Are you a Constitutionalist or an Anarchist?

[PlzPeopleWakeUp]

nt

[Jeremy]

Actually it does. The third option was.
Other - Please explain your position.

Yah, but anti-federalist deserves its own option. I'm sure some people would have voted differently.

[Mini-Me]

I'm running out of time here so did not read a whole lot of this thread but the sentence in bold struck me as odd...

In our current society peer relationships are generally destructive of independent thought and action, and even individual rights. Why would this be any different under another governmental system?

Hrm...I didn't really consider that. Can you elaborate on the destructiveness of peer relationships in the adult world (no elaboration is really necessary when it comes to schoolkids ), particularly compared to the destructiveness of unequal heirarchical relationships? Keeping in mind that juries should decide pretty much everything of importance, part of the reason I'm not terribly concerned here is because any particular court would have a lot of incentive to follow the law faithfully: After all, every court would want customers to do business with it instead of competitors. Still, I could always be wrong. We all pretty much all know how Constitutional republics go: They start off small, and depending on how strong the Constitutional checks and balances are, they either resist growth or allow creeping growth until emerging into a full-blown leviathan state. In contrast, I look at anarcho-capitalism as more of an ambitious experiment with a lot of unknown variables. It's kind of the devil we don't know, since it hasn't been tried before in modern times as far as I know...although anarchy in Celtic Ireland was somewhat similar and supposedly worked very well, and there are other historical examples of anarchy without chaos too.

The "peer review" thing - which is little more than my best guess about the way things could be done or might work out naturally - is really just something that would come into play in the appeals process. If some one-sided rogue court kept butchering trials and getting overturned by other courts, fewer and fewer customers would trust it with their money and their fates. The public would start to consider it a kangaroo court, and it would get to the point where everyone just routinely ignored its decisions as if they never happened, including other courts. This kind of negative peer review would effectively strip a kangaroo court of any "moral authority" it ever had to compel people to follow its judgments. Sure, such a one-sided court would still have customers for a while - the ones who know they will probably win no matter what. However, once a more respected court overturned that court's judgment on appeal, it would probably require the customer who won in that court (but lost the appeal) to reimburse their trial opponent for the costs of that wasted trial. Soon after, the kangaroo court would simply die out, because even the preordained winners would recognize the fruitlessness of choosing that court.

Ultimately, the real power would reside with the public (the "customers"). If things ever really got out of control and the courts all became corrupt and disrespected - and somehow no new trustworthy court entered the market that people actually trusted, respected, and flocked to (no matter how much some corrupt court tried to overturn its decisions) - then everyone involved in the corruption would likely have to fear for their heads. In a world where people did not cower before or worship an almighty state, I don't think the people would be terribly likely to respect/help enforce any corrupt court's decision to imprison the vigilante who decided to start "cleaning up house."

That's just my assessment though, and I definitely understand people's reluctance to even contemplate trying something so radically different. Some minarchists believe anarcho-capitalism couldn't ever work, and some anarcho-capitalists believe trying to keep government limited is unavoidably an exercise in futility...personally, I think both are probably viable options, if "done right."

Yah, but anti-federalist deserves its own option. I'm sure some people would have voted differently.

I think you're right, and I was actually pretty surprised when I saw it missing from the option list myself.

[PaulaGem]

Hrm...I didn't really consider that. Can you elaborate on the destructiveness of peer relationships in the adult world (no elaboration is really necessary when it comes to schoolkids ), particularly compared to the destructiveness of unequal heirarchical relationships? Keeping in mind that juries should decide pretty much everything of importance, part of the reason I'm not terribly concerned here is because any particular court would have a lot of incentive to follow the law faithfully: After all, every court would want customers to do business with it instead of competitors. Still, I could always be wrong. We all pretty much all know how Constitutional republics go: They start off small, and depending on how strong the Constitutional checks and balances are, they either resist growth or allow creeping growth until emerging into a full-blown leviathan state. In contrast, I look at anarcho-capitalism as more of an ambitious experiment with a lot of unknown variables. It's kind of the devil we don't know, since it hasn't been tried before in modern times as far as I know...although anarchy in Celtic Ireland was somewhat similar and supposedly worked very well, and there are other historical examples of anarchy without chaos too.

