Should Libertarians support anarcho-capitalism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uncharted

What is your stance?

---

What do you think the real differences are ?

I could coalesce with the AC's on many/most issues. That is, I have much more in common with an Anarcho-Capitalist than I do a socialist...

Now, although I consider myself a libertarian, I cant say I speak for all libertarians. There are some so called libertarians who support the likes of trump... That's the problem with labels, and I suppose libertarians in general. In 10 years I may be falling in line with Rothbard, Jeffrey Tucker or perhaps even David Friedman (depending how crotchety I get).

I would give r3volution 3.0 some +rep but the RPF system says I have to spread some more +rep around before giving to that user again.

Anyway, I agree w/ Peter Schiff when he says he doesn't support anarcho-capitalism, but believes it would be better than what we have now.

You should support whatever you want. If you understand what rights are, and believe that you have them, then it is not possible to support a non-voluntary state. If you don't believe that you have rights, then you can decide which type of chains fit you the best.

Ethno-nationalism is when the nation is based upon an ethnicity/race. This is the entire history of Europe. Starting with Ancient Greece, to the Roman Empire, to all modern day nations in Europe. They are all based on race.

Of course the individuals rights can be protected. And if the government does something you don't like, you are free to leave. The nation being all one race (or largely one race) naturally forms a culture and tradition.

You can't take this libertarian ideology to the max and say anarcho-capitalism is the only 'official way' to organize society. Humans are social beings. We want to be in a group, and need to be in a group. People want some form of collective effort to be made to accomplish something important. If all governments around the world collapsed, people would naturally form into groups based on race. Why? Because race is the foundation of culture. People of the same race share a common heritage and its natural for them to get along with each other better than in a multi-racial society.

Ethno-Nationalism managed along libertarian principles. The purpose of the nation is to defend the race. So national defense would be socialized, and maybe 1 other major area, perhaps energy or something critical like that. Everything else is managed by the free market based on a gold standard. This is how America was formed, as a nation based on race along libertarian principles. It was created to be a Northern European outpost (British, Dutch, German, and Sweden/Norway). Than the bill of rights protects our civil liberties, and we had the free market, and a large country with lots of natural resources. This is why America was a great nation. We have been going downhill since after WW2.

Its not libertarianism by itself. Its the fusion of libertarianism, with racial nationalism. Race is the starting point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Impartial_Truth

Ethno-nationalism is when the nation is based upon an ethnicity/race. This is the entire history of Europe. Starting with Ancient Greece, to the Roman Empire, to all modern day nations in Europe. They are all based on race.

Of course the individuals rights can be protected. And if the government does something you don't like, you are free to leave. The nation being all one race (or largely one race) naturally forms a culture and tradition.

You can't take this libertarian ideology to the max and say anarcho-capitalism is the only 'official way' to organize society. Humans are social beings. We want to be in a group, and need to be in a group. People want some form of collective effort to be made to accomplish something important. If all governments around the world collapsed, people would naturally form into groups based on race. Why? Because race is the foundation of culture. People of the same race share a common heritage and its natural for them to get along with each other better than in a multi-racial society.

Ethno-Nationalism managed along libertarian principles. The purpose of the nation is to defend the race. So national defense would be socialized, and maybe 1 other major area, perhaps energy or something critical like that. Everything else is managed by the free market based on a gold standard. This is how America was formed, as a nation based on race along libertarian principles. It was created to be a Northern European outpost (British, Dutch, German, and Sweden/Norway). Than the bill of rights protects our civil liberties, and we had the free market, and a large country with lots of natural resources. This is why America was a great nation. We have been going downhill since after WW2.

Its not libertarianism by itself. Its the fusion of libertarianism, with racial nationalism. Race is the starting point.

---

Culture is the starting point, race is a coincidental factor, those of the same race usually had the same culture or at least close to the same culture.

If you study your history in depth you will find that there are many cases of members of different races assimilating into a common culture and creating their own nation together, eventually they usually interbred and created a new race or sub-race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Impartial_Truth

Ethno-nationalism is when the nation is based upon an ethnicity/race. This is the entire history of Europe. Starting with Ancient Greece, to the Roman Empire, to all modern day nations in Europe. They are all based on race.

Of course the individuals rights can be protected. And if the government does something you don't like, you are free to leave. The nation being all one race (or largely one race) naturally forms a culture and tradition.

