Welcome to Free America - An Immigrants Guide to Anarcho-Capitalist America in 2057

[Fredom101]

Bump. Most important thread in the history of RPF?

[Wesker1982]

I'm curious if you have listened to or read any of Stefan Molyneux's work at freedomainradio.com?

Now there is someone who will definitely give you an interview too. He has a lot of listeners, it would be a good way to promote your book.

[Sentient Void]

Now there is someone who will definitely give you an interview too. He has a lot of listeners, it would be a good way to promote your book.

Yes, this is actually a great idea. If you want to get on an interview that will appear to a lot of passionate supporters of ancapistan or something along the lines of it - as well as an interviewer who will be able to hold his own with you and debate you on some finer points to generate interest in your book - that's definitely one place to do it. Could be a good source for some viral guerilla marketing, like RPF here and Facebook has been in regards to your ratigan interview.

[Wesker1982]

Posted in the FDR forum: http://board.freedomainradio.com/for...31.aspx#262631

[barkrich]

I've looked up Freedomain Radio - great idea, and thanks for posting the suggestion. I've tried to find contact information for Stefan Molyneux, no luck yet. My contact information is on this page: http://tippie.uiowa.edu/people/profi...aspx?id=194913 (email is best - I am not in that office very often)

[Endgame]

I will probably pick this book up when I get a chance, but I've been wary of any academic treatment of an-cap published recently. In recent years a few intellectuals have theorized about ways to use this supposedly libertarian social model as a means of enforcing decidedly illiberal ideas.

Hans Herman Hoppe (racist Catholic social conservatism), Robert Murphy (gun control, other nanny state policies enforced via exhorbitant insurance premiums), etc. I don't know what Murphy has been up to lately, but when I encountered these people associated with the Lew Rockwell crowd in the early 2000's, I realized that these people have no respect for civil rights of any kind and simply don't have anything remotely in common with me in terms of their vision for the world. They wanted a police/nanny/theocratic state run by "private" business organizations. Where they didn't argue for outright aggression and coercion, they would fall back to insisting that their notions about culture are so superior, that it would be impossible to find any insurance company, PDA or other form of protection racket anywhere that doesn't enforce their preferred social policies on "customers". They would argue for many of the things statists argue for, but with the addition of bizarre semantic arguments along the lines of "in TRUE anarchy people WILL do X, if you don't want X you don't want TRUE anarchy".

I realized that the Lew Rockwell crowd's problem with multiculturalism wasn't the left-wing multiculturalism that arose from universities like Stanford in the early 90's, and has everything to do with monoculture and conformity. I realized that they were genuinely disgusted by the idea of people with different skin colors and faiths living on the same street without killing each other. I think it's great that within 5 blocks of where I live I can find fresh chicharrones, banh mi sandwiches, schwarma and roasted ducks. They think that's the end of civilization. We all know who wrote the damn racist newsletters. These people are an embarrassment to anyone who has anything to do with the word "libertarian".

I hope this book isn't along the same lines. Anarchy is a very slippery term. That snippet about "copyright protected by Acme Security" makes me wonder. Does the author think the RIAA (or analogous publishing industry cartel) sending rent-a-cops to drag readers out of their houses for downloading his book off TPB (should it ever find its way there) is a good idea?

I agree in working towards the goal of reducing the size and relevance of coercive and monopolistic users of force that claim dominion over arbitrary geographic areas (nation-states). I just think that pigs are still pigs even if you call them "private". I don't want to live in a place where the pigs abuse people because they speak Spanish, worship Allah, cook with fish sauce, wear saris or partake in any other behavior involving consenting adults. I have no common cause with someone that wants that.

P.S. "modal libertarian" = a slur invented by these bizarre uptight social conservative interlopers to describe anyone actually capable of ENJOYING liberty.

[barkrich]

Endgame - Thanks for your comments. I'm not advocating everything I describe in the book; I am predicting what I think might happen in a free market society. I wouldn't like all of it, but I don't think anyone can expect to like everything that results from the free choices of millions of people.

I have an interview lined up with Stefan Molyneux - thanks to all of you for helping to set that up!

[Wesker1982]

I have an interview lined up with Stefan Molyneux - thanks to all of you for helping to set that up!

Awesome. Do you have an estimated date we can look forward to?

[bolil]

I am not into anarcho-capitalism. The government, or the state, has a place in human interactions - Preserving our liberty by enforcing the law and contractual obligations and that is it. I don't like the idea of a private court, and I would not sign up for one... what recourse would that leave a loner like me in such a society? An anarcho-capitalist society would become vertically stratified very quickly, at the expense of the meek, the good natured, and the lonely... where as a republic (the rule of law) provides everyone with the same recourse and protections. IMHO.

[Wesker1982]

I am not into anarcho-capitalism.

Cool. Wrong thread.

[bolil]

Cool. Wrong thread.

Id rather post my opinion here than bump and ancient thread... didn't mean to offend.

[Wesker1982]

Id rather post my opinion here than bump and ancient thread... didn't mean to offend.