The "peer review" thing - which is little more than my best guess about the way things could be done or might work out naturally - is really just something that would come into play in the appeals process. If some one-sided rogue court kept butchering trials and getting overturned by other courts, fewer and fewer customers would trust it with their money and their fates. The public would start to consider it a kangaroo court, and it would get to the point where everyone just routinely ignored its decisions as if they never happened, including other courts. This kind of negative peer review would effectively strip a kangaroo court of any "moral authority" it ever had to compel people to follow its judgments. Sure, such a one-sided court would still have customers for a while - the ones who know they will probably win no matter what. However, once a more respected court overturned that court's judgment on appeal, it would probably require the customer who won in that court (but lost the appeal) to reimburse their trial opponent for the costs of that wasted trial. Soon after, the kangaroo court would simply die out, because even the preordained winners would recognize the fruitlessness of choosing that court.

Ultimately, the real power would reside with the public (the "customers"). If things ever really got out of control and the courts all became corrupt and disrespected - and somehow no new trustworthy court entered the market that people actually trusted, respected, and flocked to (no matter how much some corrupt court tried to overturn its decisions) - then everyone involved in the corruption would likely have to fear for their heads. In a world where people did not cower before or worship an almighty state, I don't think the people would be terribly likely to respect/help enforce any corrupt court's decision to imprison the vigilante who decided to start "cleaning up house."

That's just my assessment though, and I definitely understand people's reluctance to even contemplate trying something so radically different. Some minarchists believe anarcho-capitalism couldn't ever work, and some anarcho-capitalists believe trying to keep government limited is unavoidably an exercise in futility...personally, I think both are probably viable options, if "done right."


I think you're right, and I was actually pretty surprised when I saw it missing from the option list myself.

I believe children who cultivate negative peer relationships pretty much turn into adults that have negative peer relationships. People in groups tend to conform to the dominant behavior in the group, the minority of people are leaders.

I just read the reply above and I'm sorry it seems like re-inventing the wheel. Substitute voters for consumers, assume the voters are actually wielding Constitutional power, and isn't it essentially the same thing?

I really believe the system we have is just fine if enough people would take the personal responsibility to make it work, that is the real failure, not the structure of the system.

Concerning peer relationships and conformity - one of my biggest gripes against the churches in this country is the emphasis on legalism, not sinning, and group conformity. They are creating sheep for the "new world order", not Spiritual enlightenment. People have to be permitted to screw up enough to learn on their own, if they are taught conformity and to avoid taking chances or stepping out of line (as most churches teach) they don't grow Spiritually.

[tremendoustie]

I didn't read this whole thread, I hope I can be forgiven for that.

I put down "other", as I am a voluntaryist. I believe it is always wrong to use aggressive (not defensive) violence.

The word anarchist, to me, implies a lack of rules. I very strongly believe in rules. I believe a person has the right to set the rules for use of his/her property. I believe the innocent should be defended, I just don't believe it needs to be done by a monopoly which itself agresses against innocent people. I also believe in justice -- meaning that those who do use aggressive violence should be made to compensate their victims.

[risk_reward]

I would have voted "Minarchist" or "Constitutionalist" only a year or even six months ago, but in hindsight, I've been on a journey from conservative statist to anarcho-capitalist for 15 years. If you truly believe in "individual sovereignty", there's nowhere else to go.

+1

[risk_reward]

If the minarchists are giving up on the Ron Paul Revolution and the anarcho-capitalists are staying, what does that say?

I think we are all still here. The more we learn the more we move toward anarcho-capitalism. I view constitutionalists as people, just like I was a few months ago, that do not fully understand the nature of property rights.

That is why I strongly recommend Butler Shaffer's new book Boundaries of Order

[Origanalist]

Poll needs more options. It appears that these days there needs to be a option for monarchist and world police-ist.

[Dr.3D]

Poll needs more options. It appears that these days there eeds to be a option for monarchist and worlld police-ist.

Since this poll is so old, how about you making up another one so we can see how things may have changed here at RPF?

[Origanalist]

Since this poll is so old, how about you making up another one so we can see how things may have changed here at RPF?

Oh boy.

[oyarde]

I support monarchy only if I am King .

[heavenlyboy34]

I support monarchy only if I am King .

Speaking of-how is your kingdom faring, uncle @oyarde?

[oyarde]

Speaking of-how is your kingdom faring, uncle @oyarde?

As usual my Kingdom is happy and prosperous .

[Vieux Canard]

I support monarchy only if I am King .

Clearly the best form of government is a wise king. Think of Cyrus of Persia. The problem has always been succession. Thanks to advances in AI, one day soon we can create a robot to rule over us. We just need a Cyrus to program it. Of course given present realities, we will probably get Netanyahu.