You can't take this libertarian ideology to the max and say anarcho-capitalism is the only 'official way' to organize society. Humans are social beings. We want to be in a group, and need to be in a group. People want some form of collective effort to be made to accomplish something important. If all governments around the world collapsed, people would naturally form into groups based on race. Why? Because race is the foundation of culture. People of the same race share a common heritage and its natural for them to get along with each other better than in a multi-racial society.

Ethno-Nationalism managed along libertarian principles. The purpose of the nation is to defend the race. So national defense would be socialized, and maybe 1 other major area, perhaps energy or something critical like that. Everything else is managed by the free market based on a gold standard. This is how America was formed, as a nation based on race along libertarian principles. It was created to be a Northern European outpost (British, Dutch, German, and Sweden/Norway). Than the bill of rights protects our civil liberties, and we had the free market, and a large country with lots of natural resources. This is why America was a great nation. We have been going downhill since after WW2.

Its not libertarianism by itself. Its the fusion of libertarianism, with racial nationalism. Race is the starting point.

---

Well, the minute one is separated according to his race, you've contradicted the concept of Individualism in whole. Which is anti-moral.

In terms of your latter points, Libertarianism does actually permit for voluntary socialism if you reject the use of force. The problem with that is that the socialist knows that his system is going to fail so he comes and takes your property at gunpoint in order to support his socialist program. If you try to opt out, he'll come to you at gunpoint. A socialist will never endorse the idea that you have your Individual Liberty and that you can take care of yourself without asking anyone else for anything. Never.

Anarcho-capitalism, while it's a good idea if you reject the use of force, contradicts itself because it relies on the use of force in order to support itself. Which is patently unlibertarian.

Now, then. You've mentioned American history. Read this. Read all of it. It'll help you along in better understanding American history. - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...can-Principles

Culture only comes from an intelligent, creative race. Race is biology. Culture is a byproduct of people who have the intellectual and creative racial elements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Impartial_Truth

Culture only comes from an intelligent, creative race. Race is biology. Culture is a byproduct of people who have the intellectual and creative racial elements.

---

All races have the potential for good culture or bad culture, we don't want to import hordes of western European communists any more than any other losers from the rest of the globe.

I think that the biggest problem by far today is that when self-defined libertarians talk about libertarianism, they always remove its foundation for moral code and try to run with its principles alone. You can't do that. Individual Liberty's principles are to be accepted or rejected Indivisibly with its foundation for moral code. Reason being is that if you separate them, then you remove one's right of claim to Liberty's benefits fully.

This is basic. But it's something that has become lost with the youth and rejected by the opportunistic.

So we could substitute an Australian Aborigines for Prince Harry of England without any major change?

There are major differences in intelligence and levels of culture among the races.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Impartial_Truth

So we could substitute an Australian Aborigines for Prince Harry of England without any major change?

---

No. We mind our own business.

Quote:

---

There are major differences in intelligence and levels of culture among the races.

---

Some of the most undereducated, most reckless, people I've ever talked with are white. In fact, if you look at the global education stats, America is around third from the bottom. Not that America is wholly white, but you get the idea.

In our case, the public education system is a failure. To that extent we need to separate education and state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Impartial_Truth

So we could substitute an Australian Aborigines for Prince Harry of England without any major change?

There are major differences in intelligence and levels of culture among the races.

---

Do they have the same culture?

Don't ask stupid questions.

If you found a good Australian Aborigine with a Christian liberty culture he might be an improvement over the slimy Brit Royals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Natural Citizen

I think that the biggest problem by far today is that when self-defined libertarians talk about libertarianism, they always remove it's foundation for moral code and try to run with its principles alone. You can't do that. Individual Liberty's principles are to be accepted or rejected Indivisibly with its foundation for moral code. Reason being is that if you separate them, then you remove one's right of claim to Liberty's benefits fully.

This is basic. But it's something that has become lost with the youth and rejected by the opportunistic.

---

Ya, true. If secular libertarians want to develop a moral code they should check into something better thought out like Ethics Of Liberty (though I have some serious qualms with this book).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Impartial_Truth

Starting with Ancient Greece, to the Roman Empire, to all modern day nations in Europe. They are all based on race.

