Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 156

Thread: I can't defend anarcho-capitalism

  1. #1

    I can't defend anarcho-capitalism

    Note that this is not to say that I don't wholeheartedly accept the theory. I completely believe that any rights that any person as... we all have the same rights. This rules out taxation, a legally protected monopoly on policing and courts, etc.

    The problem is, the average person cannot possibly comprehend how competing police forces and courts are able to work. And frankly, even I don't know how they would work. Based on economic laws, I do believe they would work, but HOW I really don't know.

    And, though I completely, wholeheartedly understand that voluntary cooperation works better than coercion, I don't honestly know WHY. The pragmatic aspect isn't really the reason I believe in voluntarism. I believe in voluntarism because I believe it to be morally right. Though shall not steal, murder, etc. I'd believe in those things even if they didn't "work". But I do believe they would work. I just can't prove it in a casual conversation. The statist has an inherent advantage because he works from the commonly accepted notions. How can you account for this?

    By contrast, minarchy (Which probably gets 95% of the principles right) I find to be fairly easy to explain. Of course, a person might simply reject it for whatever reason, and most people have a question or two about roads, but its not hard to understand the principles involved. Only having laws against actions that have victims, that's an easy principle to understand. Of course, even among libertarians there are gray areas and disagreements, so there will certainly be such from the person who is just learning about these principles. But its fairly easy to explain the concept, or to understand. Similarly, its fairly easy to understand how government involvement in the economy is wrong, and easy to explain. Or that wars that aren't defense of one's own country is wrong. Again, on both counts, people will disagree, but the concepts aren't actually complicated, either to explain or to understand.

    But frankly, to explain to somebody how those crimes that actually do have victims (murder, rape, fraud, theft, etc.) could be prosecuted without government police, courts, or taxes, frankly, I don't fully understand how myself. I do understand the vague concept that people could hire different police companies, or use different arbitrators to resolve disputes, but I find that its really, really hard to explain the idea to someone who has never encountered it before, and if they ask "How would that work", I find it very hard to answer. With roads there's a similar problem, although there are cop outs that there is already a road network in the US or to appeal to the (comparatively more obvious, although it will still be debated) immorality of eminent domain.

    So, I'd request any help I can get from you guys on this. How do you explain this concept to people? Is it even really worth trying unless they're a minarchist already? Or is it simpler to just act as a minarchist (Even while holding the ancap principles and sharing them with minarchists as necessary) in actual debates to make things less confusing?

    BTW: I'm giving the "Ron Paul is a voluntarist/ancap" line of thought a lot more consideration than I have in the past as I'm considering this. Even if Ron does believe in those principles 100% of the time, if he had brought those things up in the Presidential debates it would have been really, really difficult for him to deal with the more immediate issues of support for the FED, the wars, the drug wars, etc.



    Although this thread is primarily being started for other ancaps/voluntarists to help me work out, those who do not agree with those principles are more than welcome to try to convince me that my position is wrong. It would also probably be easier to have that debate on this forum since pretty much everyone here understands the theory whether they buy it or not. Most people IRL don't even understand the theory.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    I don't have an answer for this either. It's just too far removed from most people's comprehension to understand. I would start with Voluntary communities. Instead of making each man an island, maybe base things on voluntary communities like Homeowner's associations as a way of bridging the gap?
    CPT Jack. R. T.
    US Army Resigned - Iraq Vet.
    Level III MACP instructor, USYKA/WYKKO sensei
    Professional Hunter/Trapper/Country living survivalist.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Icymudpuppy View Post
    I don't have an answer for this either. It's just too far removed from most people's comprehension to understand. I would start with Voluntary communities. Instead of making each man an island, maybe base things on voluntary communities like Homeowner's associations as a way of bridging the gap?
    To my understanding most people hate homeowners associations, and I can understand why. A tyrant that's actually close enough to you to micromanage? At a personal level, that system is probably preferable to the monstrosity we have now, but probably inferior to minarchism. So I guess, if you're going to do that, why not just advocate minarchism and call it a day? Note that by "advocate" here I mean "publicly advocate", not "support as an ideal." In an ideal world we'd always advocate exactly what we think, but the OP describes some of the issues I've personally experienced with this (I have no doubt there are people here who are better apologists for liberty than I am, so I'm not by any means saying EVERYONE has this problem, just that I do).

    Another problem I often run to into these debates, especially when Biblical interpretation starts to cross with political theory (As it almost always does since most people I talk to are Christians, it seems like "Render unto Caeasr" or "Obey the Governing authorities" gets thrown into every debate somewhere) is whenever there's more than one or two other people that I'm talking to, the debate starts becoming something of a dogpile where everyone repeats the indoctrination that they've received since they were born and its pretty much impossible to actually argue against because of the numbers game. Its not even that the people involved have any malice or deliberate intent to dogpile (They generally don't), its just virtually impossible to make any kind of useful progress where there are more than a couple other people in the conversation because, again, people repeat the traditional views that they've been taught and its hard to get them to consider anything else.

    Anyone else have similar problems?
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    But frankly, to explain to somebody how those crimes that actually do have victims (murder, rape, fraud, theft, etc.) could be prosecuted without government police, courts, or taxes, frankly, I don't fully understand how myself.

    It does "work" in various parts of the world, at least as a functional equivalent. The deterrents are often no less effective than deterrents in our system. The most acute example is the so-called blood feud. The deterrent is not a formalized law enforcement body with court delivered sanctions, but rather the concern that your enemy will damage your property or--at an extreme--deliver grievous harm to those close to you. The latter deterrent is, no doubt, just as strong as the former, and is often more potent.

    My personal observation and theoretical thought is that each system is contextual, without any one system being inherently better than another. People in your conversation would reject a simple, informal system of cultural mores and its sanctions in the U.S.; however, the omnipresent police system here is the ineffective mechanism in various parts of the world.

    I would suggest however, that our country has steadily degenerated to the point where the enemy are those very people whose role is to address that damage to your property or harm to your loved ones. What's the difference--in other words--between a "third world" neighbor who squats on your property and the American institution that declares eminent domain on your property? What's the difference between an irate neighbor who hacks your dog and the American cop who shoots your dog? If a neighbor takes grave action against the squatter, then is that really any different than the cop who declares to the homeless man, "I'm about to $#@! you up!"

    I think the cross-cultural perspective illustrates the different approaches. A simple timeline of American history shows a system of expansive code and police abuse that falls far out of line with any textbook approach that people can seriously continue to advocate.

