Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 147

Thread: Help me understand anarcho-capitalism...

  1. #1

    Default Help me understand anarcho-capitalism...

    I see that there is a very vocal ancap constituency here on RPF. Some have said that is the logical conclusion for libertarians... I don't really understand the reasoning behind that. Could someone try to explain it for me?
    http://www.iycki.org

    Pro-life conservative Constitutionalist libertarian.


    I stand with Rand.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    Voluntary exchange

  4. #3

    Default

    Libertarians do not believe in the initiation of force. This means any tax at all is immoral. This should result in a stateless, voluntaryist society, aka "anarcho capitalism".

    I consider myself an anarcho capitalist.

  5. #4

  6. #5

    Default

    Libertarians generally admit that the State is inefficient, immoral, easily corruptible, destructive, distortive, encouraging moral hazard, parasitic, and a whole host of general nastiness. It can't do anything right, basically - without $#@!ing $#@! up further, if it didn't cause the root of the problem in the first place.

    Yet for some reason, while acknowledging these things as all true, many libertarians, minarchists, etc - tend to believe that we must grant a legal monopoly to the State over at least the most important aspects of society - law, courts/arbitration, police, and defense.

    That's a place to start to see the clear logical disconnect.

    Personally - I call it the Stockholm Syndrome to the State.

    My recommendation? Read some Rothbard.

    'For a New Liberty', 'The Ethics of Liberty' both by Murray Rothbard.
    "If men are good, then they need no rulers. If men are bad, then governments of men, composed of men, will also be bad - and probably worse, due to the State's amplification of coercive power." - Ozarkia

    "Big Brother is watching. So are we." - WikiLeaks

    Laissez-nous faire, laissez-nous passer. Le monde va de lui meme.

  7. #6

    Default

    This. Government programs- even if voted in by majority, is financed by taxation...even the taxation of those who oppose said programs. Majoritism is just the exploitation of the minority. Precisely what TRUE Americanism opposes.

    Quote Originally Posted by shemdogg View Post
    Voluntary exchange

  8. #7

    Default

    Another good book on anarcho capitalism is "The Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman.
    Last edited by IDefendThePlatform; 04-03-2011 at 08:46 PM.

  9. #8

    Default

    There are many logical paths to anarcho-capitalism. One is this: If you believe in the right of secession at any level (e.g., colonies seceding from the British empire), then you have to ask how small of a group can morally justify secession. You will inevitably come to the conclusion that the answer is 1, at which point you are essentially an anarchist.

  10. #9

    Default

    I made video, Anarcho-Capitalism 101... as seen below

    Alex Merced - A Champion of Freedom
    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    HAYEKFORUMS.COM
    - Economics and Philosophy Discussion and Debate


    ALEXMERCEDFORUMS.COM
    - Libertarian Community and Discussion


    Donate to Help Alex Merced promote Liberty Full Time


    FACEBOOK PAGES YOU SHOULD LIKE

  11. #10

    Default

    People here generally don't do a very good or thorough job explaining the philosophy, partly because it takes a long time. I'm reading "For a New Liberty" right now, and things are starting to make much more sense.
    "It is not enough these days to simply question authority. You must speak with it, too."
    -Taylor Mali


    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."
    -Samuel Adams

  12. #11

    Default

    The argument goes something like this:

    If I own my life, and I own my labor, and I own the fruits of my labor, that means no one can morally or legitimately take these away from me without my consent. This includes my body and my property and the money given to me for work. If an individual or group of individuals uses aggressive force, threat of aggressive force, or fraud to get me to give these things up, it is not consensual, and therefore not legitimate. If all this is true, it follows that involuntary government is illegitimate, immoral, and unacceptable.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

    The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, or the anti-coercion or zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense.
    Last edited by nayjevin; 04-03-2011 at 09:01 PM.
    I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.

  13. #12

    Default

    I'm going to play devil's advocate.

    Quote Originally Posted by IDefendThePlatform View Post
    Libertarians do not believe in the initiation of force. This means any tax at all is immoral. This should result in a stateless, voluntaryist society, aka "anarcho capitalism".
    Why is the part in bold true? I agree that taxation is immoral, but what if the government is funded voluntarily? For example, a government that is very small and funds itself by charging a fee for enforcing contracts. In that situation you don't have taxation and don't have anarcho-capitalism either, so it seems to me that having no taxes doesn't mean the society is ancap.
    Last edited by low preference guy; 04-03-2011 at 09:08 PM.

