Page 23 of 25 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 LastLast
Results 661 to 690 of 733

Thread: Should Libertarians support anarcho-capitalism?

  1. #661
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    I'm not contending that Anarchy is a pipedream. In fact, I contend that Anarchy could work.

    I'm simply contending that Anarchy and Capitalism cannot be hyphenated in any applicable way because Anarchy and Capitalism are fundamentally different in principle to the point that they are in direct opposition to one another.
    Hyphenating the two is perfectly legitimate, there's no dilemma here. Anarchy isn't the principle there are no hierarchies; and Capitalism isn't the principle rulers must set the rules of commerce.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #662
    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    I knew someone was going to say that.
    Yes. I think a lot of the thread both sides were experiencing that phenomenon. Not SOMALIA again! Lol
    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

  4. #663
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    Was the contract signed under compulsion? If not, the obligation was taken on with no compulsion having taken place.
    You tell me, undergroundrr. Is what is consentual necessarily voluntary? If so, then, how so? If not, then, why not?


    I asked the question early on in the thread. Though, like my other quesions, it went completely ignored.

    Additionally, and more critically, is whatever is voluntary also ethical?

    For instance, earlier in the thread and elsewhere on the forum, I've seen the idea tossed out there of rule by landlord. That the property owner determined one's rights. Meaning that whomever owns the land can impose whatever laws he wishes on anyone who works or lives within his land.

    Is this not the very nature of a state? If not, then, why not?

    I'll have to check back later, undergroundrr. Can't really spend time on here right now but I did want to address yours and the other guy's thoughts on it.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-21-2017 at 03:52 PM.

  5. #664
    Quote Originally Posted by Raginfridus View Post
    Hyphenating the two is perfectly legitimate, there's no dilemma here.
    I disagree. The dilemma exists in application. Though, one may certainly hyphenate any set of isms verbally if it suits one's whim. For instance, libertarian-communism. See? I can say it. But how do I make them appicable as an Indivisible whole in the company of my peers who understand them to be no more than two contrary nouns combined to create a formal fallacy? They're directly contrary isms in fundamental principle.

    The only way you can make them applicable as an Indivisible whole is to redefine one or the other or both for the purpose of creating the illusion of applicability. Which is precisely what you guys are trying to do by redefining fundamental Anarchism to suit your whim and then hyphenating it with capitalism. It's intellectual dishonesty and of the most obtuse magnitude. It won't work, though, because we can easily go 50 pages.


    Anarchy isn't the principle there are no hierarchies
    Anarchy = No Ruler. Thus, no rules. No hierarchy


    Capitalism isn't the principle rulers must set the rules of commerce.
    You see? You just contradicted yourself. You're contending that, yes, there are rules of cmmerce, yet you only offer the argument of who sets them.

    Regardless of who sets the rules of capitalism, the fact remains that there exists rules of capitalism. Without rules of capitalism, capitalism cannot work.

    Unfortunately, anarchy means no rulers. So the only way you can make fundamental capitalism applicable as an Indivisible whole with fundamental anarchy is to remove all rules of capitalism or remove the principles of anarchy.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-21-2017 at 04:26 PM.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #665
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    You tell me, undergroundrr. Is what is consentual necessarily voluntary? If so, then, how so? If not, then, why not?
    I love that question. In other words, if things are getting hot and she says "yes" does it mean "yes?" Funnily we just had that discussion with our oldest son a few days ago.

    Not sure why that would affect whether anarchy and capitalism are compatible.
    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

  8. #666
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    I disagree. The dilemma exist in application. Though, one may certainly hyphenate any set of isms verbally. For instance, libertarian-communism. See? I can say it. But how do I make them appicable?
    You were the kid who brought his topps to school and flashed them all over the place, then a bunch of sixth graders took them, and its been the bus driver's fault for not intervening ever since. If only there was a minarchist driving that day, you would still have those rookies... or gently scolded for hustling.


    Anarchy = No Ruler. Thus, no rules. No hierarchy
    Which ruler was it that legalized, for example, the rules of attraction? Was that Hammurabi? Draco? It must have been a Pope...

    You see? You just contradicted yourself.
    You're just pleading at this point. I've told you Anarchy and Capitalism are not as you've defined them. If you can't self correct, it is best that you opt out of ancap.

    Regardless of who sets the rules of capitalism, the fact remains that there exists rules of capitalism. Without rules of capitalism, capitalism cannot work.

    Unfortunately, anarchy means no rulers. So the only way you can make fundamental capitalism applicable as an Indivisible whole with fundamental anarchy is to remove all rules of capitalism or remove the principles of anarchy.
    No rulers =/= no rules. Commerce does not start and stop at your convenience, you miserable statist.

  9. #667
    Okay, undergroundrr. You're slide stepping. otherone tried that very same thing on the last page and I had to reassemble that discussion in order to force him back on topic.