  6. #5
    I myself am someone who does not advocate anarcho-capitalism. The reason is not because I think it's wrong in the same way that I as a libertarian think socialism or authoritarianism is wrong; it's because I'm unable to see how it's possible or feasible to implement anarcho-capitalism. If I could, it's very likely I'd advocate for it, similar to the way I "advocate" bitcoin.

    I'm a bitcoin "advocate", and it's because I understand it and am rather capable of defending it. Before I understood it, I wasn't a fan of it. I've known about it almost since it started, but was skeptical and dismissive of it. What helped was the evidence that shows it's working. I've been keeping an eye on the exchange rate ever since it was only a few cents per bitcoin.

    Unlike bitcoin, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of the existence of an anarcho-capitalist society, and that just serves to corroborate my thoughs on the feasibility of anarcho-capitalism. I don't necessarily need to see any evidence of the existence of an anarcho-capitalist society, but it would be very helpful; what I do need is to be able to understand how it can be implemented and remain stable.

    I don't necessarily think anarchism isn't feasible, and it's obvious that capitalism is not only feasible, but it dominates the entire world with the exception of whatever remote small tropical islands that have gift economies might still exist. The main problem is that I don't see how it's possible to have the two simultaneously; to me it seems like you can have one or the other, but not both.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    It does "work" in various parts of the world, at least as a functional equivalent. The deterrents are often no less effective than deterrents in our system. The most acute example is the so-called blood feud. The deterrent is not a formalized law enforcement body with court delivered sanctions, but rather the concern that your enemy will damage your property or--at an extreme--deliver grievous harm to those close to you. The latter deterrent is, no doubt, just as strong as the former, and is often more potent.

    My personal observation and theoretical thought is that each system is contextual, without any one system being inherently better than another. People in your conversation would reject a simple, informal system of cultural mores and its sanctions in the U.S.; however, the omnipresent police system here is the ineffective mechanism in various parts of the world.

    I would suggest however, that our country has steadily degenerated to the point where the enemy are those very people whose role is to address that damage to your property or harm to your loved ones. What's the difference--in other words--between a "third world" neighbor who squats on your property and the American institution that declares eminent domain on your property? What's the difference between an irate neighbor who hacks your dog and the American cop who shoots your dog? If a neighbor takes grave action against the squatter, then is that really any different than the cop who declares to the homeless man, "I'm about to $#@! you up!"

    I think the cross-cultural perspective illustrates the different approaches. A simple timeline of American history shows a system of expansive code and police abuse that falls far out of line with any textbook approach that people can seriously continue to advocate.

    I agree with every word you posted here. And I totally agree that private crime could never possibly come near the amount of crime committed by the gang that is "government." While there may be times where you have no choice, due to the nature of the system, than to use it, that doesn't justify the system.

    The problem here is that its very hard to systematize this for people, especially for people who do not view the government crimes as actual crimes, instead viewing every issue through whatever utilitarian lens.

    Maybe that's ultimately the issue. Its not necessarily easy to explain how minarchism would be more pragmatic than any other form of government, but its definitely doable. However, minarchy isn't really a MORAL stance. Because, ultimately, it is a mixture of progressive and anarcho-capitalist ideologies. Far closer to the latter than the former, but still a mixture. Its not ideologically consistent. Anarcho-capitalism, by contrast, is more of an ethical system with political implications than a true political system. Since anarcho-capitalism is not really a political system in the strictest sense, its hard to defend it as such.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Desmond View Post
    I myself am someone who does not advocate anarcho-capitalism. The reason is not because I think it's wrong in the same way that I as a libertarian think socialism or authoritarianism is wrong; it's because I'm unable to see how it's possible or feasible to implement anarcho-capitalism. If I could, it's very likely I'd advocate for it, similar to the way I "advocate" bitcoin.

    I'm a bitcoin "advocate", and it's because I understand it and am rather capable of defending it. Before I understood it, I wasn't a fan of it. I've known about it almost since it started, but was skeptical and dismissive of it. What helped was the evidence that shows it's working. I've been keeping an eye on the exchange rate ever since it was only a few cents per bitcoin.

    Unlike bitcoin, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of the existence of an anarcho-capitalist society, and that just serves to corroborate my thoughs on the feasibility of anarcho-capitalism. I don't necessarily need to see any evidence of the existence of an anarcho-capitalist society, but it would be very helpful; what I do need is to be able to understand how it can be implemented and remain stable.

    I don't necessarily think anarchism isn't feasible, and it's obvious that capitalism is not only feasible, but it dominates the entire world with the exception of whatever remote small tropical islands that have gift economies might still exist. The main problem is that I don't see how it's possible to have the two simultaneously; to me it seems like you can have one or the other, but not both.
    Well, from a theoretical standpoint, anarcho-capitalism is the purest form of capitalism, the only TRUE laissez faire capitalism. Everything else runs very close, but its not completely, because there is still such thing as a public sector. So logically, capitalism requires anarchism (in its purest form.)

    From a pragmatic standpoint, I don't really see why defense, courts, and police couldn't be privatized. There might be arguments that the market won't provide sufficient resources to fund these things, but I'd ask "sufficient for what"? Sufficient for a military/police state? Of course not, and that's a GOOD thing, not to mention one of the flaws of our current system, that the government can fund vast amounts of money. Its really the LAW that's the tricky issue. On that one I think I have to stand with Rothbard and say that the law actually does need to be set for a given territorial area. If people want to agree on something else for their personal interactions, that is of course acceptable provided all parties agree, but if not, I think there needs to be a standard that arbitrators would always fall back on. The question is, how are the laws decided? The NAP is the guiding principle, but even on the NAP libertarians debate with each other on what is or is not an NAP violation. So, how are the laws passed by which acts of aggression are defined? Once that's straightened out, it wouldn't really be hard to figure out what private defense company or security company or whatever has the right to use force in a given situation and which one is legally obligated to step down (They might not follow the law, but the same problem can exist with criminals today, so I would dismiss that objection as being irrelevant.) But with regards to the law itself, I really don't know how you produce that, and honestly, that's the reason I keep losing these debates. That was the question I was asked in the discussion I had (brief) about the subject today "Who passes the laws?" I know it shouldn't be the corrupt thugs in congress, but then... where does a legal code come from?

