A question to all minarchists

Sow, what are the anarchist complaining about then? Don't they have what they want? or 95% of it? Trolololololo....

That's like going to a party, observing the guests' hesitance to drink any of the punch because there's a 25 oz. dead rat in the 500 oz. punchbowl, and saying, "hey you whiners, only 5% of this punchbowl is full of dead rat! Just drink around it!"

Just because the state isn't completely omnipresent in our everyday lives (yet) doesn't make their occasional encroachments any more or less of an injustice. Nor does it negate in any way the preferability of punch to dead rat as a refreshment.
 
Last edited:
I have no problem with taxation using violence to fund an organization I value. I have no problem with the idea that people are forced to pay taxes I ultimately advocate the murder of innocent people who won't financially support the organization I value. It is a necessary evil (according to my own understanding). Without taxation threats of violence to fund my organization, it would be impossible to enforce a uniform set of laws by which I mean I believe justice can only ever be provided by an authoritative (tyrannical) monopoly (and logically leads to the necessity of expanding my monopoly into a Global State, the "one true authority".). Their would be no public police authoritarian "security" regime which is essentially a standing army for the class of rulers of the monopoly organization that I value, who I like to believe represent me and my interest (but really couldn't possibly do so). There would be no public courts authoritative courts with the incentive not toward justice but to strengthen the power of it's own organization. In their place there would be essence, the state is the centralized power structure which militant special interest groups abuse the perception of what is the legitimate use of violence whom are held accountable to nobody but themselves, as they fund their operation by commanding others to pay and obey via threats. In short, I believe we must use the principles of disorder and tyranny, to prop up an authoritative organization purported to prevent disorder and tyranny. And don't try to convince me otherwise.

As a disclaimer, I will say that I am deeply troubled by all the stories these days of public police not being held accountable for their actions, but I'm still too afraid that the alternative to a centralized coercive monopoly, a decentralized free market, will be less accountable and cause more disorder than the organization that I value, and would support initiating violence against you if you don't willingly support this organization as I do. I feel safer with the monopoly so hand over the wallet, pal, or you're gonna get plugged. Oh yeah and I know bear in mind, that instances of police being not brutal, and instances of police being sufficiently disciplined for their actions generally don't make as interesting a news story as the other way around, so you won't are behaving in the manner they are supposed to so you shouldn't have to hear about it as often because the point is to expose problematic issues, but I really felt that I should reassure everyone that my monopoly isn't always bad.

yurp.
 
Last edited:
It's so very nice to see threads like this that are clearly started to cause fights among forum members. /sarc

Don't people have something more constructive to do?
 
A question to all [insert label here]

How can you support an idea that I don't like?
 
It's so very nice to see threads like this that are clearly started to cause fights among forum members. /sarc

Don't people have something more constructive to do?
My apologies for thinking we could have a discussion about political philosophy in the political philosophy forum.
 
My apologies for thinking we could have a discussion about political philosophy in the political philosophy forum.

If you think the top ten list of insults and mooning people is a discussion, I'd like to see what you think is an argument - guns?
 
Last edited:
Imagine a Militia, it can be a state Militia, a private Militia, a private security agency, or any militia you think is the best example of what security would resemble in a free society.

Assume you believe they acted unjustly toward you. you resisted, and they ended up capturing you.

When the Militia decides what to do with you. How is it decided whether or not they acted unjustly

Well, in case (a) we can assume that there are other militias out there with a stake in preserving the peace and would demand just treatment from the captor militia toward you. This means that the captor militia would have the incentive to be as just as possible, give you due process, and respect the viewpoints of those outside the militia.

In case (b) the militia is the state, who has no competitors to keep it in check. They can murder, rape, and pillage you and your property as much as they want - as long as they can excuse it within their own system. And since they are in charge of their system things like notions of justice, due process, and humane treatment can be ignored as long as the state has resources to inflict their tyranny.

So what do you want, a justice agency policed by all other justice agencies, or a justice agency policed solely by it's own discretion?
 
It's so very nice to see threads like this that are clearly started to cause fights among forum members. /sarc

Don't people have something more constructive to do?

It's so very nice to see posts like this that are clearly made to critique others without adding anything positive to the discussion.

