize the military.

Most people, admittedly including myself, struggle to figure out how a stateless society can work.

The bottom line is ANY kind of freedom being sustained requires vigilance and sufficient support. The difference is that in minarchism, a freedom-loving, active minority can stop everyone else from infringing on their freedom if they can set the system up. Anarcho-capitalism, there will ALWAYS be "Legitimate" "Defense organizations" violating people's rights.

What philosophy do you subscribe to, and how does it work?
I don't have a name for my philosophy yet. It's a combination of my own ideas and the most liberty-friendly ideas I've found in the literary canon. If "Voluntaryism" hadn't already been taken and thoroughly defined, I would use that term. I maintain that no man can force another into a government (legitimately). All individuals are self-owning and have the right to make agreements with others and/or their respective governments as desired. The notion that a person is a legal "citizen" of some place upon birth constitutes a claim of State ownership (aka slavery) of people. This is the doctrine of secession outlined in the Declaration of Independence taken to the logical conclusion.

I accept Mises' doctrines of Microsecession and individual nullification as legitimate natural rights (they simply aren't recognized by any State in the world yet).

Obviously this isn't my complete manifesto. If you have any questions about this that need clarification, I'll field them ASAP.

[AGRP]

Is there any particular reason it "Means a lot" (I assume you're being sarcastic)? I haven't been here long enough to know what this means...
You know a lot for a two month noob to assume that was sarcasm and to have a clue of where LE stands on issues. Run out of older accounts? How many do you have?

[Christian Liberty]

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcw4ov7sIU1rrzoiu.gif

Well, you could be an idiot and just laugh at me in spite of my obviously not having been around for very long, or you could answer the doggone question. Why do you choose to be an idiot?

[Christian Liberty]

I don't have a name for my philosophy yet. It's a combination of my own ideas and the most liberty-friendly ideas I've found in the literary canon. If "Voluntaryism" hadn't already been taken and thoroughly defined, I would use that term. I maintain that no man can force another into a government (legitimately). All individuals are self-owning and have the right to make agreements with others and/or their respective governments as desired. The notion that a person is a legal "citizen" of some place upon birth constitutes a claim of State ownership (aka slavery) of people. This is the doctrine of secession outlined in the Declaration of Independence taken to the logical conclusion.

I accept Mises' doctrines of Microsecession and individual nullification as legitimate natural rights (they simply aren't recognized by any State in the world yet).

Obviously this isn't my complete manifesto. If you have any questions about this that need clarification, I'll field them ASAP.

I'm not sure what the difference between that philosophy and anarcho-capitalism are, although that may just be because I don't completely understand anarcho-capitalism. What do you disagree with the ancaps on? What do you disagree with minarchists on?

[AGRP]

Well, you could be an idiot and just laugh at me in spite of my obviously not having been around for very long, or you could answer the doggone question. Why do you choose to be an idiot?

Hows itshappening doing these days?

[idiom]

Can you ever imprison or detain someone? Can someone sell themselves? If you believe that the rights to ones person are unalienable then neither of these are possible. All punitive measures for transgression of rights must be external to the person being punished as they can never rightfully be punished in person, as they cna never give up full rights to their person through any action.

Other An-cap writers believe that both prisons and slavery are permit-able within the restrictions of the An-cap version of the NAP.

The An-CAP NAP is very very picky about how it defines property and aggression. Because define author define these so narrowly and differently there is quite a lot of room for kerfuffles in the an-cap tent.

Some sins of omission are aggression, others are not. Some things you creative and put physical effort into are property, some are not.

This is largely due to actually having a tonne of cultural assumptions embedded in the rothbardian 'axioms'. In fact, one of the first requirements in establishing any an-cap enclave is usually cited as having an appropriate mid-western christian ethic in all participants.

[Weston White]

Hard to say when the tipping point was. Sometime after enough intelligent people (those who can reason) got turned onto it.

Anarco-capitalism is the polar extreme of state-capitalism; neither of which are bona fide laissez-faire systems. The breakdown in anarco-capitalist theory is the utter lack of criminal justice as a corrective measure to its own perception of what are to be (or become) “free-markets”. Wherein companies such as for example, Bayer, Blackwater/Xe, Monsanto, Wackenhut, Walmart, vaccine providers, etc. are enabled to possess an inherent rein and domineer over other vastly more legitimate companies—just as they do within our presently enforce-though-corruption state-capitalist system. Within both systems alike, companies such as Becton, Dickinson and Company, Whole Foods, the mom-and-pop’, etc., are left by the wayside. Meanwhile, Big-Med, Big-Pharma, Big-Tech, and Big-Box evolve into a government all to their own making. Meanwhile it is they that are left all on their own to either make or break entire nations.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm not sure what the difference between that philosophy and anarcho-capitalism are, although that may just be because I don't completely understand anarcho-capitalism. What do you disagree with the ancaps on? What do you disagree with minarchists on?
They both tend to be dogmatic and naive, sometimes to extreme degrees (like most constitutionalists I've encountered). Neither really respects the other's right to be stupid. In the "Voluntaryist" paradyme I envision, micro-secession would allow people to resolve conflicts without having to resort to violence, oppression, etc.

[Barrex]

Great video. All of those who read "Theories of creation of states" (mobile aggressive cattle dudes and peaceful hardworking farmers; Kain/Abel) should know how it will end by fifth minute of video how it will end.


For those who live outside The Great Wall of USA Internet Privacy (blocked in my country):

http://www.youtubeunblocker.org/permalink.php?url=xIQ0pQ5KYfPxWSu2MueIUEqG6h4V1AQY 88f71wGygrVgIn7Pm4c4I1wcjIoCeu6O%2BcOSIstTV%2FrY7O yBR%2BoqJQ%3D%3D
(http://www.youtubeunblocker.org/permalink.php?url=xIQ0pQ5KYfPxWSu2MueIUEqG6h4V1AQY 88f71wGygrVgIn7Pm4c4I1wcjIoCeu6O%2BcOSIstTV%2FrY7O yBR%2BoqJQ%3D%3D)

[mczerone]

They both tend to be dogmatic and naive, sometimes to extreme degrees (like most constitutionalists I've encountered). Neither really respects the other's right to be stupid. In the "Voluntaryist" paradyme I envision, micro-secession would allow people to resolve conflicts without having to resort to violence, oppression, etc.

I think you're disagreeing with either or both of the personalities of voluntarists or a straw-man of their philosophy.

Voluntarists say the same thing about "micro-secession."

When they give a "the world might look like X" their personalities come out, and they might have a different vision than you with how things would work - but that doesn't mean you disagree with them about the primacy of the individual to choose their own governing system via secession. This might also be why you disagree with a "straw man" - you're not disagreeing with the actual philosophy, you're disagreeing with what you (incorrectly) see as the consequences of the theory.

[SkepticalMetal]

They both tend to be dogmatic and naive, sometimes to extreme degrees (like most constitutionalists I've encountered). Neither really respects the other's right to be stupid. In the "Voluntaryist" paradyme I envision, micro-secession would allow people to resolve conflicts without having to resort to violence, oppression, etc.
Sorry, but could you be a little clearer on what you think about anarcho-capitalism? I'm not sure what you're saying here.

[Christian Liberty]

Hows itshappening doing these days?

I honestly couldn't tell you. I don't have a freaking clue.


They both tend to be dogmatic and naive, sometimes to extreme degrees (like most constitutionalists I've encountered). Neither really respects the other's right to be stupid. In the "Voluntaryist" paradyme I envision, micro-secession would allow people to resolve conflicts without having to resort to violence, oppression, etc.

Fair enough.