    I know there are a lot of people who probably know the answers to these questions. There's probably more than one answer. But I don't have the answer, and frankly, that's why I'm losing.
    Last edited by Christian Liberty; 01-27-2014 at 12:18 AM.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  8. #7
    I think it's hard for you to explain it because anarchy isn't workable until the nature of man changes.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    By contrast, minarchy (Which probably gets 95% of the principles right) I find to be fairly easy to explain. Of course, a person might simply reject it for whatever reason, and most people have a question or two about roads, but its not hard to understand the principles involved. Only having laws against actions that have victims, that's an easy principle to understand. Of course, even among libertarians there are gray areas and disagreements, so there will certainly be such from the person who is just learning about these principles. But its fairly easy to explain the concept, or to understand. Similarly, its fairly easy to understand how government involvement in the economy is wrong, and easy to explain. Or that wars that aren't defense of one's own country is wrong. Again, on both counts, people will disagree, but the concepts aren't actually complicated, either to explain or to understand.
    If you are not prepared enough to argue your position in a way that is understandable to your audience, then yes, I think you're best to stick to minarchist arguments until you warm them up to things they cant possibly swallow. I know I've mentioned this hundreds of times, but finding common ground and letting that seed grow before you hit them with the hard to swallow stuff is how you convert people. It is not an instantaneous process. It's called "waking up" for a reason. BE THE COFFEE!!

    How I've ruined it is by alienating people. I'm a 9/11 skeptic, but you won't hear me mentioning that to people who I want to realize all of the things we're far more likely to agree on.

    Hate on Rand for pandering, but he's doing what he has to do as we all work on educating people to demand even more. Intellectual revolutions take more time, but can be just as effective, if not moreso than bloody ones.

    I do have some differences with anarchists (most notably the ones you mentioned, but I'll leave that for another day), but if you want to be persuasive, you have to learn that a biased audience is going to be predisposed to disagreeing with you. You cannot combat that with stubbornness. You have to find common ground and lead them there, or you get nowhere.
    I'd rather be a free man in my grave, than be living as a puppet or a slave - Peter Tosh

    The kids they dance and shake their bones,
    While the politicians are throwing stones,
    And it's all too clear we're on our own,
    Singing ashes, ashes, all fall down...



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    basically human nature and conscience is geared toward consent of the governed.
    whatever we can do or control ourselves, or whatever we can't do but require delegation to others,
    determines where we are willing to submit to representative or collective authority outside ourselves,
    or what we do not trust others to do and want either direct or indirect say in or control over ourselves.

    so everyone has different areas
    what we do or do not trust to others

    then if you want to get into more complexity
    depending on our attitudes toward church or state,
    men or women, this group or that group, this
    affects who we relate to and trust and who we do not

    so everyone's politics is affected by these biases and varies on these same themes

    you will especially notice that any conflict or bias we have with
    certain people or groups get projected on what policies we support or oppose in general for all people

    the patterns are similar, but the expressions are relative

    ps the closest term anyone ever referred me to
    to describe my views is either isocracy or isonomy

    i believe in peopel governing themselves by their own systems
    and mediating conflicts that affect people over the groups,
    and especially funding their own policies not imposing these on others

    most of the conflicts are from unforgiven issues with people
    that are projected back and forth. as long as conflicts are unrsolved
    between the parties directly, that is where larger govt or corporate
    or media/legal authority or any other type of third party can step
    in and take over control of both sides of these conflicts and exploit them for it

    so the number one rule I recommend to people is to resolve your conflicts
    with people so you cannot get played one side against the other for mutual loss and manipuation by
    a thrid party bully or bogeyman. both sides will blame the bogeyman and bullying on each other
    and remain victims of the third parties profiting from the conflict going on.

    if you really resolve all your internal conflicts yourself, then ideally you should be able to
    work with any other person of any view or group and be abel to work out your differences localy
    or ask help of facilitators or mediators to reach an agreement that works for all sides.

    if we all did this, we could all govern and represent ourselves by groups or affiliations
    we choose to fund and follow, and not impose or threaten each other's autonomy

    it is mainly when conflicts aren't resolved that the competition bullying and co opting takes place.
    so that is why I recommend an all inclusive approach to Constitutionalism that
    respect and protects all views and interests equally, allowing political freedom and diversity
    of beliefs the same way as with religious beliefs, so there is no threat to the free exercise of each other's
    system but all coexist civilly by consent of the governed, free and equal due process to
    redress grievances and operate by consensus, equal protection of the laws and no taxation without representation

    you may think I am an idealist and none of this wonderful standard of governance can be followed or enforced

    but that is what the Constitutional laws state
    free exercise of religion within the right peaceably to assemble and to petition the govt for redress of grievances
    equal protection of the laws
    and the spirit is based on consent of the governed

    so I am just trying to enforce equal constitutional protections inclusion and representation of all
    people of all views.

    that is what the law calls for
    so if it is ideal to have equal justice under law
    those are the terms of the contract
    we either live up to it or we are in violation of our own standards
    and we get the govt we give; we lose authority to enforce these standards if we compromise them
    by excluding or imposing one belief system as the majority norm over another
    all policies should "ideally" be formed by consent of the governed
    to represent the whole of the public in entirety and including diversity
    in order to be fully Constitutional
    if we followed that standard we would limit federal govt to jsut the bare bones originally written and agreed upon universally
    and would delegate the other duties to local levels where people can
    either govern themselves or delegate to reps they approve to represent them
    but none of this garbage of forcing representation onto people and taxing them for things that contradict their beliefs
    we need to organize by party to stop this imposition or we will always be fighting politically
    wasting resources tht we could invest in our own solutions instead of trying to impose policies for all people to pay for
    that should be freely chosen and written well enough to represent all groups if it is going to be federally funded and enforced

    if there is a better term for coalition govt by party
    or consensus decisions, let me know
    i use isonomy to keep it general but maybe that doesn't describe
    this system. egalitarian is close also.

    as for economic terms
    I use free enterprise and free market as opposed to capitalism
    * fair trade
    * cooperative economics
    * local currency
    I think these clearly indicate the local workers
    and businesses are managing the exchange
    themselves

    instead of necessarily labeling the people or system
    I would just describe what model or format you are using
    in a particular instance. for example if a community is
    organized under local currency what the hell difference does
    it make if some members are capitalist or socialist or
    some call it anarchist syndicalist etc. it's not the label
    that matters, because each community reaching self-governing
    autonomy may identify themselves differently or use a different model

    so i stick with general terms that would work
    no matter what the socialist/anarchist/capitalist label is you want to slap on the outside
    Last edited by emilynghiem; 01-27-2014 at 01:37 AM.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGrinch View Post
    If you are not prepared enough to argue your position in a way that is understandable to your audience, then yes, I think you're best to stick to minarchist arguments until you warm them up to things they cant possibly swallow. I know I've mentioned this hundreds of times, but finding common ground and letting that seed grow before you hit them with the hard to swallow stuff is how you convert people. It is not an instantaneous process. It's called "waking up" for a reason. BE THE COFFEE!!

