Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
The problem with anarchists is that they view all actions as the same. They don't split them into force actions and voluntary actions. The ideal is situation is for government to prevent force actions but allow voluntary actions. Anarchists don't understand the difference between voluntary and force. They observe that when the government tends to leave voluntary actions alone, it's a good thing so they think if the government leaves force actions alone it will also be a good thing.
Ancaps are not Anarchists. Anarchy and capitalism are polar opposite in principle. Therefore they cannot be hyphenated in application. These words can only be hyphenated verbally.
These people are not Anarchists.
It comes down to definition in application.
Hopefully an ancap will give us their definition of Anarchism. None have yet to do so fruitfully.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-18-2017 at 12:56 PM.
Any power, any hierarchy, whether private or not, needs only to exist to be feared. the minute you employ a hierarchy of any sort, you employ a coercive mechanism that causes a fear of government-over-man. You've created a state. You are lo longer an anarcist. You are a government. Bottom line.
And that's okay. Just be honest about it. Don't say that you're anti-state when you are, in fact, creating a state. lol.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-18-2017 at 01:24 PM.
To repeat, any hierarchy needs only to exist to be feared. Whether private or not. Any law is coercion whether private or not. Any entity which arbitrates legalities is a hierarchy. An authority. Coercion is coercion is coercion. Real Anarachists reject coercion of any kind. Real Anarchsts particularly reject the nature off anything that is private.
The very second that you introduce coercion in any enforceable, applicable, way, you are no longer an anarchist because you establish a means to cause fear of government-over-man. All you're doing is trading one state for another state.
Nyooooo. I would opt out of your private police and private courts and I would compete with you with my own private police and my own private courts until I had monopoly and you were out of business. This is the nature of competitive capitalism. That's what I'd do.People with money would just bribe the judges. We need a state because you don't have injustice in state courts.
Now, what do you think is going to happen when we disagree? I'll tell you how it's going to end. I'm going to hire all of your private police and I'm going to hire your private court because they have no moral obligation to work for you. Or do they? Do they have a moral obligation of any kind? If so, then, what its it?
The only obligation they have is to make money. Then we're gonna take over. We're going to come over to your house and we're gonna blow you off the face of the earth and we're gonna say wut..wut now? I'm offering private security, who wants some? Also I now have a private garden, a private fire company, a private mill, a private gas station, heck, I have a private everything all of a sudden.
What is there to stop me, Gold Standard? Is there anything to stop me from doing that? What's to stop me? If there is, then, what is it? Tell me.
Surely it's easy for you guys to ask what's to stop you from doing it. But you never ask what's to stop me from doing it. And therein lies your shortcoming.
You're already a state by the fact that you employ police and courts. Again, any hierarchy need only exist in order to be feared. Fear of government-over-man.You don't like the idea of private security. Someone else's security agency would attack you and steal from you if you couldn't afford to hire your own to protect you. We need a state because government police don't attack innocent people or steal from them.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-18-2017 at 03:24 PM.
Another problem with anarchists is that they can only make vague, abstract arguments. It's harder to get specifics out of an anarchist than it is to get an answer from Zippy. Suppose you have a small island and you want to make it an anarchy. How's that going to work? How're you going to defend the island from invaders? How're you going to handle criminals? You probably won't get an answer. It's "beneath" them to deal with the real world.
Wut? You've gotten extremely, ridiculously specific and detailed answers. You just don't want to $#@!ing read. You want to be spoon-fed. It's y'all CONstitutionalist minarchists who have yet to come up with a coherent legal theory after 200+ years of opportunity to work on it.
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
If you don't read the thread, of course not.
Not sure why, but W/E. If you've produced the first sound legal theory behind Constitutionalism and are just hiding it from the masses for lolz, that's not very nice. All they've got going for them is bull$#@! on stilts.
Once again, we don't want to hear someone else's ideas in a long winded, poorly formatted wall of text. We want to hear what you guys genuinely believe, in your own words. A number of questions have been avoided. For example, a few pages back I asked a son of liberty if he considered private police, private courts or arbitration to be a form of authority. He didn't answer, in fact I don't think he's been back to this thread since then.