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rp08orbust View Post
    If you believe in the right of secession at any level (e.g., colonies seceding from the British empire), then you have to ask how small of a group can morally justify secession.
    I don't get how saying there is a right to secession implies that one is an anarchist. I could believe I have a right to secession but decide to never use it.

  15. #14

    Default

    I have no problem with individuals voluntarily funding an organization

    I havE a problem when that organization calls itself a government and tries to exert some authority over me

  16. #15

    Default

    The idea is that if government action is inherently coercive, then we should eliminate government action. Actors on the free market would then create alternatives to respond to the withdrawal of government action to provide services and order.

    I think Robert Nozick's work on the subject undermines this concept. He argues that private actors (like mobs for example) will become de facto governments lacking an overarching superstructure to restrain the violence these institutions could precipitate.
    Interested in politics? Check out Red Racing Horses for daily updates on electoral politics, redistricting, and the presidential campaigns.

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by low preference guy View Post
    I'm going to play devil's advocate.



    Why is the part in bold true? I agree that taxation is immoral, but what if the government is funded voluntarily? For example, a government that is very small and funds itself by charging a fee for enforcing contracts. In that situation you don't have taxation and don't have anarcho-capitalism either, so it seems to me that having no taxes doesn't mean the society is ancap.
    Do I have the option of going to a different company/government for enforcement of the contract or is this imposed on everyone in the country? If I have the option, then this is anarcho capitalism and this "government" is just another company in the business of enforcing contracts. If this government claims to have a monopoly on contract enforcement, and threatens to jail anyone who uses other means to enforce contracts, then that is the initiation of force, and would violate both libertarian philosophy and anarcho capitalism.

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IDefendThePlatform View Post
    Do I have the option of going to a different company/government for enforcement of the contract or is this imposed on everyone in the country? If I have the option, then this is anarcho capitalism and this "government" is just another company in the business of enforcing contracts. If this government claims to have a monopoly on contract enforcement, and threatens to jail anyone who uses other means to enforce contracts, then that is the initiation of force, and would violate both libertarian philosophy and anarcho capitalism.
    I was taking just the issue of whether a lack of taxes implies that the society is ancap. I don't get how your post refutes my objection.

  19. #18

    Default

    Anacap philosophy falls down when it ignores the fact that a corporate entity can be just as tyrannical as government, especially when it achieves a monopoly.

    Don't believe me?

    Read up on the corporate goon squads in Detroit or in the hills of West Virginia during the 20s and 30s.

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by low preference guy View Post
    I was taking just the issue of whether a lack of taxes implies that the society is ancap. I don't get how your post refutes my objection.
    Its the lack of initiation of force that makes it both libertarian and ancap, simultaneously. Whether you call it a "tax" or a "contract enforcement fee" doesn't really matter.
    Last edited by IDefendThePlatform; 04-03-2011 at 09:24 PM.

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IDefendThePlatform View Post
    Its the lack of initiation of force that makes it both libertarian and ancap, simultaneously. Whether you call it a "tax" or a "contract enforcement fee" doesn't really matter.
    I see. But I don't agree with your terminology. If the government decides to charge a fee for enforcing written contracts, and doesn't force anyone to pay it, I definitely won't call that a tax.

  22. #21

    Default

    I think that Governments should exist to protect life and Liberty. Government does have a proper role as Congressman Paul says. Do anarcho capitalist believe that governments should exist to protect liberty?

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dark Knight View Post
    I think that Governments should exist to protect life and Liberty. Government does have a proper role as Congressman Paul says. Do anarcho capitalist believe that governments should exist to protect liberty?
    I think they sort of do, but they call the agency that protects people a "private competing agency".

  24. #23

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Anacap philosophy falls down when it ignores the fact that a corporate entity can be just as tyrannical as government, especially when it achieves a monopoly.

    Don't believe me?

    Read up on the corporate goon squads in Detroit or in the hills of West Virginia during the 20s and 30s.
    I'll have to educate myself on those goon squads, but wouldn't it be easier to resist tyranny with smaller groups trying to impose the tyranny?

    Respectfully, what is your preferred solution for organizing society? Some sort of democracy/republic with a limiting constitution? Because, IMHO, that's pretty much already failed here in America.

    By your name I should probably assume you are a states rights advocate, but aren't states like Iowa, New York, etc.. just slightly smaller versions of the federal government? Why not focus on the smallest state of all, the individual?

  26. #25

    Default

    At 1st the idea of a stateless society seems a bit obtuse. No one here has ever seen one. But the more you learn and begin to think of issues, any issues from different perspectives you can see how its not only possible, but the only natural way for people to live on earth.