    How I've ruined it is by alienating people. I'm a 9/11 skeptic, but you won't hear me mentioning that to people who I want to realize all of the things we're far more likely to agree on.

    Hate on Rand for pandering, but he's doing what he has to do as we all work on educating people to demand even more. Intellectual revolutions take more time, but can be just as effective, if not moreso than bloody ones.

    I do have some differences with anarchists (most notably the ones you mentioned, but I'll leave that for another day), but if you want to be persuasive, you have to learn that a biased audience is going to be predisposed to disagreeing with you. You cannot combat that with stubbornness. You have to find common ground and lead them there, or you get nowhere.
    First off, I don't "hate on" Rand. Well, maybe occasionally But in seriousness, I recognize that he's the best senator that we have, as little as that says.

    But... if Rand is trying to educate, I think he's failing at it. If he's trying to get elected, he may be succeeding at that. But at this point: he's arguing for lower drug penalties, but not against the concept, he's arguing against some foreign policy interventionism, but not all of it, he's arguing against the NSA, but not in favor of pardoning whistleblowers (That last issue annoys me since when Obama was running for President in '08, he was better than Rand currently is on that issue, of course Obama was lying but that's irrelevant to campaign strategy.)

    Bringing up Rand brings up an interesting point though: that's kind of what I want to avoid doing. I don't know for sure if Rand actually takes Ron's positions and is just compromising for electoral reasons or not, but regardless, I'm really not interested in doing what Rand is doing. I understand the benefits of SOMEBODY being that guy (Assuming he really does believe the same things as Ron, which is debatable) but it can't really be me. I'm not really willing to defend that amount of evil and then advocate for whittling away a couple programs. Heck, most conservatives I know are economically more radical than Rand anyway. I'm still trying to find that right balance between not compromising on principle yet not killing people with rhetoric.

    Regarding anarchism, I don't agree with Rothbard on every point either: just the particular point that competing systems of law in a territorial area can work the same way competing police forces or courts can. I could be wrong about that, of course, but that's really the only issue I was addressing there. IIRC you said you are a minarchist, which is incidentally where I was six months ago.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    I think it's hard for you to explain it because anarchy isn't workable until the nature of man changes.
    since each person or group will always go through a learning curve, we will always have to deal with this. what may change is our attitude of how to manage, but the problems will stay the same. those won't go away. just like we will always have helpless 2 year olds or rebellious teenagers which require more supervision before they can manage independently.

    might as well set up a system that can handle the fact people will be at different stages of development at any given time.
    like setting up campuses for workers in factories, or prisons, or communities to organize members in tiers by level of development.
    and help each member of each level work with each other while they receive training experience or education to advance forward.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    I think it's hard for you to explain it because anarchy isn't workable until the nature of man changes.
    This is a frequent argument by my opponents. I have never found it convincing. If men are evil, do you really want to give one group of men a monopoly on the use of force in a territorial area over other men? Men being evil actually makes government worse than if men were good: in the latter case it would be unnecessary as opposed to destructive as in the former case.

    One point I should clarify, I do not pretend that anarchy would not require vigilance to sustain just like minarchy/constitutionalism. Both require a certain level of support to sustain. In anarchy's case, however, it may be a little less because there is no foundational State from which to expand, the moral principles are 100% consistent, and the more decentralized distribution of power makes consoldiation somewhat harder.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  15. #13
    @The Grinch- BTW: I completely agree on the intellectual revolution VS bloody ones, the latter should be avoided if at all possible, and even if one is inevitable, it doesn't ultimately solve the problem.

    But how can you have an intellectual revolution without standing on ALL the principles?
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    I think it's hard for you to explain it because anarchy isn't workable until the nature of man changes.
    I disagree with this. I think anarchy can be workable without any need for the nature of man to change.

    However, if you meant to say or are referring specifically to anarcho-capitalism, I'm a bit doubtful that the nature of man can change to make it workable, but I do find the idea interesting and will have to give that some thought.

  17. #15
    To me anarchy = anarcho-capitalism.

    Anarcho-communism is both hopelessly idealistic AND immoral.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  18. #16
    I'm at the point where I don't have answers for a tremendous number of questions about how things could work in an an-cap society, but I recognize that coercive rule is fundamentally flawed.


    What if everything that our government did was based on voluntary participation? Don't want to fund the Iraq War? Fine, deduct that cost from your voluntarily paid taxes. Don't want to pay for your local public school? Fine, don't pay. (and don't even think of trying to send your kids without paying) Don't want to pay for your local fire department? Fine, but don't call us when your house catches fire. Some things would no doubt receive adequate funding but a lot would bite the dust. "Government" (not in the current sense) would be forced to justify its existence to the people. Eventually competing entities would develop, just as conventional private businesses spring up to offer solutions to people's wants and needs.

    The government would almost certainly have to be much smaller because all endeavors would be funded only by people willing to pony up. Want to research something? If it is an absurd project it probably won't gain much support.
    "Sorry, fellows, the rebellion is off. We couldn't get a rebellion permit."



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    To me anarchy = anarcho-capitalism.
    If you want to be able to defend anarcho-capitalism, or find a way to do that, I don't think it helps to obfuscate the difference between anarcho-capitalism and anarchy in general. Part of defending anything involves being articulate, not doing the opposite. Just something for you to consider.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    Anarcho-communism is both hopelessly idealistic AND immoral.
    Well, I'm probably not certain about what you mean by "idealistic" or "immoral", but consider this: how is the Internet, what you can get from it or contribute to it in the form of information (or programs such as Linux or freeware), in that sense different from anarcho-communism? If it isn't, does that make the Internet hopelessly idealistic and immoral?

    I myself am not exactly a fan of anarcho-communism, or any form of communism, that doesn't permit voluntarism or requires people to either contribute or leave, but I don't have a problem with automation (this includes automation of the repairing the automation with - well - basically just a little more automation) and other forms of technology replacing manual labor and other forms of work.

    Getting back to the Internet, notice that it can involve trade (or sponsorship via ad revenue), but it doesn't have to. The type of anarchism that I'm interested in would be one where automation and advancements in technology make it so there isn't really a need for trade anymore, but does not ban money or trade (I feel I'm being redundant by saying "not ban", because if there was any ban then it wouldn't be anarchist to begin with).

