Page 21 of 25 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast
Results 601 to 630 of 733

Thread: Should Libertarians support anarcho-capitalism?

  1. #601
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Who decides whether a state is tyrannical, and whether the revolutionary provisional government of Ruritania will be an improvement?
    The people who start and fight for or against the rebellion.

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    How sure are you that this "we" will include us?

    Wager of battle, which is why it is a last resort, but just the possibility helps keep the government from being as tyrannical.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #602
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Whether a weapon is "illegal" is of no consequence
    ...
    I'm not in favor of arming communists.
    If the laws are of no consequence then why have them?
    Amash>Trump

    ΟΥ ΓΑΡ ЄCΤΙΝ ЄξΟΥCΙΑ ЄΙ ΜΗ ΥΠΟ ΘЄΟΥ

    "Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping graven images" - Ironman77

    "ideas have the potential of being more powerful than any army....The concept of personal sovereignty was pulled screaming from the ether into this reality by the force of men believing in a self evident truth, that men are meant to be free." - The Northbreather

    "Trump is the security blanket of aggrieved white men aged 18-60." - Pinoy

  4. #603
    Well. This is why I offered the question regarding whether I can manufacture and sell chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons in ancap world. The points which Rev makes here must be presented in order to be acknowledged. Otherwise they won't be.

    Rev, I don't know where you're going with your point with regard to the 2nd. Though, I agree that we dont want communists toppling government. And I agree that any modern revolution will be by that type of group.

    The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison, for example, the assumption and expectation of The Framers was that all States would marshall their forces and act jointly to crush the usurpers' forces.

    Key word being 'userpers.'
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-20-2017 at 11:45 PM.

  5. #604
    Quote Originally Posted by The Rebel Poet View Post
    If the laws are of no consequence then why have them?
    The laws affect the average person.

    The laws don't, and can't ever, prevent the military from staging a coup d'etat.

    A military coup d'etat is not the same as a popular revolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Wager of battle, which is why it is a last resort, but just the possibility helps keep the government from being as tyrannical.
    I think you overestimate the people.

  6. #605
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Well. This is why I offered the question regarding whether I can manufacture and sell chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons in ancap world. The points which Rev makes here must be presented in order to be acknowledged. Otherwise they won't be.

    Rev, I don't know where you're going with your point with regard to the 2nd. Though, I agree that we dont want communists toppling government. Ad I agre ethat any6 modern revolution will be by that type of group.

    The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison, for example, the assumption and expectation of The Framers was that all States would marshall their forces and act jointly to crush the usurpers' forces.

    Key word being 'userpers.'
    Yup

    ...I don't want any more people to die in a mine shaft in Ekaterinberg.

  7. #606
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post

    They wrongly (very wrongly) assumed that any popular revolution would be in the interest of liberty.

    ...when, in fact, any popular revolution will almost certainly be illiberal (communist, in particular).
    I disagree. The real threat comes from subversive people within our government and the actual powers behind the scenes....not your average Joe schmo leftist. There's more to be said about this, but…I'll leave it at that for now.
    “I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”

    ― Henry David Thoreau

  8. #607
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Yup

    ...I don't want any more people to die in a mine shaft in Ekaterinberg.
    Oh, the Cellar Massacre. lol. Si...

  9. #608
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Yup

    ...I don't want any more people to die in a mine shaft in Ekaterinberg.
    And I don't want any more to die at Waco.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #609
    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    I disagree. The real threat comes from subversive people within our government and the actual powers behind the scenes....not your average Joe schmo leftist. There's more to be said about this, but…I'll leave it at that for now.
    Well, I agree that the primary threat is from our existing government.

    My point is that raising the black flag and slitting throats, as it were, is no solution.

    A popular revolution against this government will - I personally 100% guarantee you - result in an infinitely worse government.

  12. #610
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post

    A popular revolution against this government will - I personally 100% guarantee you - result in an infinitely worse government.
    Guaranteed.