    Government be it ours or Libias or chinas or what have you all boils down to one thing... Its a mob, a crime ring. They take your life and you submit because the world convinces you at a young age that force is a reasonable way to deal with people on some or all issues.

    There would be government in AC. It would just be like the government you find in a corporations. People voluntarily find ways to live with one another.

    You don't have to have a law or government for things to be taboo. Its hard for me to try and communicate it i guess. Its an odd thought but i do know the people who tell me without government you would have random face stabbings at ever street corner is the same person telling kids to fear the chupacabra.

    Some days i wish i thought of the hole government idea. I could have gotten in on it at the bottom. You know, in its primitive form. "Give me 50% of the take and i wont kill you!"
    Terminus tela viaticus!

  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by low preference guy View Post
    I see. But I don't agree with your terminology. If the government decides to charge a fee for enforcing written contracts, and doesn't force anyone to pay it, I definitely won't call that a tax.
    That's exactly right. If they don't force anyone to pay it, its not a tax and it is anarcho capitalism.
    Last edited by IDefendThePlatform; 04-03-2011 at 09:38 PM.

  28. #27

    Default

    I tend to view anarcho-capitalism as the willing suspension of critical thinking in order to accept a comforting conclusion.

    The amount of mental gymnastics anarcho-caps perform to explain how things like private roads or private ownership of the ocean would work should be enough to get any impartial observer question their intellectual honesty IMO.

    Anarcho-capitalism isn't the logical conclusion of libertarianism any more than communism is the logical conclusion of liberalism. Like communism and other purist political ideologies, anarcho-capitalism is essentially the notion that the world could be molded into anything we want if we just tried hard enough.
    Last edited by Teaser Rate; 04-03-2011 at 09:39 PM.

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dark Knight View Post
    I think that Governments should exist to protect life and Liberty. Government does have a proper role as Congressman Paul says. Do anarcho capitalist believe that governments should exist to protect liberty?
    Not any more. Don;'t get me wrong. If we could return to that i would. I can tolerate a constitutional government even with some of the flaws in it. It would be thousands of times bettor. But what you have to see is that the smallest always become the biggest. It starts out good. leaving people free to think and create thus producing an awesome economy. Then the government goes bat $#@! crazy, flat out brakes its own laws and becomes a world wide tyrannical beast because of the supple feeding ground of a free market simply ripe for the picking.

    The constitution was a good idea, one i could go back to. But it failed... And that sucks for both of us. Its not that it needed to be written bettor. If you play with fire your gunna get burned. And if you start a government it will one day step on your neck and rape your sister. Thats just the way they role.
    Terminus tela viaticus!

  30. #29

    Default

    It's often missed by anarchists that hierarchies would still form were there no state. Hence the term anarcho-capitalism, which preserves property rights, but does not fall prey to the naivety of belief in 'no structure.'

    'Governments' as we know them, can be described as a monopoly on force. The anarcho-capitalist will argue that without such a monopoly, power grabs become more readily extinguished, as they will be from smaller organizations in competion with others over the free choices of individuals.
    Last edited by nayjevin; 04-03-2011 at 09:53 PM.
    I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carehn View Post
    Not any more. Don;'t get me wrong. If we could return to that i would. I can tolerate a constitutional government even with some of the flaws in it. It would be thousands of times bettor. But what you have to see is that the smallest always become the biggest. It starts out good. leaving people free to think and create thus producing an awesome economy. Then the government goes bat $#@! crazy, flat out brakes its own laws and becomes a world wide tyrannical beast because of the supple feeding ground of a free market simply ripe for the picking.

    The constitution was a good idea, one i could go back to. But it failed... And that sucks for both of us. Its not that it needed to be written bettor. If you play with fire your gunna get burned. And if you start a government it will one day step on your neck and rape your sister. Thats just the way they role.
    So if somebody is walking in the street and another person punches him in the face, do you not want him to retaliate? How will be aggressor be punished, if at all?
    Last edited by low preference guy; 04-03-2011 at 09:51 PM.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. What’s Anarcho-Capitalism?
    By Suzanimal in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03-14-2015, 09:56 AM
  2. Anarcho-capitalism vs Free Market Anti-Capitalism
    By awake in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: 05-13-2010, 04:12 PM
  3. Anarcho-capitalism?
    By Che in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 06-21-2009, 10:50 PM
  4. Anarcho-Capitalism
    By LibertiORDeth in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-01-2008, 05:05 AM
  5. Anarcho-Capitalism
    By Fox McCloud in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-20-2008, 08:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •