Cabal

Originally Posted by Cabal

Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465

I read Cabal's posts. He is logical and reasonable which many lack. I am skeptical of anarchism in that I know the way of men. I've seen enough that I think it would take, or need, some doing to philosophically or ideologically change the mindsets of people. That said consistently I agree with the philosophy. It is mainly minor instances of my own lack of understanding of what they'd propose as solutions. Pot shots from the trees and the sheer economics of providing for an invading force would no doubt challenge a nation to consider invading here. But that said I could see instances of where a defensive force need be ready. At the moment a more strictly defined Constitution and a diligence in upholding rights not seen in any previous American generation is where I feel comfortable advocating. After that we can argue about what is necessary and what are the alternatives.

I'm not well versed in how everything would, or imaginative enough to see how it could work out.

That's the problem with getting bogged down by the question of solutions. The truth is no one can know with any certainty how things can or will unfold. No one can know with any certainty what problems will arise, or what solutions will be used to respond to these problems. We can speculate, and hypothesize, sure... but at the end of the day that's just an intellectual exercise.

You're absolutely right--there are far too many considerations to factor in to really make any kind of accurate prediction about things in the absence of a State. We can't really look to history as much of an indicator either. And while there has been much discourse over the years on a number of topics, ranging from abortion, to roads, to dispute resolution, to insurance, to defense, to security, and so on, I can understand how these sort of issues can seem to be a practical problem for some. I used to be the same way. I used to think that we need definitive solutions and answers to all of the problems that may arise, but over the years I've come to realize it doesn't matter.

As mentioned above here, and touched on in a previous post, there's so many far reaching factors to consider, that we can't even begin to imagine what will even be a problem that needs solving, let alone how many potential new solutions there may be waiting to answer those problems that we can't even fathom right now.

As libertarians, or minarchists, or constitutionalists, or whatever, we all generally understand that the free market is really very capable and efficient at satisfying demand in the best ways we've seen yet. So, if that is truly the case, then it should follow that in the absence of the State, the free market--much freer than any market we've ever encountered--will most certainly be that much more equipped to come up with solutions to all kinds of problems that may arise. In which case, we needn't be too concerned with conjuring up imaginary problems, or solutions to them. If the problem is significant enough, it stands to reason there will be adequate demand for a solution to that problem. If there is adequate demand for a solution to a given problem, the free market will endeavor to satisfy that demand, and in all likelihood, the free market will find a number of different approaches to solving the same problem. That's what the free market does--people compete with each other to find the best, most desirable, most valued, most efficient ways of satisfying demand, and solving problems. So, why would it work any differently in the absence of all the State's interferences? It should work better than we've ever seen it work before, if we are correct.

Another point, of course, is the morality of it all. Problems, solutions... okay, sure. But the State is still a morally bankrupt, brutal, parasitic monstrosity no matter how many hypotheticals we can conjure up. And there is really no reason to believe that this truth will ever change. It's the proverbial nature of the beast. When you centralize a monopoly on the use of violence, you have yourself a State, and the State will always behave like the State. So, then it becomes a question of is liberty so frightening that the State could ever be regarded as the better alternative? This is a question we all have to ask ourselves individually. But I would submit that if there is even a small possibility that we can live without the State, it's sure as hell worth a shot

I'll never forget the way I heard Stefan put it in one of his discussions. He compared the abolition of statism to the abolition of slavery, and he said something to the effect of, our goal is to see that the slaves are freed, we can worry about what happens next afterward. Of course, you are again correct in saying that before any of this can happen there will need to be an intellectual revolution--another Enlightenment era, if you will. The only problem is, the longer people continue to bet on statism, the more delayed that enlightenment is. But make no mistake, it is an inevitability. Because when you think about it, and if you are honest with yourself, you understand that statism will eventually be seen as primitive and barbaric by the standards of future societies, just as present society looks back on god-kings as primitive and barbaric.

Source: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...79#post5231979