  13. #611
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    And I don't want any more to die at Waco.
    Neither do I, but that wasn't a function of insufficient guns in private hands. There is no amount of guns in private hands which would prevent the federal state from having its way. People like to say that there are more guns in private hands in the US than in the US military, and several other large armies around the world; and that's true, but where is that getting us? The very idea that people who can't be bothered to take five minutes to vote the right way every couple years are going to risk their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" for our cause - or any cause - is absurd.

  14. #612
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Neither do I, but that wasn't a function of insufficient guns in private hands. There is no amount of guns in private hands which would prevent the federal state from having its way. People like to say that there are more guns in private hands in the US than in the US military, and several other large armies around the world; and that's true, but where is that getting us? The very idea that people who can't be bothered to take five minutes to vote the right way every couple years are going to risk their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" for our cause - or any cause - is absurd.
    Times change, now is not 1776 but the future will not be now.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  15. #613
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Times change, now is not 1776 but the future will not be now.
    Well, suffice it to say, my hope for a more liberal society does not rest on a popular revolution.

    ...to the contrary, I dread such an event.

    The future of liberalism does not require any more Bastille-storming criminality.

    That should never occur again, ever.

  16. #614
    Here's an ism to ponder given the nature of discussion in the thread. Legitimism.

  17. #615
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Here's an ism to ponder given the nature of discussion in the thread. Legitimism.

  18. #616
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Times change, now is not 1776 but the future will not be now.
    Rev's having a different discussion than may be apparent to the casual passer-by. Though, to the point you're debating with him, he's correct in his assessment that people don't generally bother themselves about things of this significance. While the populace may certainly have plinkers tucked away in a drawer some place, the populace cares largely about the football game instead. Surely, you must agree. The only such discussion on the topic exists among small communities such as this. And even within such communities, the capacity to participate in them fruitfully, whether right or wrong in one's approach, belongs to the few. I'm generally speaking here so my thought isn't directed toward you or anyone in particular, so please don't take offense. It's nothing you said that reminded me of that, but more what Rev is hinting in his postings to the topic. Rev is, again, echoing the wisdom of Mises. Though, indirectly so. Which seems to be second nature. It's worth a rep for guiding the discussion toward the more relative level of discourse but I'll owe him one.


    To his point...

    ...It took the defeat suffered by the old regime in the battle against liberalism to teach its adherents the truth that there is nothing in the world more powerful than ideologies and that only with ideas can one fight against ideas. They realized that it is foolish to rely on arms, since one can deploy armed men only if they are prepared to obey, and that the basis of all power and dominion is, in the last analysis, ideological. - Mises.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-21-2017 at 02:52 AM.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #617
    This thread kind of went in a different direction… But I want to get back to a couple earlier posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    This is an excellent idea as it would help in reducing fallacious arguments. The difficulty is in perspicacity, however, as a consensus IRT definitions will be difficult.
    I believe it is best to abandon labels all together, and focus on principles alone.
    As a start:

    1) I own me.
    2) You own you.
    3) I own my stuff
    4) You own your stuff
    5) Anyone who violates 1-4 has committed a crime.
    I would put it a different way. I don't own you and you don't own me. I don't own your stuff and you don't own my stuff. I also agree, of course, that the government doesn't own you or me.

    So I agree, if we are talking about the proper relationship of man to man, in regard to force. That said, imo if you're basing an entire political philosophy on that one point, then you're going to have problems, because that is a very incomplete view of reality.


    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    Are you reading the posts I'm making, or just the posts you're quoting? Because you only seem to quote me when I lash out - which I do admit I do from time to time. But I've been making very logically consistent arguments in most of my posts in this thread and this sub-forum.
    I may not have read every single one of your posts, but since I joined this thread I haven't seen you refute the point that anarchy and capitalism are oxymorons in practice. If you have addressed that, please link me to the post. If you don't feel like getting into that topic anymore, no worries.
    “I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”

    ― Henry David Thoreau

  21. #618
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Anarcho-capitalism is an extremely appealing idea, you know.

    Shoes are better made on a market than by a monopoly.

    Beans are better made on a market than by a monopoly.