I also asked how you would handle criminals or people who reject your private enforcement agencies, if you claim to be against coercion? I get the feeling that anarchists believe that if we just get rid of the state, all of a sudden everyone is going to be peaceful and virtuous, similar to how communists believe we can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya. But that's not realistic, that goes directly against human nature. So, are you really against all authority and coercion? Or are you guys only against authority and coercion of "the state"?
“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
The state doesn't manufacture magic defenders. The same folks would defend it regardless of type of organization. If you believe people can't organize without a commissar behind them with a gun to their head, then I can see why you believe that compulsion is required.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
People must be PAYED to give up enough of their time to be competently trained and deployed, modern military arms and equipment are expensive as well.
Most people would go free-rider if anyone tried to pay mercenaries to defend the island and they would be too few and too ill equipped.
Those who employed the mercenaries would very likely end up using them to conquer the island themselves.
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
There is a difference between coercion and consequences, and the answer to that question depends on who you ask. "Anarchy" is not one set idea, other than the abolition of the state. I define "the state" as an artificial third party. This third party has no rights, therefore cannot be a victim in civil or criminal matters. To claim otherwise is collectivism. Some may argue that a little collectivism is required to secure order. The problem with this is the degree of individual rights violations by the state is subjective. There is no template, other than majority consent.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
As we've been through a bazillion times on this and threads like it, it's about voluntary. I don't mind voluntary associations to protect property, life, liberty, etc. If you think this is egalitarian and unrealistic as communism, you should examine closely constitutionalism. (not the unrealistic and irrational promises, the practice)
Because sheep should be protected, it is the right thing to do, and if they get conquered you and I do as well, then you can enjoy the tyranny that anarchy always brings instead of the minarchy that might have delayed, limited or prevented it.
As always anarchy is a short sighted and heartless philosophy.
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
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
My point was that people put effort and resources into those endeavors they find valuable.
Those who don't advocate for their own liberty won't have it, either due to invaders or your beneficent shepherd. Usually it is the interests of the shepherd that are being protected, not the herd.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
And the shepherds don't have the resources on their own but many sheep are willing to supply them IF everybody does.
THE PRISONERS DILEMMA:
Two members of a criminal gang are arrested and imprisoned. Each prisoner is in solitary confinement with no means of communicating with the other. The prosecutors lack sufficient evidence to convict the pair on the principal charge. They hope to get both sentenced to a year in prison on a lesser charge. Simultaneously, the prosecutors offer each prisoner a bargain. Each prisoner is given the opportunity either to: betray the other by testifying that the other committed the crime, or to cooperate with the other by remaining silent. The offer is:Without the assurance that everyone else will share the costs everybody assumes that they will be betrayed and so they betray, or they are the ones who would betray in the first place.
- If A and B each betray the other, each of them serves 2 years in prison
- If A betrays B but B remains silent, A will be set free and B will serve 3 years in prison (and vice versa)
- If A and B both remain silent, both of them will only serve 1 year in prison (on the lesser charge)
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
Yes. If the people wanted to. My point is that the same people who choose to fight for a state would choose to fight voluntarily in a stateless society. Are you arguing for organization? The same people within a state with the ability to lead would exist in a stateless society. Do you believe a standing army and conscripted soldiers are required to defend a community? If so, then if conflict is against the will of the people, then what's the point?
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
OK, let's suppose you want to defend your anarchy island voluntarily. You ask for voluntary donations to defend the island and get 20 volunteers and 100 ounces of gold. You go buy some weapons and train the volunteers in case of attack. Guess what. YOU are the government.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
As soon as you organize a defense, that IS the government!
The point you are missing is that ANY organized defense IS government. It doesn't matter whether it was organized voluntarily or not. Someone leads it. Somone has access to more force than anyone else and is now making the decisions.
Connect With Us