Page 17 of 25 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 510 of 733

Thread: Should Libertarians support anarcho-capitalism?

  1. #481
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    A state can be an attempt to provide equal justice and protection under the law, anarchy is surrender to the law of the jungle and then to the first naked tyrant to come along.

    A state is unlikely to provide perfect results but it will provide better results than anarchy.
    A state provides it's people with the illusion of security and order. Until it doesn't.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #482
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    A state provides it's people with the illusion of security and order. Until it doesn't.
    A state provides it's people with a semblance of security and order. Until it doesn't.

    Anarchy doesn't even provide that.
    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

  4. #483
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    A state provides it's people with a semblance of security and order. Until it doesn't.

    Anarchy doesn't even provide that.
    You are correct. But the taxes are less.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  5. #484
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    You are correct. But the taxes are less.
    But the losses to theft and pillage are greater.
    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

  6. #485
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    But the losses to theft and pillage are greater.
    You haven't seen my tax bill.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  7. #486
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    You haven't seen my tax bill.
    Brigands and conquerors tend to take EVERYTHING you own, often including your life.
    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

  8. #487
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Brigands and conquerors tend to take EVERYTHING you own, often including your life.
    Yes. Fear is the diet of the state. People take comfort in the actual annual pound of flesh extracted, providing it diminishes the possibility of phantoms, bugbears and brigands. But the brigands remain, in defiance of the state. The difference is the people are robbed twice.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  9. #488
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Brigands and conquerors tend to take EVERYTHING you own, often including your life.
    Whose responsibility is it to secure your family, your life, and your possessions?
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #489
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Yes. Fear is the diet of the state. People take comfort in the actual annual pound of flesh extracted, providing it diminishes the possibility of phantoms, bugbears and brigands. But the brigands remain, in defiance of the state. The difference is the people are robbed twice.
    Most people are never robbed by criminals in a properly run state and the conquests are held off for a lot longer as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Whose responsibility is it to secure your family, your life, and your possessions?
    Mine and the state's.
    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

  12. #490
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    If people can't be bothered to defend themselves from invaders without compulsion, then what difference does it make if they are conquered?
    I think this is illustrative of the ancap mentality in general, and why it troubles some of us.

  13. #491
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post

    Originally Posted by otherone

    If people can't be bothered to defend themselves from invaders without compulsion, then what difference does it make if they are conquered?

    I think this is illustrative of the ancap mentality in general, and why it troubles some of us.
    Precisely. And precisely. I, too, think it's illustrative of the ancap mentality in general. And, this, too, is what I find so troublesome about it.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-18-2017 at 09:11 PM.

  14. #492
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I think this is illustrative of the ancap mentality in general, and why it troubles some of us.
    Why?
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  15. #493
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Why?
    If a form of political order results in tyranny, "well, they weren't zealous enough to survive, so F-em" isn't a good defense of that system.

    The goal is maximizing human liberty, not just saying that people should want liberty, and condescending to them when they don't.

    Liberalism is a humanitarian ideology; the well being of the people is the whole point.

  16. #494
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post

    Liberalism is a humanitarian ideology; the well being of the people is the whole point.
    Your thought here echoes those of Mises.

    Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace - Mises

    In hindsight Mises' thoughts on it differed a bit from those of Rothbard...

    For it should never be forgotten that a libertarian society does not mean the total absence of coercion but only the absence of coercion against noncriminals. Those who invade the rights of others by violence deserve their proper check and punishment by the force of law. - Rothbard
    Of course, the difference comes down to definition. Likely Rothbard's biggest mistake was associating anarchy with his point of view since he, himself, opposed traditional anarchy in his early years.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-18-2017 at 09:48 PM.

  17. #495
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Your thought here echoes those of Mises.
    Well then, I'm in the best possible company.

    In hindsight Mises' thoughts on it differed a bit from those of Rothbard...
    Rothbard was an ancap, but his goal was never anything other than the maximization of human liberty.

    He was never a "lifestyle libertarian."

    He would have supported (and did support) any form of political organization at all if he thought it would have advanced liberty. It so happens that he was in good faith mistaken with respect to anarcho-capitalism, but as far as I'm concerned this detracts little/nothing from his achievements. He was the finest liberal scholar of the past century after Mises. The people at the LvMI (I continue on a tangent) are epigones, living in the master's shadow, unfortunately stuck on his one great error. They should pay more attention to their namesake.