    ...etc

    It only makes sense that the securing of property would itself also be best accomplished on a market
    Agreed. :thumbsup:

    And of course it isn't just about the fact that shoes and beans are made better by the market but also why they are made better by the market-- competition and free will-- things that not only benefit the shoes and beans industry but all industries. The state is a rule enforcer not a property securer. Its innovation and theorization will go towards enforcing rules and not securing property. It does not share the same priorities as the property owner. The property owner wants security. The market is respondent to demand. Innovation and theorization would go towards securing property and not enforcing rules.

  22. #619
    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    You rarely address anything that is said by those who disagree with you. Instead of tired ad hominems, why not refute his point that Anarchy and Capitalism are oxymorons in application? Definitions are important, or else all this debating is a waste of time. In fact, sometimes people who are arguing actually agree with each other… but the problem is they're on two different pages regarding definitions.
    The thing is, anarchism (generally, statelessness) and capitalism (the free exchange of goods and services) are not "oxymorons", or incompatible, or in any way at odds with each other. The proof is right there in front of your eyes, lily. You exchange goods and services without the intervention of the State every single day, broadly speaking. Sure, the State intervenes in terms of the price you pay for goods and services (through "taxation" and regulation, both in the terms by which vendors provide certain goods and services and in artificial price controls), but at ground-level, you identify a particular good or service which meets your needs, you select a vendor to provide the aforementioned good or service, and you hand over money to secure said goods or services. There is no need nor use for the State in this freely agreed-upon exchange. That is, effectively, anarcho-capitalism.

    I'm not interested in childish semantics arguments where we haggle over the definition of "anarchism", or "capitalism", or anything else. I don't have time for that. I have a few days off so I'm hanging out in this forum for the fun of it - we're (presumably) all adults here, and I assume none of us have time for trivialities. I work a serious job, with real-world demands. I'm not going to waste my time, even when I have it to spare, debating the definition of words. When I use the word "anarchism", I expect that people - ESPECIALLY PEOPLE HERE - understand what I mean by that word. No one here is advocating chaos. No one here is advocating macro-statism, at least not intentionally. So I'm not going to spend my time explaining myself, that I advocate a thoughtful statelessness, which can be differentiated from minarchism in only the slightest terms. That is a waste of my time. I get where the minarchists here are coming from - I understand their point of view because I once held it myself. So when NC condescends to tell my I don't know what I'm talking about, or tells me that I need to read more... Whatever. I've done my reading. I'd gamble that I've read everything NC has read and probably more so. Or, maybe not. I don't care. I'm not here for a dick-measuring competition. I have a firm grasp of the logic and consequences behind what I understand to be true about human society.

    And here's the real secret of this debate - none of it matters. Nothing is going to change. We anarchists and minarchists and even the Trumpists... we're waves upon the rocks. We're pushing back the ocean with a broom. Because the fact is, people want to be ruled, AND they want to RULE. And they will. History has bent inexorably toward democracy, and people will have it to such a degree that they will inevitably kill themselves. So we can argue over the merits of statelessness and micro-statism, but what we're REALLY doing is arguing over the number of angels on the head of a pin. In other words, it doesn't matter, and it's not going to change.

    But it's good for a laugh, at the end of the day. Cheers.

  23. #620
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Well, I agree that the primary threat is from our existing government.

    My point is that raising the black flag and slitting throats, as it were, is no solution.

    A popular revolution against this government will - I personally 100% guarantee you - result in an infinitely worse government.
    Know how you avoid all of that? Oppose the State.

    You've set yourself upon the path to totalitarianism, the Total State.

    I can't believe that you can't see that.

    You've set the State upon the world, AND you've stated your opposition to it's overthrow.

    You're Frankenstein, sir, and you want your monster to be immortal.

  24. #621
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    My main disagreement is that I contend that Anarchy and Capitalism are oxymorons in application.
    I keep seeing this brought up. I'm not sure why it even needs to be addressed. Capitalism by definition is trade without state interference. In that sense, any intervention by the state, whether by shepherding the currency system or acting as fraud watchdog is hamstringing capitalism.