    I'm not saying such a thing is possible because I don't know if such a thing is possible or not - mainly because it hasn't been fully achieved, yet. I'd say it has been partially achieved when it comes to information (i.e., the Internet), for example we have things like Wikipedia. Yes, I know it's dependent on charity/donations, but that's only to pay for the hardware and its maintenance, etc., not to pay people to provide it with the content it has and gets from people who contribute it.
    Last edited by Neil Desmond; 01-27-2014 at 03:06 AM. Reason: minor revision

  21. #18


    The Libertarian From Nazareth?

    By Bill Butler

    Whatever one's religious denomination, a careful, dispassionate analysis of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth compels the conclusion that Jesus was an uncompromising political libertarian. Libertarianism is of course not a faith or a creed, but rather a political theory for organizing civilized society. The written record provides strong, unambiguous support for the fact that Jesus was a political libertarian who very likely had an Austrian understanding of money.

    Jesus believed in and taught the importance of the following principles: (1) all people must treat others as they would like to be treated (the "Golden Rule"); (2) man's primary responsibility is to obey God
    and his conscience, not man-made positivist legal codes; and (3) that state actors who violate God's will
    are morally responsible for their actions. Further, Jesus' parables repeatedly recognize and implicitly support the ownership and responsible stewardship of private property.


    Before going further, it is necessary to understand what most libertarians believe. Libertarians believe that people have all right, title and dominion over their own lives, liberty and property. Libertarians believe that all people or entities (organized groups of people) that infringe on others' lives, liberty and property violate reason and/or Natural Law. To most libertarians, government is legitimate only insofar
    as it meets both of the following conditions: (1) government's power derives from the voluntary "consent of the governed" (i.e., everyone governed contractually agrees on the laws and a method of enforcement that ensures due process prior to restraining any single individuals' life, liberty
    or property rights); and (2) government's enforcement methods do not indirectly violate any individual's life, liberty or property rights, including the rights of those not party to the social contract.

    The Golden Rule

    Libertarian theory is different from all other political theories primarily because libertarians reject the notion that government is entitled to a monopoly on violence or otherwise has license to violate reason, Natural Law or the Golden Rule. Simply put, libertarians believe that the Golden Rule applies to everyone, including government and its agents. Thus, a government that deprives an individual of property without prior consent violates reason, Natural Law and the Golden Rule.

    This is the sine qua non of libertarianism.
    Did Jesus believe that government was subject to the Golden Rule? Most clearly, yes. Jesus lived in first century Iudaea, a province of the Roman Empire. The governing authority was the Roman governor, Procurator Pontius Pilate, and his enforcement arm was the imperial Roman army. Jesus and his kinsmen thus lived under the occupation of a foreign army and foreign authority that, as imperial armies are wont to do, extracted tribute from the locals in the form of taxes.

    Although Jesus' interactions with the state are limited, those few interactions provide deep insight into his political views. Next to the legal positivist Pharisees, the most reviled and universally hated characters in the New Testament gospels are unquestionably the tax collectors. These are the locals who served the empire by collecting from their own people, often skimming or demanding their own personal
    tribute. Although Jesus is kind and generous to the tax collectors, including Zacchaeus and his own disciple Matthew, there is no question that he regards them as "sinners" who have violated God's law and who must acknowledge their sins and repent. It is more than their collaboration with the Romans that makes these people sinners, for the gospels regard the dishonest tax collectors like Zacchaeus — those that line their own pockets with other people's money — as the worst of these bad actors.


    In the story of Zacchaeus, in consideration for forgiveness and redemption, Zacchaeus pledges half of his property (for abetting the Romans' unjust taxation) and further pledges to return four times the money he has personally extorted (300% interest to the victims!).
    The other state actors with whom Jesus fatefully comes into contact are of course the Roman soldiers that put him to death and Pontius Pilate. As he is being executed, Jesus' prayer for the soldiers shows that he believes they are morally responsible for their acts and in need of forgiveness:

    Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. (Luke 23:34)

    This prayer is significant because, if Jesus believed that the soldiers were not morally responsible for carrying out immoral orders, he would see no need to seek forgiveness on their behalf. The record shows that the soldiers did not falsely accuse Jesus of blasphemy and sedition, the soldiers took no part in his trial before the Sanhedrin, the soldiers were not present when Pilate interrogated Jesus and
    they were not part of the crowd that demanded Jesus' crucifixion. Yet Jesus' prayer for them indicates that he believes they are nevertheless morally culpable for their actions.


    Although Jesus seeks forgiveness because the soldiers "know not what they do," the soldiers' lack of self-awareness clearly is not sufficient for their forgiveness. If it were, Jesus would not have to ask for
    it. Jesus' prayer indicates that he believes that the soldiers, and by extension all state actors, are not without sin simply because they are unaware of the nature of their actions. He prays for the
    soldiers because they are too obtuse to recognize that their actions are evil. They receive forgiveness not because of their ignorance, but because Jesus seeks forgiveness for them.

    What about Pilate? While Pilate attempts to "wash his hands" of any culpability for Jesus' death, it is Pilate who imprisons Jesus, Pilate who interrogates Jesus upon his return from the Sanhedrin
    trial and it is Pilate's Roman soldiers that actually carry out Jesus' execution. Although the gospels are somewhat opaque on the Roman governor's acts, omissions and motivations leading up to the
    crucifixion, it is clear, from Pilate's wife's warning — "have nothing to do with this innocent man" — that his participation in Jesus' execution was unjust and immoral.

    Jesus on Taxation and Sound Money

    Statists who argue that Jesus supported taxation and/or the state ignore the many passages relating to sinful tax collectors and Jesus' unjust execution by the Roman secular authority and instead point to the
    "Render unto Caesar" passage in Matthew, chapter 22 as evidence that Jesus was pro-state. In the story, Pharisees and other "spies" attempt to goad Jesus, a middle-class Jewish tradesman surrounded by Roman centurions, into foolishly fomenting a tax revolt.

    The story begins with Jesus' Pharisee inquisitor asking him whether or not the local Jews should pay the taxes demanded by Caesar. Jesus responds by asking him to produce a coin that Caesar would accept as a tax. After the Pharisee produces the coin, Jesus asks him whose image is on the coin and the Pharisee responds "Caesar's." Jesus then recommends: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's,
    and unto God the things that are God's."

