Should Libertarians support anarcho-capitalism?

[Natural Citizen]

It's the wrong question because it has nothing to do with how private courts work.

Ohhhh. I see, HB. So there's a system? lol. You guys are pathetic. Now we have a system all of a sudden, do we? lolol. I thought there was no system. lol.

You can have your own agency if you want,

Yes. That's correct. I can. And there is absolutely nothing that you can do about it. Thank You, HB. And I can also have a competing private ambulance, a private competing water company, a private electric company, a private apple picking company, a private farming company and pretty much a private competing everything.

But if you and I don't contractually agree to be bound by said agency, your agency has no authority WRT me.

Says whom? And by what authority? I opted out. Remember? Your terms of controversy are no longer relevant to me. And I have a private mercenary force and a private court just in case you happen to get the urge that they are. I guess we'll see how it pans out when the smoke clears. lol. Do know, however, that in addition to my own mercenaries, half of your mercenaries now work for me, too, because I pay more. You didnt think private mercenaries were in th private mercenary business because they liked you did you? lolol.

[Natural Citizen]

Ha. A self described anarchist (no rulers, yay) trying to defend himself by the coercive authority of a contract. lolol. This place is the gift that keeps on giving.

[Swordsmyth]

Criminals will voluntarily abide by the decisions of private judges like they abide by gun control laws.

[Swordsmyth]

The corrupt will create their own Private justice system and then force it on everybody else.

Private government is biased by it's very definition, public government must be corrupted.

Good people must create public government and defend it against corruption if the world is to have any hope for liberty and justice.

[Origanalist]

[heavenlyboy34]

Ha. A self described anarchist (no rulers, yay) trying to defend himself by the coercive authority of a contract. lolol. This place is the gift that keeps on giving.

[Origanalist]

Oh he knows what it means. He just doesn't care. He flies fast and loose with whatever he feels like and sticks with it no matter what.

[Natural Citizen]

The corrupt will create their own Private justice system and then force it on everybody else.

Private government is biased by it's very definition, public government must be corrupted.

Good people must create public government and defend it against corruption if the world is to have any hope for liberty and justice.

Ah, yes. "love of power and proneness to abuse it," as Washington's Farewell Address warned.

Here's a link that you might appreciate which explains the logic. http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/Am...stick/pr2.html
.

[Natural Citizen]

....

A meme? Is that all you have? You admit you've lost the debate, then?

First you didn't have a system...yet now you have a system. lolol.

[Natural Citizen]

He flies fast and loose with whatever he feels like and sticks with it no matter what.

Oh, hi, mr ima anti-government cowboy except I gave my money to a government candidate because anarchy. lolol.

[heavenlyboy34]

A meme? Is that all you have? You admit you've lost the debate, then?

First you didn't have a system...yet now you have a system. lolol.

You've proven yourself to be worth no significant effort. (is it my fault you lack reading and viewing comprehension skills? If you had them you would understand the system, bro) I reserve serious effort for thoughtful and intelligent adversaries (i.e. erowe). The only reason I bothered with this thread as long as I did is that it shows onlookers the failures and fallacies of statism generally and the Murican statism in particular that you endorse.

[heavenlyboy34]

duplicate post for some reason. :/

[Natural Citizen]

You've proven yourself to be worth no significant effort.

No, I've pretty much destroyed your arguments.

If you had them you would understand the system, bro)

I thought that there wasn't a system.

I reserve serious effort for thoughtful and intelligent adversaries (i.e. erowe). The only reason I bothered with this thread as long as I did is that it shows onlookers the failures and fallacies of statism generally and the Murican statism in particular that you endorse.

You got owned.

[Natural Citizen]

Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty
What you MUST understand, lily, is that statelessness/voluntarism is not a system or model or program, or anything like that. It is merely the absence of coercion.

Really. No coercion, huh. No State, You say? No system? Well, let's ask some questions.

In a voluntaryist society, is whatever is voluntary also ethical? If so, then, why? If not, then, why not? And says whom?

Earlier in the thread, it was deduced that property rights gave you the right to murder someone, though it was at least acknowledged that one ought not do that. But you could if you so chose. Where in this model is consent given by someone for you to murder him? Does the voluntaryist not require consent? If not, then, why not?

Does he lose his right of consent just by the fact that he was haging on for dear life to your pole? If so, then, why? And says whom?

Does whoever owns land get to impose whatever laws he wants on the people who work his land? If so, then, that appears to be some rather strong decision-making-power, doesn't it? A thinking man might call that power a State. A ruler.

What if I'm not a property owner? Do I not have rights because I do not own property? If not, then, why not? If so, then, how so? And says whom?

Can I volunteer not to volunteer? If so, then why? If not, then why not?

Is voluntaryism subjective? If so, then, why? Surely one possesses his right to offer or to decline his consent objectively. Right? So what makes it legitimate that his right to offer or withold consent automatically become subjective? A system, you say? lolol.