Don't people have something more constructive to do (like add to the conversation, give some positive suggestions on what we should be doing instead, or just keeping one's mouth shut)?
 
Before guns there were spears. Before spears there were clubs and stones. Someone has always been in charge and that is not likely to change anytime soon.

Best thing to do is participate and limit their authority.


Either that or dream what never was and what will not be in our lifetimes.

Sound money, allodial title to land, and obeying the rule of law is what liberates. When everyone who loves freedom is working diligently for sound money, fully redeemable, then humanity will be on the path to freedom.

Good points. But I would say that we don't have to participate by joining their gang. We can participate by being the resistance. If the Crips overran your neighborhood, would you join them? Would you go to the Bloods to ask them to take out the Crips? Or would you stand with the resisters and say "We won't tolerate living under a gang. We won't tolerate the use of violence except perhaps to squelch violence."

It's about freedom of association and choosing not to participate with people that intrude into others' lives, but to stand up to them with an association of people that choose peace.
 
If you think the top ten list of insults and mooning people is a discussion, I'd like to see what you think is an argument - guns?
So now OP is responsible for the childish antics of posters who followed? What happened to personal responsibility? Some libertarian you are.
 
I think idealist anarchism is great, but it is simply idealism. I am not willing to hunker down in a bunker with my family just do I can say that I don't support the non-aggression principle.

I don't remember saying this to you before (though I have said it to others participating in this thread) so here goes.
There are examples of stateless societies in history.
It is not idealism. It works because it has worked.

If you choose to find them, you will be immediately confronted with a stereotypically negative view of those societies.
If you choose to have an open mind on the matter, you may choose to realize that since the state has had a near complete monopoly on lower education and a cartel on higher education for a century, it follows that the officially sanctioned opinion on historical stateless societies is negative.

In short, you've been told. This is fisharmor telling GeorgiaAvenger (and everyone else who refuses to listen) - the "it's all fantasy" card is no longer in your deck. Please don't play it again.

Derision seems to be the the most common tune in the anarchist's repertoire.
I repeat the above text about every two weeks here. It gets old.
 
I recognize that there is a great dilemma, and the choice must be between protection of rights or absolute freedom.

I believe the former is the preferred choice, even though taxation is a necessary evil. I believe the Bible supports having some form of government, so I am comfortable with my decision.

I think idealist anarchism is great, but it is simply idealism. I am not willing to hunker down in a bunker with my family just do I can say that I don't support the non-aggression principle.

I believe the Bible specifically decries any notion of a state in both the Old and New Testaments. Israel was told that a King would be the death of them, and Jesus taught that Caesars should only be given what they have earned.

We can protect rights by forming associations of people determined to protect rights without demanding forced tribute. Just because states have been the dominant form of "rights protectors" doesn't mean that they are the only form, the most successful form, or even that they in fact "protect" anything at all. They don't have the obligation to protect you even today.

Being idealistic isn't a bad thing, nor does it say that you have to hunker down in a bunker. Being an idealistic anarchist is just saying that you won't go around hurting or stealing from people or advocating that anyone or any other institution has the right to do so. In fact, you would be more social and participate more in markets as an idealistic anarchist than as someone who believes that a monopoly govt should do anything - because whatever the state does do, you'd have to start figuring out how to do without violence.
 
Derision seems to be the the most common tune in the anarchist's repertoire.

Some people who advocate anarchy indeed have a great deal to learn about communicating.

But the same accusation could be justly leveled against some of the minarchists.

Would you say that ANY of my posts, on any topic, have derided my adversary?

And anyway, is it wrong to scorn those that advocate that I must have my life violated so that they may see their utopian visions carried out?
 
I believe the Bible specifically decries any notion of a state in both the Old and New Testaments. Israel was told that a King would be the death of them, and Jesus taught that Caesars should only be given what they have earned.
1 Samuel 8 does a brilliant job of summing up this entire argument.
God says to his people "Look, you're the ones asking for this, and what's going to happen is the state is going to take the best of your wealth, and your sons and daughters as well, and you're going to be a slave."
And I think God was actually not kidding when he said to Samuel "[T]hey have rejected ME as their king".
 
Back
Top