    While this story offers many wonderful, nuanced and insightful lessons, the story in no way offers moral support for taxation or the state. Taken in context, the story sheds much more light on Jesus' views
    on the role of money and pragmatic, non-violent civil disobedience in response to overwhelming secular power.
    To fully understand the story, one must know a little about money and currency in first
    century Iudaea. The story of the moneychangers at the Temple shows that more than one currency was in circulation at the time. History indicates that at least four currencies, Greek, Roman, Jewish and Tyrian, were used as media of exchange. Because only Jewish shekels and Tyrian coins were allowed in Temple ceremonies, the entrepreneurial moneychangers opened shop outside the Temple so that that the faithful could exchange their Roman denarii for Jewish shekels in order to offer their sacrifices and meaningfully participate in Temple ceremonies.
    In this context, with at least four separate currencies circulating in Iudaea, Jesus' response to the Pharisee: "Whose image is on the coin?" says a lot about what was going through his mind. Jesus wants to know what authority issued the coin; that is, who "made" it and who, therefore, accepts or demands it as currency? When the Pharisee responds "Caesar's," Jesus learns that the money in question is that of the occupying imperial forces, is not allowed in Temple ceremonies and carries the craven image of Caesar, declaring him a "God." Given this
    context, Jesus' response, "[r]ender unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and render unto God the things that are God's," in no way sanctions taxation as moral or justified. Nor do Jesus' statements support capitulation to the occupying Roman army or secular authority. Jesus' response actually evades the question entirely and instead provides a powerful statement in support of private property, for Jesus clearly recommends that, notwithstanding Caesar's confiscatory and illegal taxation, Caesar remains entitled to the things that Caesar owns.


    Jesus' sage recommendation expresses contempt for the imperial currency and at the same time subtly and paradoxically suggests that cooperation and rebellion are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The implication of the story, in the context of the voluminous anti-state and anti-tax gospel evidence, is that Jesus seems to be saying, "thank you for telling me that the coin is that of empire's, minted from ore
    taken from seized mines and debased to satisfy the empire's military ambitions; I say cooperate and pay the tribute the empire demands, as it is prudent and may save your life, but do not materially support
    the empire and the occupying forces by giving them anything of real value; things of real value, like shekels, belong to God."


    Jesus' recommendation thus gives rise to the inference that he believed the Jews living under Roman occupation should pay their taxes in overvalued denarii, as the Romans likely demanded, and hold and perhaps shield their wealth in the undervalued shekel and Tyrian money. This position reflects both libertarian political views as well as a recognition of Gresham’s Law, according to which government-decreed bad money drives undervalued good money out of circulation.

    The Parables and Jesus' View of Property and Contract

    A cursory review of Jesus' teachings would seem to indicate that he did not think highly of property or property rights. From the Sermon on the Mount to the conversation with the young rich man whom Jesus instructs to sell all his possessions, Jesus repeatedly decries the evils of worshiping things instead of God.

    For Jesus, it seems a man's wealth is not only irrelevant to how God views him, the two are inversely related as can be seen his statement:

    Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enterthe kingdom of God. Matthew19:24.

    Furthermore, Jesus and his followers lived a kind of communal existence, sharing their food with one person responsible for the group's money. Based on this evidence alone, one might conclude that Jesus had little understanding of or regard for private property.
    But to draw broad conclusions from this limited evidence is to make a hasty generalization, for the core of Jesus' teaching is found in the parables and the parables are replete with spiritual lessons drawn from material and commercial examples, including examples relating to thrift, entrepreneurship, the productive use of capital,negotiation of debts, respect for others' property, responsible stewardship of one's own private property and freedomof contract.

    In the universe of the Jesus' teachings, the anti-property lessons are not so much anti-property as they are a warning to people who, in Jesus' view, have misplaced priorities, people who mistakenly believe that ownership of private property and accumulation of wealth is an end it itself rather than a means to a higher end. The weight of Jesus' teaching in fact shows that Jesus highly regarded private property rights and, in order to illustrate the proper relationship between God and man, repeatedly analogized the responsible use and stewardship of private property to the responsible use and stewardship of life
    received from God.

    Jesus, Victimless Crimes and Self-Defense

    Jesus was and is infamous for socializing and dining with prostitutes and other "sinners." While Jesus clearly did not sanction prostitution, his interaction and defense of prostitutes and adulterers illuminates his political worldview. Jesus' lessons indicate that he believed that prostitution, adultery and other "victimless" crimes, although grievous sins, were matters of conscience that could only be solved through the internal action of the sinner.

    In John, chapter 8, the Pharisees bring to Jesus an adulterous woman who, by some accounts, was a prostitute and suggest that she be stoned to death in accordance with Old Testament law. Jesus stops the stoning and protects the woman by stating: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
    As the crowd slips away and no accusers are left to "condemn" the woman, Jesus instructs her to go and "sin no more."

    Unlike the tax collectors who must atone by paying back what they have taken, Jesus recognizes that the woman's sins are a matter of internal conscience. Jesus instructs the Pharisees that want to stone the
    woman to examine their own consciences and correct their own sins before seeking judgment against the woman who has harmed no one but herself. Jesus thus shows that he does not believe that the
    woman's crime can legitimately or practically be enforced by anyone other than the woman.
    Here it is important to note that libertarianism is not synonymous with libertinism. While some libertarians find nothing at all morally wrong with prostitution, other libertarians (like Jesus) believe it is morally wrong but understand that because it is a victimless crime the state has no legitimate role in enforcing it. Prostitution, like drug use and abuse, directly harms only the voluntary participant. Jesus clearly understood and believed this principle. Jesus sought to eradicate prostitution not through state or collective action, but through individual self-examination and counsel.

    With regard to self-defense, Jesus did not use violence against those who aggressed against him and advocated against using violence at all. Although Jesus laid down his life for a particular purpose and although there is some authority in his teachings for the use of force in self-defense, the weight of evidence suggests that Jesus was a pacifist.

    The question then is whether Jesus can at the same time be a pacifist and a libertarian. In the big tent of libertarianism, he can. Although libertarians believe that individuals have the right to use violence
    commensurate with the threat in defense of life, liberty or property, they do not believe that people have an obligation use violence to protect themselves or others. As such, Jesus was a simply
    libertarian who likely believed that the use of force was never legitimate.

    Conclusion

    Christ’s words and actions reflect the libertarian commitment to the rights of person and property, and hint at the Austrian understanding of money. Jesus taught the Golden Rule and believed all individuals, including state actors, must observe it and must make reparations for violating it. He believed that taxation was theft and a violation of individual private property rights. He believed in wise, calculated, and non-violent civil disobedience. He believed that neither the state nor any collective group has a role in punishing or enforcing victimless crimes. Finally, he believed in sound money. One does not have to accept any particular Christian creed to know that politically, Jesus was a libertarian.