---

That isn't close to true. If you define "race" so broadly that all whites are one race, then European nations are all one race, so not based on race. If you define it as ethnicity, then England, for most of a thousand years, was a mix of Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Normans, and Norsemen. France was a mix of Bretons, Norse descended Normans, Franks, ... .

The Roman Empire included Italians, Gauls, Berbers, Jews, ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidFriedman

That isn't close to true. If you define "race" so broadly that all whites are one race, then European nations are all one race, so not based on race. If you define it as ethnicity, then England, for most of a thousand years, was a mix of Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Normans, and Norsemen. France was a mix of Bretons, Norse descended Normans, Franks, ... .

The Roman Empire included Italians, Gauls, Berbers, Jews, ...

---

You will find a lot of false things and just plain opinions stated as facts around here these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Origanalist

You will find a lot of false things and just plain opinions stated as facts around here these days.

---

government schools.

This is my issue with Anarcho-Capitalism.

Let's say the US becomes Anarcho-Capitalist. What is going to stop Russia from taking Alaska, China from taking our Pacific Islands, or Mexico reclaiming Texas?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth

No it is quite possible, we used to have less, if you don't think we can achieve less government I am not sure why you are here.

---

The USA has never had less government. Don't believe me, just ask this guy:

https://ametia.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/whipping.jpg

A slave state can be nothing less than a militaristic tyrannical state as it holds millions in forced servitude and seizes their life, liberty, and property at will while justifying beating, torturing, stealing, and even killing those who demand their basic human liberties or who dare to stand up for themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidFriedman

That isn't close to true. If you define "race" so broadly that all whites are one race, then European nations are all one race, so not based on race. If you define it as ethnicity, then England, for most of a thousand years, was a mix of Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Normans, and Norsemen. France was a mix of Bretons, Norse descended Normans, Franks, ... .

The Roman Empire included Italians, Gauls, Berbers, Jews, ...

---

Blacks, Africans, Asians in the form of Arabs, Persians, and a host of other Middle Eastern people, even the odd East Asian Chinese.

The fact is that Rome was incredibly multicultural and for the most part Rome allowed for a wide variety of cultures and practices in the Empire. As long as you paid your taxes and didn't start an armed rebellion the Empire was content to let you marry, worship, and do whatever you wanted.

That Rome's "barbarians" were the Germans so lauded by white nationalists just "spreading their culture" is of course ignored too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru

This is my issue with Anarcho-Capitalism.

Let's say the US becomes Anarcho-Capitalist. What is going to stop Russia from taking Alaska, China from taking our Pacific Islands, or Mexico reclaiming Texas?

---

You're asking the wrong questions. In anarcho-capitalism there would be no USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uncharted

What is your stance?

---

LIbertarianism is a voluntaryist belief as it denies the right of any group, including the government, to initiate violence and force their will on others. This means that while not anarchist, libertarianism certainly allows for anarchy to exist. And vice versa, in an anarchist society you have the freedom to be libertarians. So in a certain sense, whether you support anarcho-capitalism or not is irrelevant for a libertarian. The question is do libertarians believe that people should be free to be ancaps. And the answer to that is yes.

This of course is not true of any Statist philosophy, including minarchy. As statists believe they have the right to initiate violence against peaceful people in order to force them to do something against their will or have their property taken, liberty violated, and possibly even their life ended. Statism of all stripes is founded on compulsion and bloodshed. And if you refuse to acknowledge the rule of the State then it is your blood that is shed. That isn't liberty and Statism isn't going to acknowledge your liberty. It exists to violate it, its existence is a violation of your liberty.

So the real question is if at the end of the day libertarians can support minarchy because libertarians envision a much freer people than any statist philosophy will ever allow for.

An-cap is what you get when you make a gross error on the nature of property rights, and build a religion on top of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PierzStyx

You're asking the wrong questions. In anarcho-capitalism there would be no USA.

---

Yes, but if the US dissolves the other countries will still exist, with organized military forces, and have nothing but local militias to deal with in the former US lands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thoughtomator

An-cap is what you get when you make a gross error on the nature of property rights, and build a religion on top of that.

---

I seem to recall you being an anarcho-capitalist, though... :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru

This is my issue with Anarcho-Capitalism.

Let's say the US becomes Anarcho-Capitalist. What is going to stop Russia from taking Alaska, China from taking our Pacific Islands, or Mexico reclaiming Texas?