  18. #496
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Well then, I'm in the best possible company.



    Rothbard was an ancap, but his goal was never anything other than the maximization of human liberty.

    He was never a "lifestyle libertarian."

    He would have supported (and did support) any form of political organization at all if he thought it would have advanced liberty. It so happens that he was in good faith mistaken with respect to anarcho-capitalism, but as far as I'm concerned this detracts little/nothing from his achievements. He was the finest liberal scholar of the past century after Mises. The people at the LvMI (I continue on a tangent) are epigones, living in the master's shadow, unfortunately stuck on his one great error. They should pay more attention to their namesake.
    Yeah. You beat me to it, I'd went back and edited my post to acknowledge your point with regard to Rothbard. Agreed.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #497
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Everything boils down to "might makes right". The difference is that people believe the state's might is desirable, necessary and objective, and thus moral. This dovetails nicely with the "The Rule of Law is a Myth" thread. People revere the "Law", as they believe it is transcendent.
    Wait a second... I want to be clear on your position. Are you saying that it always boils down to might makes right because of corrupt people, but in your view might makes right is false? Or do you believe that "might makes right" is the actual reality? To put it another way, do you believe in natural law / divine law?
    Last edited by lilymc; 10-18-2017 at 10:06 PM.
    “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. #498
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Yeah. You beat me to it, I'd went back and edited my post to acknowledge your point with regard to Rothbard. Agreed.
    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, at first glance.

    I don't want to insult our ancap allies too much - and they are allies, despite our disagreements - but it makes sense that a young person who just discovered libertarianism, who just started thinking about economics, about the natural (or God-given, as your perspective may be) beauty of the market economy, about the invisible hand, etc, would want to apply that to everything, and buy into anarcho-capitalism. That's fine. But adherence to abstract principles without regard for their practical consequences is a mistake. Theory without practice is blind; practice without theory is retarded.

  22. #499
    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, at first glance.

    I don't want to insult our ancap allies too much - and they are allies, despite our disagreements - but it makes sense that a young person who just discovered libertarianism, who just started thinking about economics, about the natural (or God-given, as your perspective may be) beauty of the market economy, about the invisible hand, etc, would want to apply that to everything, and buy into anarcho-capitalism. That's fine. But adherence to abstract principles without regard for their practical consequences is a mistake. Theory without practice is blind; practice without theory is retarded.
    Yeah. It does sound appealing to the less wise. Though, I still reject the hyphenation. As I said, they should at least go with what Hoppe was saying and call themselves Propertarians. It makes more sense.

    I'm mixed about any cooperation, however. Which I hinted toward in the other thread about the site mission. While we may agree on some basic principles, we do disagree in their application.

    The bigger issue is that we can't really use our forum for an educational platform. Not really. Reason being is that we get what is considered one of our own posting a unicorn meme dragging his ass with rainbow feces whenever we try to do so. And that's really all those types offer. So they work against us. They never really offer anything of any substance (though, otherone has made an effort in the last few communications) other than maybe a campaign donation once in a while. Just a meme to discredit anyone who they disagree with without having to actually provide any kind of dialogue as to why. It's self destruction for the site as far as credibility goes. It's comparable to driving some place and having your passenger keep grabbing the wheel and turning the car some place else. And most often toward a crash. It's amateurism mixed with recklessness and no concern at all with synergy to cause.

    I've told Bryan before that we'd be better off completely changing the platform to a magazine type of site which allows facebook comments and other social media platform comments. That way there's a separation and we aren't judged as an Indivisible whole by anyone elses carelessness or disregard for cause. It's the only way that responsibility for incompetency and blatant disregard can be associated with an Individual as opposed to an innocent group of Individuals.

    But, yes. anarcho-capitalism does look appealing if one hasn't yet learned to reason otherwise.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-18-2017 at 11:09 PM.

  23. #500
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Yeah. It does sound appealing to the less wise. Though, I still reject the hyphenation. As I said, they should at least go with what Hoppe was saying and call themselves Propertarians. It makes more sense.

    I'm mixed about any cooperation, however. Which I hinted toward in the other thread about the site mission. While we may agree on some basic principles, we do disagree in their application.