    Bill Butler
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/2008/04/b...from-nazareth/

    I don't know, but the above article all seems pretty AnCap compatible to me.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    First off, I don't "hate on" Rand. Well, maybe occasionally But in seriousness, I recognize that he's the best senator that we have, as little as that says.

    But... if Rand is trying to educate, I think he's failing at it. If he's trying to get elected, he may be succeeding at that. But at this point: he's arguing for lower drug penalties, but not against the concept, he's arguing against some foreign policy interventionism, but not all of it, he's arguing against the NSA, but not in favor of pardoning whistleblowers (That last issue annoys me since when Obama was running for President in '08, he was better than Rand currently is on that issue, of course Obama was lying but that's irrelevant to campaign strategy.)

    Bringing up Rand brings up an interesting point though: that's kind of what I want to avoid doing. I don't know for sure if Rand actually takes Ron's positions and is just compromising for electoral reasons or not, but regardless, I'm really not interested in doing what Rand is doing. I understand the benefits of SOMEBODY being that guy (Assuming he really does believe the same things as Ron, which is debatable) but it can't really be me. I'm not really willing to defend that amount of evil and then advocate for whittling away a couple programs. Heck, most conservatives I know are economically more radical than Rand anyway. I'm still trying to find that right balance between not compromising on principle yet not killing people with rhetoric.

    Regarding anarchism, I don't agree with Rothbard on every point either: just the particular point that competing systems of law in a territorial area can work the same way competing police forces or courts can. I could be wrong about that, of course, but that's really the only issue I was addressing there. IIRC you said you are a minarchist, which is incidentally where I was six months ago.
    I am not saying that Rand's role is educating, nor am I saying you should do what he's doing. He's implementing, fighting the battles he can win, and waiting patiently on the ones he can't (IMO anyway).

    But more to the point is that no matter what happens in the political realm, we need to continue the educating and waking people up, even if that process does take some time.

    You don't even have to hide the fact that you're an anarchist, and that doesn't preclude you from starting out with the easier to swallow minarchist arguments like the evils and inefficiencies of our big corporatist cronyist government monopoly.

    Some seem to believe that any form of persuasion that doesn't go as far as your absolute beliefs is abandoning your principles, but it doesn't have to be. People who believe far differently from you are not going to be able to even fathom a functional anarchist or even minarchist society if they don't first realize the extent of the problems of big corrupt government. Convincing them on those fronts first in no way means abandoning your principles. It means picking your battles early to lead them better see the big picture later (or at very least get a constructive dialogue going about it).
    I'd rather be a free man in my grave, than be living as a puppet or a slave - Peter Tosh

    The kids they dance and shake their bones,
    While the politicians are throwing stones,
    And it's all too clear we're on our own,
    Singing ashes, ashes, all fall down...

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGrinch View Post
    I am not saying that Rand's role is educating, nor am I saying you should do what he's doing. He's implementing, fighting the battles he can win, and waiting patiently on the ones he can't (IMO anyway).

    But more to the point is that no matter what happens in the political realm, we need to continue the educating and waking people up, even if that process does take some time.

    You don't even have to hide the fact that you're an anarchist, and that doesn't preclude you from starting out with the easier to swallow minarchist arguments like the evils and inefficiencies of our big corporatist cronyist government monopoly.

    Some seem to believe that any form of persuasion that doesn't go as far as your absolute beliefs is abandoning your principles, but it doesn't have to be. People who believe far differently from you are not going to be able to even fathom a functional anarchist or even minarchist society if they don't first realize the extent of the problems of big corrupt government. Convincing them on those fronts first in no way means abandoning your principles. It means picking your battles early to lead them better see the big picture later (or at very least get a constructive dialogue going about it).
    I agree with this post. Excellent stuff.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  24. #21
    As a Minarchist who is about as close as you can get to AnCap without being an Ancap the whole competing Courts and Police has never been the biggest issue for me when trying to become an AnCap. Biggest issue for me is how an AnCap society remains one. How do states no simply naturally rise up? Whats to stop people from saying their community is a new State.

  25. #22
    How will the iPhone 10 work?

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by gwax23 View Post
    As a Minarchist who is about as close as you can get to AnCap without being an Ancap the whole competing Courts and Police has never been the biggest issue for me when trying to become an AnCap. Biggest issue for me is how an AnCap society remains one. How do states no simply naturally rise up? Whats to stop people from saying their community is a new State.
    I think that it depends entirely on the vigilance of the people to take principled stands. The way our government has gotten so big is that most people just try to live their daily life without paying attention to what government is doing or standing up to it.

    And that is an aspect of human nature that is unlikely to go away even with education.
    "Sorry, fellows, the rebellion is off. We couldn't get a rebellion permit."

  27. #24
    I've read through all the posts, but I'll address the OP, where I think the real questions are.
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    The problem is, the average person cannot possibly comprehend how competing police forces and courts are able to work. And frankly, even I don't know how they would work. Based on economic laws, I do believe they would work, but HOW I really don't know.
    That's kinda the point: nobody can really know how to best provide these services, a priori. So how does the best solution reveal itself? Trial and error, open competition, and accountability to independent agencies of justice. If we could devise "the best" system, for all times, places, and people, we would advocate for a State, indeed a global (or universal) State to implement that solution.

    And, though I completely, wholeheartedly understand that voluntary cooperation works better than coercion, I don't honestly know WHY. The pragmatic aspect isn't really the reason I believe in voluntarism. I believe in voluntarism because I believe it to be morally right. Though shall not steal, murder, etc. I'd believe in those things even if they didn't "work". But I do believe they would work. I just can't prove it in a casual conversation. The statist has an inherent advantage because he works from the commonly accepted notions. How can you account for this?
    Why: because every voluntary act is taken to benefit the actor. Free trade benefits all traders.

    Then question commonly accepted notions: how is this "State" thing working out, even with Constitutional protections on growth, tyranny, and separation of powers?

    By contrast, minarchy (Which probably gets 95% of the principles right) I find to be fairly easy to explain.
    But if you know it's not "right" - you shouldn't feel good explaining it as an end in itself. And explaining Voluntarism will get easier as you get more immersed in the thought.

    Also, why try to explain everything? Everyone has the internet. Just give broad overviews, and refer to source material. Get familiar with links to material that you trust. There are tons of great legal thinkers, economic thinkers, and moral thinkers that have already answered these questions. So don't try to reinvent the wheel - just tell people that the wheel exists and point them to where they can discover it.