Your objections have been discussed (and imo, refuted) dozens of times in other threads. However, we rarely (as in, never) get a chance to talk to a former Federal Reserve economist and author.

I would like to keep this thread focused on the author and his book. If you have read his book and want to discuss/debate parts of it, that is cool. You could start a new thread or bump one for generic objections and comments.

Not being grouchy didn't work:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4015877
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4016249
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4022581

[heavenlyboy34]

I will probably pick this book up when I get a chance, but I've been wary of any academic treatment of an-cap published recently. In recent years a few intellectuals have theorized about ways to use this supposedly libertarian social model as a means of enforcing decidedly illiberal ideas.

Hans Herman Hoppe (racist Catholic social conservatism), Robert Murphy (gun control, other nanny state policies enforced via exhorbitant insurance premiums), etc. I don't know what Murphy has been up to lately, but when I encountered these people associated with the Lew Rockwell crowd in the early 2000's, I realized that these people have no respect for civil rights of any kind and simply don't have anything remotely in common with me in terms of their vision for the world. They wanted a police/nanny/theocratic state run by "private" business organizations. Where they didn't argue for outright aggression and coercion, they would fall back to insisting that their notions about culture are so superior, that it would be impossible to find any insurance company, PDA or other form of protection racket anywhere that doesn't enforce their preferred social policies on "customers". They would argue for many of the things statists argue for, but with the addition of bizarre semantic arguments along the lines of "in TRUE anarchy people WILL do X, if you don't want X you don't want TRUE anarchy".

I realized that the Lew Rockwell crowd's problem with multiculturalism wasn't the left-wing multiculturalism that arose from universities like Stanford in the early 90's, and has everything to do with monoculture and conformity. I realized that they were genuinely disgusted by the idea of people with different skin colors and faiths living on the same street without killing each other. I think it's great that within 5 blocks of where I live I can find fresh chicharrones, banh mi sandwiches, schwarma and roasted ducks. They think that's the end of civilization. We all know who wrote the damn racist newsletters. These people are an embarrassment to anyone who has anything to do with the word "libertarian".

I hope this book isn't along the same lines. Anarchy is a very slippery term. That snippet about "copyright protected by Acme Security" makes me wonder. Does the author think the RIAA (or analogous publishing industry cartel) sending rent-a-cops to drag readers out of their houses for downloading his book off TPB (should it ever find its way there) is a good idea?

I agree in working towards the goal of reducing the size and relevance of coercive and monopolistic users of force that claim dominion over arbitrary geographic areas (nation-states). I just think that pigs are still pigs even if you call them "private". I don't want to live in a place where the pigs abuse people because they speak Spanish, worship Allah, cook with fish sauce, wear saris or partake in any other behavior involving consenting adults. I have no common cause with someone that wants that.

P.S. "modal libertarian" = a slur invented by these bizarre uptight social conservative interlopers to describe anyone actually capable of ENJOYING liberty.

WHAT?!!!! Can you please cite something by Hoppe and Murphy (or anyone who associates with Lew Rockwell) that makes you think this? I've read a lot of their stuff, and I've never seen ANYTHING to the effect you're describing. Bob Murphy is the author of Chaos Theory (a book about various aspects of Stateless society), and I don't know of anything in Hoppe's post-Marxist period that can be construed as remotely pro-State.

[Endgame]

WHAT?!!!! Can you please cite something by Hoppe and Murphy (or anyone who associates with Lew Rockwell) that makes you think this? I've read a lot of their stuff, and I've never seen ANYTHING to the effect you're describing. Bob Murphy is the author of Chaos Theory (a book about various aspects of Stateless society), and I don't know of anything in Hoppe's post-Marxist period that can be construed as remotely pro-State.

I haven't had anything to do with that crowd since 2002, back when Murphy was still in grad school and was getting the whole "market anarchy" thing off the ground. Here's some more recent internet drama by someone who apparently had a similar experience.

http://distributedrepublic.net/archi...t-hoppe?page=1

I like what LvMI does on the whole, especially recently, but I will never trust them knowing that people like Hoppe are in their inner circle.

[Wesker1982]

HB34 and Endgame, I started a new thread for that conversation here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...47#post4051547

[ClayTrainor]

Haha - and *there it is* folks!

The admins moved the thread into the basement.

Didn't see *that* one comin!

BTW - here is the interview with David barker on the Dylan Ratigan show on MSNBC, in case anyone hasn't seen it yet...



Am still very much surprised that this was even discussed at all, let alone civilly, on MSNBC...

In the realm of electoral politics, truth is a burden. Hence, the philosophy dungeon.

And that Ratigan interview was one hell of a jaw-dropping moment for me. This David Barker is going to become a crucial figure in the liberty movement, I have no doubt. I look forward to hearing more from him, and reading his book.

[Wesker1982]

[pcgame]

im against fiat currency too

[Wesker1982]

Here is David Barker on Stossel http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1484348139001/

[BuddyRey]

How the Heck did I miss this thread? Awesome stuff, nonetheless!