---

The people in Texas would fuck up any military that tried to occupy the state. As for the others, who knows? How do you know those things would happen anyway? How do you know that people from neighboring states wouldn't volunteer to fight for the people in those places?

Do these invasions happen before the market had time to set up defense services for those people? If not, then I would definitely side with for profit defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PierzStyx

The USA has never had less government. Don't believe me, just ask this guy:

https://ametia.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/whipping.jpg

A slave state can be nothing less than a militaristic tyrannical state as it holds millions in forced servitude and seizes their life, liberty, and property at will while justifying beating, torturing, stealing, and even killing those who demand their basic human liberties or who dare to stand up for themselves.

---

Ask that guy's relatives if they would rather live like animals in Africa or live in civilization. For all the whining, I suspect 100% will choose America when it is all said and done.

Slavery ended in 1865 and two-thirds of the population lived in states without slaves before then. The United States is the most successful experiment in human history. It is not a slave state. The United States invented freedom. Slavery was a short term aberration that occurred for political reasons. Civilization did not exist in human history until the United States was founded. People lived short brutal lives before the founding of the United States. The average lifespan was 35 in 1776. The countries that are successful today basically copied the US. The ones that don't copy the US live like it is 1776 still.

If you want a picture of where people actually are tortured and killed- not pretend torture like being taxed at 15%- all you have to do is look at anarchist Somalia. I won't even post a picture of a starving Somalian because of how graphic it is. Anarchy is the moral equivalent to Marxism. It is the absence of freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krugminator2

Ask that guy's relatives if they would rather live like animals in Africa or live in civilization. For all the whining, I suspect 100% will choose America when it is all said and done.

Slavery ended in 1865 and two-thirds of the population lived in states without slaves before then. The United States is the most successful experiment in human history. It is not a slave state. The United States invented freedom. Slavery was a short term aberration that occurred for political reasons. Civilization did not exist in human history until the United States was founded. People lived short brutal lives before the founding of the United States. The average lifespan was 35 in 1776. The countries that are successful today basically copied the US. The ones that don't copy the US live like it is 1776 still.

If you want a picture of where people actually are tortured and killed- not pretend torture like being taxed at 15%- all you have to do is look at anarchist Somalia. I won't even post a picture of a starving Somalian because of how graphic it is. Anarchy is the moral equivalent to Marxism. It is the absence of freedom.

---

Was that supposed to be satire? I can't tell around here anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krugminator2

Ask that guy's relatives if they would rather live like animals in Africa or live in civilization. For all the whining, I suspect 100% will choose America when it is all said and done.

Slavery ended in 1865 and two-thirds of the population lived in states without slaves before then. The United States is the most successful experiment in human history. It is not a slave state. The United States invented freedom. Slavery was a short term aberration that occurred for political reasons. Civilization did not exist in human history until the United States was founded. People lived short brutal lives before the founding of the United States. The average lifespan was 35 in 1776. The countries that are successful today basically copied the US. The ones that don't copy the US live like it is 1776 still.

If you want a picture of where people actually are tortured and killed- not pretend torture like being taxed at 15%- all you have to do is look at anarchist Somalia. I won't even post a picture of a starving Somalian because of how graphic it is. Anarchy is the moral equivalent to Marxism. It is the absence of freedom.

---

You demonstrate yet again that the best arguments statists can come up against anarchism are strawmen. Thanks for this dazzling virtuoso display of ignorance, tho. :) ~hugs~

Since you're almost new, you should know we've done the Somalia debate/discussion thing a bunch of times. You aren't impressing anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34

You demonstrate yet again that the best arguments statists can come up against anarchism are strawmen. Thanks for this dazzling virtuoso display of ignorance, tho. :) ~hugs~

Since you're almost new, you should know we've done the Somalia debate/discussion thing a bunch of times. You aren't impressing anyone.

---

You've not settled it. Much smarter people than you think it is an insane idea. In fact, no one can demonstrate how it will work.

FA Hayek thought it idiotic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3hSA35ygeo

Here is what Mises thought about Rothbard's anarchism from someone who sat in Mises' seminar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWfrsXQgEtc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ayn Rand

Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.

---

Just reading the comments on this site about how people here would shoot different people who have wronged them shows why anarchy is an awful idea. You need a monopoly on force to set objective rules of the game and someone to enforce those rules objectively as possible.