    So, let us reassemble our dialogue, undergroundrr.

    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post

    The term anarcho-capitalism is redundant. Capitalism means anarchy.
    No they aren't. They're two terms which are in direct opposition to each other in fundamental principle.

    No, capitalism means capitalism. Anarchy mean anarchy.

    I agree that if you want to opt out and if you want to get together and take care of yourselves and be self-reliant, then you should be free to do that. Especially if you've renounced the use of force because then I don't have to worry about you. Libertarianism permits for this.

    Again, though, and for the last time, once you hyphenate Anarchy with Capitlism as an application, you've inserted a coercive principle into the program in the eyes of the Anarchists.

    So. The question naturally follows how that gets settled.

    That's all I'm saying, man.
    Capitalism is coercive?
    Yes. What If I don't pay?

    What purpose does a contract serve? Does a contract not obligate me to be held liable if I refuse to hold up my end of the contract?

    So. You gonna take me to court? Court equals coercion. You gonna shoot me if I don't obey the contract? That's consequence. Coercion.
    Was the contract signed under compulsion? If not, the obligation was taken on with no compulsion having taken place.
    You tell me, undergroundrr. Is what is consentual necessarily voluntary? If so, then, how so? If not, then, why not?


    I asked the question early on in the thread. Though, like my other quesions, it went completely ignored.

    Additionally, and more critically, is whatever is voluntary also ethical?

    For instance, earlier in the thread and elsewhere on the forum, I've seen the idea tossed out there of rule by landlord. That the property owner determined one's rights. Meaning that whomever owns the land can impose whatever laws he wishes on anyone who works or lives within his land.

    Is this not the very nature of a state? If not, then, why not?
    I love that question. In other words, if things are getting hot and she says "yes" does it mean "yes?" Funnily we just had that discussion with our oldest son a few days ago.

    Not sure why that would affect whether anarchy and capitalism are compatible.
    Now. undergroundrr, you left off in our discussion asking whether the contract was signed under compulsion. Did you not? Let's continue.

    I said that I don't know, you tell me. Though, I offered that the means of deciding whether the contract was signed under compulsion was to first consider and conclude whether what is consentual is necessarily voluntary. And if so, then, how so? If not, then, why not? This is how one defines compulsion in direct context with your question. You see? This is what I mean throughout the thread when I state that operational definition is necessary if one would attept to make an ideal applicable in any society.

    Do you not agree that clarifying if what is consentual is necessarily voluntary is an acceptable means of deciding whether the contract was signed under compulsion?

    Seems logical to me.

    It's hardly, hot. lol. For you maybe. But not for me. Respectfully. I'm cool as a cucumber.

    I'm trying to help you guys out, really.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-22-2017 at 05:30 AM.

  10. #668
    I can't take you seriously, man.

    You may go.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raginfridus View Post
    You were the kid who blah blah blah blah blah..

  11. #669
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post


    Last edited by Raginfridus; 10-22-2017 at 12:11 AM. Reason: heel boi

  12. #670
    lol. Okay, Ragin, that was funny.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-22-2017 at 05:36 AM.

  13. #671
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    I offered that the means of deciding whether the contract was signed under compulsion was to first consider and conclude whether what is consentual is necessarily voluntary.
    Are you suggesting that there's no such thing as a completely voluntary agreement?
    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

  14. #672
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Force and violence are part of humanity. The only question is who will control force. Are you going to have force under objective control with clearly defined laws? Or is force going to be exercised at whim? When force is exercised at whim people will justify almost any act of violence. For example, people who bomb abortion clinics twist it in their minds why it is okay.
    You guys are literally making the EXACT same arguments that progressives make for the unlimited State.

    Stop being a coward. Grow a set and learn when you keep it in the holster and when you pull the trigger.

    That is LITERALLY what all human interactions come down to. Do we trust the party we're engaging, or do we not trust them. It doesn't matter if there's a State to intervene or not - much as it may attempt, it the State is not everywhere at all times.

    You're right - force and violence are a part of humanity. But YOU want to institutionalize force and violence, and make it intrinsic to every interaction. It does not need to be. Everyone has their hand on the hilt, it's whether one needs to draw, which is decidedly rare, regardless of whether there is a State or not.

    As I get older, and I learn more about the world in which I live, I become more and more convinced that people who want a State - actively want a State like some of the people here in this thread - are nothing more than lazy cowards who genuinely want to go through life without having to think about anything, nor attend to their own safety.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #673
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    Are you suggesting that there's no such thing as a completely voluntary agreement?
    I'm pretty sure he's a waste of time. He's trying to engage us in a semantics argument, not a philosophical argument.