Is what is consensual necessarily voluntary? If so, then, how? If not, then, why not? And says whom?

Is what is voluntary necessarily consensual? If not, then, why not? If so, then, how so? And says whom?

Certainly, acceptance is required to perform a voluntary choice, but for a person to perform a consensual choice does require a viable possibility for refusal. Does it not? Meaning consent. Surely it must. Does anyone here disagree with this? Surely, if consent is too restrictive, then, one's words that they love freedom must be a lie.

Does voluntaryism allow people to form hierarchies? If so, then, how do you define freedom? Doing whatever you want? That can't work because hierarchies restrict us from doing whatever we want. Right? Of course they do. So now you're left with either redefining freedom or redefining a hierarchy.

Lastly, where do you think that The Individual's right to property or the rights of groups of Individuals' rights to offer or to withold consent come from? A property owner or God?

Bump for young son of liberty.

Also, HB finally admitted that you have a system so you guys should get your bull pucky straight. lol.

It's kind of funny. The poor lad is telling me that I do not understand the system, yet I'm the one who told you intellectually dishonest minions that you surely must have a system in order to secure your ideology in the first place, which, of course, you all denied. lolol.

[Natural Citizen]

duplicate post for some reason. :/

It's okay. Your head is still spinning from that intellectual knockout blow, karate boy. We'll cut you a break.

[Swordsmyth]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Kafkatrapping

Kafkatrapping

Model M: “The act of arguing against the theory of anti-{sin,racism,sexism,homophobia,oppression} demonstrates that you are either {sinful,racist,sexist, homophobic, oppressive} or do not understand the theory of anti-{sin,racism,sexism,homophobia,oppression}, and your argument can therefore be dismissed as either corrupt or incompetent.”

[A Son of Liberty]

Anyway. This thread is boring now. And you people are pretty much defeated since you haven't offered any reason why coercion cannot exist in an anarcho-capitalist society.

End of the day, it's simple. If I, as an anarchist, do not pay you for your services, what are you going to do about it? Hm? What. Nothing? Ha. If you do nothing to coerce me into paying, then, I have no motivation to pay and your society crumbles under its own weight. Capitalism cannot work without a coercive act to secure payment for services whether it be private court or threat of a private bullet. Either way, it's coercion.

The only thing you guys have demostrated is distaste for another government cutting into your share of the turf.

This is hilarious.

You've never answered where you get the authority to rule other men.

Sorry, I thought you were interested in an honest debate. My bad. Carry on.

[A Son of Liberty]

You've proven yourself to be worth no significant effort. (is it my fault you lack reading and viewing comprehension skills? If you had them you would understand the system, bro) I reserve serious effort for thoughtful and intelligent adversaries (i.e. erowe). The only reason I bothered with this thread as long as I did is that it shows onlookers the failures and fallacies of statism generally and the Murican statism in particular that you endorse.

Correct. I got sucked in, thinking he was going to honestly discuss the issue. Instead, his game is to deflect, and to erect massive strawmen, knock them over, then claim victory.

It's not that important to me.

[A Son of Liberty]

Oh, hi, mr ima anti-government cowboy except I gave my money to a government candidate because anarchy. lolol.

Do you SERIOUSLY think you've got a point here, or something?

Stop with this, it's pathetic.

Actually, please continue. It just bears out what a dishonest person you are in this discussion.

[Natural Citizen]

Do you SERIOUSLY think you've got a point here, or something?

Stop with this, it's pathetic.

Actually, please continue. It just bears out what a dishonest person you are in this discussion.

No. There is no point other than to have a laugh with good ol Origanalist. He seems confused. But he has memes. At least he's entertaining when he does it right without somebody having to tell him to fix his mess.

Now. Honesty? I'm the only person that's been honest aside from Swordsmyth. Though, lily did ask honest, legit, questions.

Voluntaryism is a wonderful thing. But you are not qualified to speak on it.

Anarchy is sometimes a necessary act. Made applicable, however, Anarchy is quite another phenomenon. Comparable to Democracy versus A Democracy. But you are not qualified to speak on it.

Capitalism and Anarchy are contrary philosophies and are fundamentlly contrary in principle therefore they cannot be hyphenated by way of application. And, again, you are not qualified to speak on it.

I'll sum it up for you again one last time. No ideology, if made applicable, can or will flourish without some method to secure said application. A system. A coercive factor which must be supported by wise men and society as a whole. Not reckless, shortsighted, men. This fact alone demands additional principles and additional means of security because power, any power, any hierarchy, needs only to exist to be feared. To repeat what I referenced earlier in the thread, the ever-present, never-changing weaknesses of human nature in government are conducive to "love of power and proneness to abuse it." This is a fundamental truth. Just because you haven't demonstrated the sense God gave a goose to understand this does not make a strawman.