    The bigger issue is that we can't really use our forum for an educational platform. Not really. Reason being is that we get what is considered one of our own posting a unicorn meme dragging his ass with rainbow feces whenever we try to do so. And that's really all those types offer. So they work against us. They never really offer anything of any substance (though, otherone has made an effort in the last few communications) other than maybe a campaign donation once in a while. Just a meme to discredit anyone who they disagree with without having to actually provide any kind of dialogue as to why. It's self destruction for the site as far as credibility goes. It's comparable to driving some place and having your passenger keep grabbing the wheel and turning the car some place else. And most often toward a crash. It's amateurism mixed with recklessness and no concern at all with synergy to cause.

    I've told Bryan before that we'd be better off completely changing the platform to a magazine type of site which allows facebook comments and other social media platform comments. That way there's a separation and we aren't judged as an Indivisible whole by anyone elses carelessness or disregard for cause. It's the only way that responsibility for incompetency and blatant disregard can be associated with an Individual as opposed to an innocent group of Individuals.

    But, yes. anarcho-capitalism does look appealing if one hasn't yet learned to reason otherwise.
    Well, people say (and believe) a lot of really stupid horse$#@!..

    Not that it's up to either of us (...), but if it were up to me, I wouldn't ban any ancaps for being ancaps, ever. But, I would consider, in election season, in relation to one of our own candidates like Rand, suspending those who insist on $#@!ting on efforts to work w/in the electoral system (what should have been done last time *cough*moderation*cough*). I hope we have this problem to deal with in, what, 20 months or so... If there ends up being a contested primary, and Rand runs, that'll be a decisive moment for this forum.

  24. #501
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Well, people say (and believe) a lot of really stupid horse$#@!..

    Not that it's up to either of us (...), but if it were up to me, I wouldn't ban any ancaps for being ancaps, ever. But, I would consider, in election season, in relation to one of our own candidates like Rand, suspending those who insist on $#@!ting on efforts to work w/in the electoral system (what should have been done last time *cough*moderation*cough*). I hope we have this problem to deal with in, what, 20 months or so... If there ends up being a contested primary, and Rand runs, that'll be a decisive moment for this forum.
    Banning Ancaps for being ancaps? Never

    Banning people claiming that Ron Paul supports world government? Absolutely
    ================
    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

  25. #502

  26. #503
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Well, people say (and believe) a lot of really stupid horse$#@!..

    Not that it's up to either of us (...), but if it were up to me, I wouldn't ban any ancaps for being ancaps, ever. But, I would consider, in election season, in relation to one of our own candidates like Rand, suspending those who insist on $#@!ting on efforts to work w/in the electoral system (what should have been done last time *cough*moderation*cough*). I hope we have this problem to deal with in, what, 20 months or so... If there ends up being a contested primary, and Rand runs, that'll be a decisive moment for this forum.
    I don't want to ban anyone either. Of course, there will always be disagreement. But disagreement should be had intelligently and in pursuit of a solution.

    However, if friends demonstrate no useful function other than to troll and to disrupt healthy discussion in pursuit of solution, then, that's another story.

    I like the idea of ditching the forum itself and going to a news magazine style of platform so that people own their input Individually. In a forum platform, we all end up owning the irresponsibility of a few by simple association. If somebody posts a picture of a federal building on fire insinuaing it to be a solution to the tax system and says to pass it around, then, I'm associated with that kind of activism by way of the fact that libertarianism permits for the company of the reckless. It's counterproductive. This is not good for me or for anyone else who disagrees with that brand of solution yet we are judgd by it as a consequence of association. Not to mention that forums are a dying platform.

    It'll never happen, but I like the idea.

    That said, revising the site mission given where we are in all of this is a good idea. And I'm glad to see that it was bumped. We need definition. And we need to secure it.

    But, no, I dont ever want to see anyone banned if their values and posting record are consistent with our mission and guidelines.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-19-2017 at 02:02 AM.

  27. #504
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    If a form of political order results in tyranny, "well, they weren't zealous enough to survive, so F-em" isn't a good defense of that system.

    The goal is maximizing human liberty, not just saying that people should want liberty, and condescending to them when they don't.