  17. #674
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    I'm pretty sure he's a waste of time. He's trying to engage us in a semantics argument, not a philosophical argument.
    All philosophical arguments are predicated on semantic arguments.
    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

  18. #675
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    As I get older, and I learn more about the world in which I live, I become more and more convinced that people who want a State - actively want a State like some of the people here in this thread - are nothing more than lazy cowards who genuinely want to go through life without having to think about anything, nor attend to their own safety.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  19. #676
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    Stop being a coward. Grow a set and learn when you keep it in the holster and when you pull the trigger.
    No thanks. I don't want to be making those decisions and I sure as hell don't want you making them.

    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    That is LITERALLY what all human interactions come down to. Do we trust the party we're engaging, or do we not trust them. It doesn't matter if there's a State to intervene or not - much as it may attempt, it the State is not everywhere at all times.

    Right. But having clearly defined rules and means of enforcement increases the number of people you can trust and trade with and thus increases prosperity. Anarchy would create a very small, tribal world. Think about why everyone wants to trade and park money in the United States. People know there is a strong rule of law here. Nobody is stealing your money. Whereas people don't want to readily trade with businesses in banana republics because they have weaker rule of law. Having basic rules of corporate governance has made the US much more prosperous, because it has decreased the risk of investing in US business.

    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    You're right - force and violence are a part of humanity. But YOU want to institutionalize force and violence, and make it intrinsic to every interaction.
    That's absolutely correct. I do support having the state have a monopoly on force. I don't want people self-seceding and doing whatever they think is best. I don't want nut jobs like Adam Kokesh making up the rules in their head and rationalizing whatever violence they might use.

    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    As I get older, and I learn more about the world in which I live, I become more and more convinced that people who want a State - actively want a State like some of the people here in this thread - are nothing more than lazy cowards who genuinely want to go through life without having to think about anything, nor attend to their own safety.
    I don't think that is laziness. This isn't the wild west. I want to spend time thinking about making money not my safety. In a given week, I desire to spend zero time thinking about someone harming me. If I am harmed I don't want to be the one responsible for doling out justice. That is a very inefficient use of time. If someone thinks I harmed them, I certainly don't want them acting like Pablo Escobar toward me.
    Last edited by Krugminator2; 10-22-2017 at 04:03 PM.

  20. #677
    Quote Originally Posted by The Rebel Poet View Post
    All philosophical arguments are predicated on semantic arguments.
    They are, but we're not at a point here @ RPF where we need to be defining Anarchism and Capitalism. That's been done. Those terms are understood by pretty much everyone here discussing this topic... we don't need to be peddling in trivialities at this point, when we've done all that leg work, do we? And even if we've got some folks here who are new to the matter, we veterans don't need to continually explain ourselves on the most elementary matters, do we?

  21. #678
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    They are, but we're not at a point here @ RPF where we need to be defining Anarchism and Capitalism. That's been done. Those terms are understood by pretty much everyone here discussing this topic... we don't need to be peddling in trivialities at this point, when we've done all that leg work, do we? And even if we've got some folks here who are new to the matter, we veterans don't need to continually explain ourselves on the most elementary matters, do we?
    Well, yes you do. Because one person continually makes it necessary by injecting ridiculous nonsense.
    "The Patriarch"

  22. #679
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    No thanks. I don't want to be making those decisions and I sure as hell don't want you making them.
    Here's your problem - SOMEONE is going to be making those decisions. It's either you or me. It should be both of us.

    You don't get to outsource this decision without deferring quality.

    Honestly, we're better off when you and I make that decision. For reference I direct you to Tamir Rice, et al.

    Right. But having clearly defined rules and means of enforcement increases the number of people you can trust and trade with and thus increases prosperity. Anarchy would create a very small, tribal world. Think about why everyone wants to trade and park money in the United States.
    Preemptive violence does not presume rules and enforcement. It means you've inaugurated a body which can LITERALLY upend those norms. You've inaugurated a body which can on a whim indiscriminately and with prejudice determine the outcome of disputes, etc. This is what we see today in our world with the all-powerful State. There is no objective standard.

    People know there is a strong rule of law here. Nobody is stealing your money. Whereas people don't want to readily trade with businesses in banana republics because they have weaker rule of law. Having basic rules of corporate governance has made the US much more prosperous, because it has decreased the risk of investing in US business.
    :LOL: People do business here in the US because there is lucrative incentives to do business here. They do not do business here because they believe that their business practices will be protected.

    The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. That's not a paperwork reason to not do business in the US.

    That's absolutely correct. I do support having the state have a monopoly on force. I don't want people self-seceding and doing whatever they think is best. I don't want nut jobs like Adam Kokesh making up the rules in their head and rationalizing whatever violence they might use.
    Micro-secession is a principle which Mises advocated as a foundational principle. It's not even arguable.