[Origanalist]

Clearly the best form of government is a wise king. Think of Cyrus of Persia. The problem has always been succession. Thanks to advances in AI, one day soon we can create a robot to rule over us. We just need a Cyrus to program it. Of course given present realities, we will probably get Netanyahu.

I would be ok with Vermin Supreme.

[pcosmar]

Clearly the best form of government is a wise king. Think of Cyrus of Persia. The problem has always been succession. Thanks to advances in AI, one day soon we can create a robot to rule over us. We just need a Cyrus to program it. Of course given present realities, we will probably get Netanyahu.

Foie Gras for king?

I am concerned that there may be some foresight in your fantasy,,, but none of my wishes.

[heavenlyboy34]

I would be ok with Vermin Supreme.

+a zillion I WANT MY PONY!!11!!!!

[Anti Federalist]

I miss Mini-Me and WRellim.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I'm a constitutionalist.

Let's say we achieve anarchy in America, how does a border town in Texas defend itself against Mexico?

[Dr.3D]

I'm a constitutionalist.

Let's say we achieve anarchy in America, how does a border town in Texas defend itself against Mexico?

As I recall, anarchists don't believe in borders anyway.

[pcosmar]

I'm a constitutionalist.

Let's say we achieve anarchy in America, how does a border town in Texas defend itself against Mexico?

What makes you think Mexico wants a Texas border town?

[heavenlyboy34]

As I recall, anarchists don't believe in borders anyway.

Not in political borders. They're used against us routinely(checkpoints, border walls, toll booths, etc). Some anarchists (foolishly) don't recognize private property in land at all. Ancaps and many others recognize it and see it as vital to civilization. Where political borders create the *illusion* of stability and security, private property boundaries create these in fact.

This book explains in depth:
https://books.google.com/books/about...page&q&f=false

[Tywysog Cymru]

As I recall, anarchists don't believe in borders anyway.

So, a town in the land formerly known as Texas might be more accurate.

What makes you think Mexico wants a Texas border town?

Texas was once part of Mexico.

[fisharmor]

I'm a constitutionalist.

I was, at least marginally, at the time of the poll. So minus one from that number today.
The reason I left that mentality, never to return, because the only people who are 100% serious about following the US constitution are people who are just about to jump into anarchocapitalism.
It doesn't matter who you are or what your positions are, there is some way in which you do not wish to follow the US constitution as currently codified.
Eventually the futility of it sets in and you recognize that if you're going to be in a sad minority, may as well push for something that doesn't have a multi-century history of being nothing more than a series of fakeouts.

Let's say we achieve anarchy in America, how does a border town in Texas defend itself against Mexico?

My understanding is that a lot of people from Texas have been spending a lot of the last couple decades in Afghanistan learning a lot about how that could be handled without a functional state.

[pcosmar]

So, a town in the land formerly known as Texas might be more accurate.



Texas was once part of Mexico.

So what makes you think they want it back?

seems like a lot of trouble for a lot of trouble.

[Raginfridus]

There is no god but Mr. God, and Terry Davis is his prophet!

I'd be OK with anything as long as it left me alone, or was otherwise reasonable, but I would like anarchy, a monarchy, or a republic.

[Tywysog Cymru]

So what makes you think they want it back?

seems like a lot of trouble for a lot of trouble.

You assume that everyone would resist. There are plenty of people too old or too young. There are also pacifists and people who will value their own life over freedom. Then there are opportunistic people who would become collaborators.

[William Tell]

You assume that everyone would resist. There are plenty of people too old or too young. There are also pacifists and people who will value their own life over freedom. Then there are opportunistic people who would become collaborators.

There seems to be this mindset among some in the liberty movement that the U.S Government is the only potential aggressor and that other governments won't fill the vacuum and get greedy.

[fisharmor]

There seems to be this mindset among some in the liberty movement that the U.S Government is the only potential aggressor and that other governments won't fill the vacuum and get greedy.

Well I am an anarchist, precisely because I recognize all states as aggressive, greedy, and vaccuum-filling by their very nature.
I fully recognize that in all cases I can point to where there was no functional state as we define it, another aggressor state came in and bayonetted their way into power.
I do not have an answer for this... but I also believe it's kind of on the state apologists to first explain why, if states are immutably agressive, violent, and greedy, why we should tolerate them at all, and why we continually have this argument, instead of the smart argument, which is how to stop them in the end game.

[pcosmar]

You assume that everyone would resist.

You assume an attack.

I do not.