    What on Earth would keep two people or even groups of people free from compulsive authority from trading freely with one another? Places with little or no government jurisdiction are famous for being free trade zones.

    Your contention stands on the idea that property is private only if a government proxy (I'd say "thug") is protecting your "property" for you with his gun instead of you protecting your property (no scare quotes) with yours.

    If your point is just that anarchy is just impractical, okay then people will choose to take your word for it or not. You're free to portray anarchy as a silly pipedream. But I would contend it's not much more silly than constitutional minarchy, which not only is inachievable without secession, but even then can be seen as the greatest possible potential for evil. Minarchies inevitably eventually hand the powerful products of a mostly-capitalist hybrid economy to a hooligan or cartel of hooligans to achieve their own ends.
    Last edited by undergroundrr; 10-21-2017 at 11:05 AM.
    Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018

  25. #622
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    The thing is, anarchism (generally, statelessness) and capitalism (the free exchange of goods and services) are not "oxymorons", or incompatible, or in any way at odds with each other. The proof is right there in front of your eyes, lily. You exchange goods and services without the intervention of the State every single day, broadly speaking. Sure, the State intervenes in terms of the price you pay for goods and services (through "taxation" and regulation, both in the terms by which vendors provide certain goods and services and in artificial price controls), but at ground-level, you identify a particular good or service which meets your needs, you select a vendor to provide the aforementioned good or service, and you hand over money to secure said goods or services. There is no need nor use for the State in this freely agreed-upon exchange. That is, effectively, anarcho-capitalism.

    I'm not interested in childish semantics arguments where we haggle over the definition of "anarchism", or "capitalism", or anything else. I don't have time for that. I have a few days off so I'm hanging out in this forum for the fun of it - we're (presumably) all adults here, and I assume none of us have time for trivialities. I work a serious job, with real-world demands. I'm not going to waste my time, even when I have it to spare, debating the definition of words. When I use the word "anarchism", I expect that people - ESPECIALLY PEOPLE HERE - understand what I mean by that word. No one here is advocating chaos. No one here is advocating macro-statism, at least not intentionally. So I'm not going to spend my time explaining myself, that I advocate a thoughtful statelessness, which can be differentiated from minarchism in only the slightest terms. That is a waste of my time. I get where the minarchists here are coming from - I understand their point of view because I once held it myself. So when NC condescends to tell my I don't know what I'm talking about, or tells me that I need to read more... Whatever. I've done my reading. I'd gamble that I've read everything NC has read and probably more so. Or, maybe not. I don't care. I'm not here for a dick-measuring competition. I have a firm grasp of the logic and consequences behind what I understand to be true about human society.

    And here's the real secret of this debate - none of it matters. Nothing is going to change. We anarchists and minarchists and even the Trumpists... we're waves upon the rocks. We're pushing back the ocean with a broom. Because the fact is, people want to be ruled, AND they want to RULE. And they will. History has bent inexorably toward democracy, and people will have it to such a degree that they will inevitably kill themselves. So we can argue over the merits of statelessness and micro-statism, but what we're REALLY doing is arguing over the number of angels on the head of a pin. In other words, it doesn't matter, and it's not going to change.

    But it's good for a laugh, at the end of the day. Cheers.
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    I keep seeing this brought up. I'm not sure why it even needs to be addressed. Capitalism by definition is trade without state interference. In that sense, any intervention by the state, whether by shepherding the currency system or acting as fraud watchdog is hamstringing capitalism.

    What on Earth would keep two people or even groups of people free from compulsive authority from trading freely with one another? Places with little or no government jurisdiction are famous for being free trade zones.

    Your contention stands on the idea that property is private only if a government proxy (I'd say "thug") is protecting your "property" for you with his gun instead of you protecting your property (no scare quotes) with yours.