    I don't think that is laziness. This isn't the wild west. I want to spend time thinking about making money not my safety. In a given week, I desire to spend zero time thinking about someone harming me. If I am harmed I don't want to be the one responsible for doling out justice. That is a very inefficient use of time. If someone thinks I harmed them, I certainly don't want them acting like Pablo Escobar toward me.
    Okay. No argument against stateessjess.
    Last edited by A Son of Liberty; 10-22-2017 at 04:39 PM.

  23. #680
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Nobody is stealing your money.
    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



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #681
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    That's just protection money. It's not stealing when the government does it.
    "The Patriarch"

  26. #682
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    They are, but we're not at a point here @ RPF where we need to be defining Anarchism and Capitalism. That's been done. Those terms are understood by pretty much everyone here discussing this topic.

    No, it hasn't. If you think it has, then, point me to it.

    All anyone in the thread has attmpted is to redefine. Unsuccessfully, I'd add.

    What you people are doing is leading astray any young person who is actually interested in learning about real anarchism.

  27. #683
    Quote Originally Posted by The Rebel Poet View Post
    All philosophical arguments are predicated on semantic arguments.
    It's not a philosophical argument. Operational definition is in no way semantic.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-22-2017 at 05:42 PM.

  28. #684
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    Are you suggesting that there's no such thing as a completely voluntary agreement?
    No. Because what is consensual is necessarily voluntary. The question is whether what is voluntary is necessarily consensual because you asked whether the contract was signed under compulsion. You see?
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-22-2017 at 05:59 PM.

  29. #685
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    Well, yes you do. Because one person continually makes it necessary by injecting ridiculous nonsense.
    It's only ridiculous nonsense because your group observably hasn't thought your own argument through all the way. You all obervably do not understand the shorcomings in your own arguments.

    The dialogue in the thread speaks for itself.

    Comparable to the old analogy about playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon, no matter how bad he gets whipped, is going to strut around the board and crap on it like he won.

    You guys have basically proven yourself to be pigeons.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-22-2017 at 05:53 PM.

  30. #686
    On that note, I'm giving you guys back the thread. I'm just bored with it at this point.

    Report back whenever you guys turn in your licenses and registrations, opt out of the IRS, and walk into your local police stations to flip them off. Don't talk about it. Be about it.

    Until then, none of you can be taken seriously.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-22-2017 at 05:57 PM.

  31. #687
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    No. Because what is consensual is necessarily voluntary. The question is whether what is voluntary is necessarily consentual because you asked whether the contract was signed under compulsion. You see?
    If one voluntarily enters into an agreement then one consents to the terms of the agreement.

    I hope that's what you're looking for. I'm trying my best to help you make your point.
    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. #688
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    If one voluntarily enters into an agreement then one consents to the terms of the agreement.

    I hope that's what you're looking for. I'm trying my best to help you make your point.
    Ha. Nope. Because we're still left with the question of whether what is voluntary is also ethical. Which takes us full circle back to the fact that they're merely trading one state for another state.

    Again, consider the rule that the ancaps are inserting that presupposes that whoever owns the land can impose any laws on anyone who he contracts to work or live on his land. This is the very definition of a state.

    So. Now we get back to natural, God-given, rights. Remember in the thread when I asked if a propertyy owner had the right to knock a man off of his pole who was hanging on for dear life? Well, they claimed that the property owner had the right to murder the guy. WTF?

    Ayway. I'm bailing out of this thread, undergroundrr. I do appreciate your contribution to the thread, though. Hopefully you'll rub off on some of these cats. They can't debate it right.

    They really are misrepresenting anarchism. And if any young person ever comes here looking to learn about anarchism, I do hope that they don't learn it from these guys.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-22-2017 at 06:31 PM.



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #689
    My final word on it is this. You should be free to get together and be self reliant without asking for anything from anybody. If you've rejected the use of force, I don't have to worry about you. Libertarianism permits for this so long as you've rejected the use of force.

    To repeat, though, your biggest problem is a government that does not agree with you. They will come in with guns and they will kill you. So think about that. Unfortunately, I think that most people who tend to talk about it would more likely be inclined to sit at home and watch it play out on television rather than to actually take part in and lead in what they promote that others should do.

    Have at it, though. I choose to support electoral politics and the constitution. I choose a Republic if I can keep it. That way someone is actually held accountable for knocking me off a pole and killing me just because they have the idea that they possess the right of ownership of my God-given rights to life and liberty.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-22-2017 at 06:43 PM.

  35. #690
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    That way someone is actually held accountable for knocking me off a pole and killing me just because they have the idea that they possess the right of ownership of my right to life and liberty.
    What an odd hypothetical. In no way is this strange scenario precluded from happening under the jurisdiction of a state. In fact it has the odor of something dreamed up for a CIA black site. But I guess if you're not doing anything wrong you shouldn't worry about such things.
    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 23 of 25 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 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
  •