    Liberalism is a humanitarian ideology; the well being of the people is the whole point.
    Liberty occurs only when individuals advocate for it for themselves. You are advocating for world government. It is you that are condescending to people. If people don't want it, who are you or I to tell them otherwise?
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #505
    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    Wait a second... I want to be clear on your position. Are you saying that it always boils down to might makes right because of corrupt people, but in your view might makes right is false? Or do you believe that "might makes right" is the actual reality? To put it another way, do you believe in natural law / divine law?
    I believe that violence, except in defense of natural rights, is always wrong. If my neighbor extorts 20k from me with the threat of violence, it is a crime. If my neighbors band together to do so, it is not justified simply because they've all agreed to do it.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  30. #506
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    We've been over this. Voluntary service is not compulsion, hence, not a state. There is a plethora of historical examples of armies disbanding after conflicts are resolved.
    Do you have an example of a recent one?

  31. #507
    World government will be made up of nation-states, whether minarchies or maxarchies. The longer we go on with the state as is, the closer we get to a United States of Earth. It just takes the right president and congress to make it happen in accord with other nation-states.

    Being for anarchy doesn't mean one feels there's a realistic chance of it happening. An anarchist recognizes that any size state is up to no good the moment it violates an individual's rights, which is unavoidable even for the smallest town council. Therefore, minimizing and even eliminating the state and encouraging citizens of other states to do so is the proper path to peace and happiness.

    Minarchists haven't figured out how to make the state smaller. Anarchists haven't figured out how to eliminate it, but they're completely on the same mission. If we get down to eliminating the position of mayor from all jurisdictions and the minarchists decide to stage a violent takeover, a well-armed populace can cross that bridge when we come to it.
    Last edited by undergroundrr; 10-19-2017 at 10:26 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

  32. #508
    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, at first glance.

    I don't want to insult our ancap allies too much - and they are allies, despite our disagreements - but it makes sense that a young person who just discovered libertarianism, who just started thinking about economics, about the natural (or God-given, as your perspective may be) beauty of the market economy, about the invisible hand, etc, would want to apply that to everything, and buy into anarcho-capitalism. That's fine. But adherence to abstract principles without regard for their practical consequences is a mistake. Theory without practice is blind; practice without theory is retarded.
    The first time I heard about it, it sounded like a good idea. If less government is good, why not no government? But then I started thinking it thru.

  33. #509
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    World government will be made up of nation-states, whether minarchies or maxarchies. The longer we go on with the state as is, the closer we get to a United States of Earth. It just takes the right president and congress to make it happen in accord with other nation-states.

    Being for anarchy doesn't mean one feels there's a realistic chance of it happening. An anarchist recognizes that any size state is up to no good the moment it violates an individual's rights, which is unavoidable even for the smallest town council. Therefore, minimizing and even eliminating the state and encouraging citizens of other states to do so is the proper path to peace and happiness.

    Minarchists haven't figured out how to make the state smaller. Anarchists haven't figured out how to eliminate it, but they're completely on the same mission. If we get down to eliminating the position of mayor from all jurisdictions and the minarchists decide to stage a violent takeover, a well-armed populace can cross that bridge when we come to it.
    I partly disagree because anarchists assume it doesn't matter which part of the state you reduce. For example suppose the 2 choices for the US were to eliminate everything but the military or everything but social security. Since both are about the same size anarchists would say it doesn't matter which gets eliminated. But we'd be far better off with just a military compared to just social security. Unless our new masters that conquer us were nicer than the current ones. But I don't really want to take that chance and I don't want to go thru the "getting conquered" part.

    Anyway I think in reality anarchists probably are allies to libertarians because I don't think they believe their own crap. How many anarchists would support eliminating the police and courts in their hometown? None in reality.

  34. #510
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    I partly disagree because anarchists assume it doesn't matter which part of the state you reduce. For example suppose the 2 choices for the US were to eliminate everything but the military or everything but social security. Since both are about the same size anarchists would say it doesn't matter which gets eliminated. But we'd be far better off with just a military compared to just social security. Unless our new masters that conquer us were nicer than the current ones. But I don't really want to take that chance and I don't want to go thru the "getting conquered" part.

    Anyway I think in reality anarchists probably are allies to libertarians because I don't think they believe their own crap. How many anarchists would support eliminating the police and courts in their hometown? None in reality.
    Anarchists and minarchists are both at a loss as to how either can be pulled off. With the symbiosis of the Warfare State, Welfare State and Fed, nobody Democrat or Republican gets to choose between welfare and warfare. The reduction of either in isolation is out of the question. If you want one, you get the other.

    To talk about taking things down to the level of local police and courts is indestinguishably pie-in-the-sky to outright anarchy. Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. No need to alienate people on precisely the same mission you're on.
    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

Page 17 of 25 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... 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
  •