And let me tell you your biggest problem, cowpoke. Your biggest problem is a government that does not agree with you. They're gonna come in with guns and we'll have to mop your blood off the streets. History is ripe with reference, my friend. You can pin a big yellow S onto your chest and pop off about it all day long on the Internet, but until you actually turn in your drivers license, your plates, your social security card, opt out of the IRS, walk into your local police station and give em the finger, I'm sorry, we can't take you seriously. Go lead, Capt Howdy. Show us the way. Stop talking bout it and be about it.

And you didn't answer my questions. Again. lol. It's gosh darned laughable to say that I've deflected anything. And anyone who reads this thread will see. It's okay. I don't even want you to try at this point.

[undergroundrr]

I agree with NC to the extent that you really can't get rid of state-like bodies wherever a large group of people is congregated. Concentration of power is to social structures what gravity is to physics.

But I am an anarchist - I believe that the absence of institutionalized force and coercion (the only way to have true free markets) is the ideal social condition. There's no better environment for human happiness and morality. The closer we get to it the better.

[phill4paul]

The human condition will never lead to a form of government that represents and protects the individual. It's just not possible. You cannot even get two human beings together, for any length of time, without disagreements. Too much togetherness. With the outside interference of....everybody else.
All I can add is the old adage "That government is best which governs least." It's not so much about government governing as it is about government providing for a non-biased moderation of disputes. "Jury of peers" and all that.
But, one has to realize that a jury, of "peers," has to come from a form of agreement. Agreements can come in many forms.
Without government an agreement could be made in which any disagreements were adjudicated by an a-fore determined committee.
But, that doesn't cover everything. If one lived 5 miles up stream from me and dammed and diverted the waters to corn rows so that my cows only received a trickle...what is my option?
Government is the solution to the human condition of greed. We can't eliminate greed. Therefore, we get government. But government flourishes on greed.

We get two different, but similar, things that keep us from living a true and free life.

Is there an answer?

No. There's really not. Just variations and bull$#@!.

[Madison320]

This was an excellent post, I just wanted to add a few things.

In short, no.

A free market in security (anarcho-capitalism) would be superior to a security monopoly (a state).

The problem is that a free market in security cannot actually exist.

There's ALWAYS going to be someone with the most force, in a given area, making and enforcing the decisions, and I'd call that government. Therefore there's ALWAYS going to be government. Back in the cave man days it was the big guy named Grog. Now it's an army.

Market analysis begins with the assumption that property rights are respected: e.g. statements like "to profit, one must sell something that people want" is true only if theft isn't a viable alternative. Anarcho-capitalists just assume that the absence of the state means the presence of a free market for security: i.e. that there would be no opportunities to profit by criminal means (or that people would voluntarily abstain from exploiting those opportunities out of respect for libertarian ideals). This is wishful thinking.

The reality is that, if the state were abolished, the people with the guns would not form private defense agencies and peacefully compete for willing customers. Rather, they would use their guns to steal what they wanted, because that's more profitable. Then they would war with one another over who gets to steal from which area, and ultimately coalesce into new states (as has occurred throughout history upon the collapse of a state).

It's oxymoronic to have a "free" market in "force". You can't shop around for protection agencies, they shop for you, and you don't have a choice in the "transaction".

Libertarians should abandon anarchism, accept the inevitability of the state, and focus on creating a more liberal state.

100% agree. (athough we disagree on how to create a proper state)

[Madison320]

This is my issue with Anarcho-Capitalism.

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

We'll just call up the militia. "Hey, Fred. I'm not going to make the 9 am tee time. I have to take my F-16 out of the barn and get it ready."

[Madison320]

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

That's true but there's be no AC either. It'd be Russian, Mexican, Chinese or whatever government decided to take over. That's the dilemma for ACs.

[Madison320]

Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction

I always liked this Ayn Rand quote.

[Madison320]

Try again. People a lot smarter than you have already dealt with the common objections to anarchism if you aren't too lazy to crack the books.

Why do anarchists always answer questions with "read the book". Can't you formulate your own answer?

[The Gold Standard]

Why do anarchists always answer questions with "read the book". Can't you formulate your own answer?

Or you can read the forum? People that have formulated their own answers? It's tiresome trying to explain the same thing over and over again to people that aren't capable of seeing beyond what they were told.

[Madison320]

Or you can read the forum? People that have formulated their own answers? It's tiresome trying to explain the same thing over and over again to people that aren't capable of seeing beyond what they were told.

You can say that about almost every topic. If everyone answered with, "You're wrong, it's already been answered, look it up.", it would be pointless to have a forum.

[heavenlyboy34]

You can say that about almost every topic. If everyone answered with, "You're wrong, it's already been answered, look it up.", it would be pointless to have a forum.

People already do this, tho. They just link to a thread(s) where the question has already been answered. Happens all the time. Welcome to the world of forums!