    If your point is just that anarchy is just impractical, okay then people will choose to take your word for it or not. You're free to portray anarchy as a silly pipedream. But I would contend it's not much more silly than constitutional minarchy, which not only is inachievable without secession, but even then can be seen as the greatest possible potential for evil. Minarchies inevitably eventually hand the powerful products of a mostly-capitalist hybrid economy to a hooligan or cartel of hooligans to achieve their own ends.
    I think you both completely misunderstood why he brought that up. But I'm sure he will reply later, since it was his point. You must realize though, that the 'traditional' anarchists say the same thing, they see capitalism as completely incompatible with anarchism.

    Anyway, thank you A Son of Liberty for your reply.
    “I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”

    ― Henry David Thoreau

  26. #623
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post

    Places with little or no government jurisdiction are famous for being free trade zones. Your contention stands on the idea that property is private only if a government proxy (I'd say "thug") is protecting your "property" for you with his gun instead of you protecting your property (no scare quotes) with yours.
    Exactly. Here is an image of prosperous free trade zone in Somalia. No government interference around. Anyone gets out of line, shoot 'em.




    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post

    Minarchies inevitably eventually hand the powerful products of a mostly-capitalist hybrid economy to a hooligan or cartel of hooligans to achieve their own ends.
    Here is the heavy hand of minarchy in Hong Kong ruining the lives of all but the well connected few.


  27. #624
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Exactly. Here is an image of prosperous free trade zone in Somalia. No government interference around. Anyone gets out of line, shoot 'em.

    [pic]

    Here is the heavy hand of minarchy in Hong Kong ruining the lives of all but the well connected few.

    [pic]
    Somalia - yes, urban areas with zero resources following an imploded archy gonna suck. However, Mogadishu itself (is that where that picture was taken?) is somewhat presided over by a federal government that collects 100s of millions of dollars of taxes every year. One might call it a minarchy.

    Hong Kong is beautiful. I really, truly hope it never falls into the hands of a monster. History says all bets are off.
    Last edited by undergroundrr; 10-21-2017 at 12:19 PM.
    Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #625
    By the way, in that picture of the free trading fellows in Somalia, I can't help seeing beyond the dirt to something very beautiful at its genesis. It may not go anywhere because of the competing segregationist tribal "governments" that keep the country torn apart, but it's nice to think those guys are catalysts for positive change without knowing it.
    Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018

  30. #626
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Exactly. Here is an image of prosperous free trade zone in Somalia. No government interference around. Anyone gets out of line, shoot 'em.


    ...Probably selling nuclear weapons, too. Effin Somalia!
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  31. #627
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    By the way, in that picture of the free trading fellows in Somalia, I can't help seeing beyond the dirt to something very beautiful at its genesis. It may not go anywhere because of the competing segregationist tribal "governments" that keep the country torn apart, but it's nice to think those guys are catalysts for positive change without knowing it.
    Looks like Detroit, but without a legion of bureaucrats swooping in to shut down "illegal" businesses. Blessed be the bureaucrats, enablers of free trade that they are.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  32. #628
    One thing that this thread has shown is that if you're going to reject anarchy as invalid, unlivable, etc. you're going to have to eventually mount a (eerily left-wing-y) valiant defense of the efficacy and even benevolence of the state. It's morbidly fascinating to watch that take place.
    Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018

  33. #629
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    One thing that this thread has shown is that if you're going to reject anarchy as invalid, unlivable, etc. you're going to have to eventually mount a (eerily left-wing-y) valiant defense of the efficacy and even benevolence of the state. It's morbidly fascinating to watch that take place.
    Theft is necessary to prevent theft. Or some-such. I feel safer already.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  34. #630
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    One thing that this thread has shown is that if you're going to reject anarchy as invalid, unlivable, etc. you're going to have to eventually mount a (eerily left-wing-y) valiant defense of the efficacy and even benevolence of the state. It's morbidly fascinating to watch that take place.
    First of all, you have a picture of Martin Luther King in your avatar, who was a despicable socialist.

    That aside, there is nothing left wing about supporting government. It is necessary for markets to operate. In order for trade to take place on a grand scale, there has to be predictable rules and ways to settle disputes that are generally accepted. Otherwise trade will only take place on a small scale, tribal level where high trust exists.

Page 21 of 25 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... 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
  •