    But frankly, to explain to somebody how those crimes that actually do have victims (murder, rape, fraud, theft, etc.) could be prosecuted without government police, courts, or taxes, frankly, I don't fully understand how myself. I do understand the vague concept that people could hire different police companies, or use different arbitrators to resolve disputes, but I find that its really, really hard to explain the idea to someone who has never encountered it before, and if they ask "How would that work", I find it very hard to answer. With roads there's a similar problem, although there are cop outs that there is already a road network in the US or to appeal to the (comparatively more obvious, although it will still be debated) immorality of eminent domain.
    Again - we can't know exactly. So tell them that. But remind them how poorly the system is working today.

    Then ask what their particular fears are about your proposal - and show that the "worst case scenario" is not much different from where we are today.

    So, I'd request any help I can get from you guys on this. How do you explain this concept to people? Is it even really worth trying unless they're a minarchist already? Or is it simpler to just act as a minarchist (Even while holding the ancap principles and sharing them with minarchists as necessary) in actual debates to make things less confusing?
    I appeal to what they want from govt, and what they don't want. Talking to an atheist who wants to help the poor? Convince them that competing agencies of govt will ensure that welfare waste will be minimized, and the best way to help people will be discovered quickly when there's a profit motive for charities and people LIKE THEM can keep more of their money from funding corporate welfare and faith-based programs.

    BTW: I'm giving the "Ron Paul is a voluntarist/ancap" line of thought a lot more consideration than I have in the past as I'm considering this. Even if Ron does believe in those principles 100% of the time, if he had brought those things up in the Presidential debates it would have been really, really difficult for him to deal with the more immediate issues of support for the FED, the wars, the drug wars, etc.

    Although this thread is primarily being started for other ancaps/voluntarists to help me work out, those who do not agree with those principles are more than welcome to try to convince me that my position is wrong. It would also probably be easier to have that debate on this forum since pretty much everyone here understands the theory whether they buy it or not. Most people IRL don't even understand the theory.
    Hit the issues you're comfortable with, and refer other issues out to other sources. There's value in arguing about the FED, the drug war, and "smaller govt" - but only to emphasize that the solutions are in the freed market.
    "You cannot solve these problems with war." - Ron Paul



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by gwax23 View Post
    As a Minarchist who is about as close as you can get to AnCap without being an Ancap the whole competing Courts and Police has never been the biggest issue for me when trying to become an AnCap. Biggest issue for me is how an AnCap society remains one. How do states no simply naturally rise up? Whats to stop people from saying their community is a new State.
    OK, this is interesting because this is almost never the question people ask in my experience. I don't really have an answer for it. If people want the State badly enough, they will get it. Vigilance is required.

    I don't see how this truly differs from minarchism in that regard, though. If enough people want big government, how can minarchy stop them from imposing it? Ultimately I don't see minarchy as a solution to the problem that you correctly point out exists.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by mczerone View Post
    I've read through all the posts, but I'll address the OP, where I think the real questions are.


    That's kinda the point: nobody can really know how to best provide these services, a priori. So how does the best solution reveal itself? Trial and error, open competition, and accountability to independent agencies of justice. If we could devise "the best" system, for all times, places, and people, we would advocate for a State, indeed a global (or universal) State to implement that solution.



    Why: because every voluntary act is taken to benefit the actor. Free trade benefits all traders.

    Then question commonly accepted notions: how is this "State" thing working out, even with Constitutional protections on growth, tyranny, and separation of powers?



    But if you know it's not "right" - you shouldn't feel good explaining it as an end in itself. And explaining Voluntarism will get easier as you get more immersed in the thought.

    Also, why try to explain everything? Everyone has the internet. Just give broad overviews, and refer to source material. Get familiar with links to material that you trust. There are tons of great legal thinkers, economic thinkers, and moral thinkers that have already answered these questions. So don't try to reinvent the wheel - just tell people that the wheel exists and point them to where they can discover it.



    Again - we can't know exactly. So tell them that. But remind them how poorly the system is working today.

    Then ask what their particular fears are about your proposal - and show that the "worst case scenario" is not much different from where we are today.



    I appeal to what they want from govt, and what they don't want. Talking to an atheist who wants to help the poor? Convince them that competing agencies of govt will ensure that welfare waste will be minimized, and the best way to help people will be discovered quickly when there's a profit motive for charities and people LIKE THEM can keep more of their money from funding corporate welfare and faith-based programs.



    Hit the issues you're comfortable with, and refer other issues out to other sources. There's value in arguing about the FED, the drug war, and "smaller govt" - but only to emphasize that the solutions are in the freed market.
    I agree with everything you say here. I guess my remaining question would be, what if the person doesn't actually realize our current system is screwed up? Most people don't.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    OK, this is interesting because this is almost never the question people ask in my experience. I don't really have an answer for it. If people want the State badly enough, they will get it. Vigilance is required.

    I don't see how this truly differs from minarchism in that regard, though. If enough people want big government, how can minarchy stop them from imposing it? Ultimately I don't see minarchy as a solution to the problem that you correctly point out exists.
    Oh yes people dont usually ask it. I meant to say that this is my usual concern.

    Weve never seen a state formed on the basis of Minarchy. Even the US this wasnt the case, thought despite this it maintained a distinct Minarchist character for quite some time. Many states go through periods when they could be considered Minarchies or close to them, but usually its not their intention. A could be set up in a way to severely limit the growth of government. Things like short term lengths and limits, state nullification, judicial review (but not precedence), bicameralism, absolute veto and line item vetoes., tough voting standards (i.e. not a Democracy but a Republic) a federal or confederal devolution of powers, a clear constitution outlying the limited scope of government. Just too name a few of the more obvious things. Some could say this is idealistic but not anymore so than Anarcho Capitalism.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by shemdogg View Post
    How will the iPhone 10 work?
    That's the one I'm waiting for. Till then I'm just gonna keep on using my old dumb phone.

  33. #29
    There are 190 something competing police forces in the world already.

    Done.


    Also, http://mises.org/daily/4683 and citations.
    Last edited by juvanya; 01-27-2014 at 08:27 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    When Freedom is Outlawed, only Outlaws will have Freedom.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    I agree with everything you say here. I guess my remaining question would be, what if the person doesn't actually realize our current system is screwed up? Most people don't.
    If there's not something that they don't like about our current state (meaning "general condition") - then you move on.

    You can't save everyone.
    "You cannot solve these problems with war." - Ron Paul

Page 1 of 6 123 ... 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
  •