Anarcho Capitalism vs Minarchism

[gwax23]

The claim that I asked for your source for.



Source?



If it's conjecture, not fact, then how does your point stand?

I mean you just threw out there this huge claim, using ambiguous terminology, and want to proceed as though it's a fact. I'm frankly not even sure if the clause, "governments always form naturally," even means anything. What is a government? Is a lack of one even conceivable? And what would it mean for one to form either naturally or unnaturally?

If you want a discussion, it's important for you to be clear about where you're coming from. And if the things you say are just random thoughts that you made up, as opposed to anything that you arrived at through any reasoning or research worth talking about, that's helpful to know.

I think we are on different pages here. Your first post in this thread you quoted a section of my OP and wrote "Source?" You wanted a source for the statement I made regarding Governments forming naturally. I wrote it in a way that would allude to it being a fact. Im now conceding that its not fact but only my opinions in order to move past these technicalities and actually discuss the main points of this thread being Anarcho Capitalism vs Minarchism.

Im clearly failing at this because your now arguing that we cant even have a discussion based on comparing different opinions or thoughts?? What is a discussion then in your mind?

In my OP I made it very clear where I was coming from and outlined my views, reasoning, and questions clearly. You saying that my thoughts are random and without reason is ridiculous.

 

[emazur]

Im a staunch Minarchist myself and have nothing against Anarcho Capitalists but there seems to be more aggressive attitude from the Anarcho Capitalists towards Minarchists who many of them view as just some other statist ilk for rejecting the Non Aggression Principle.

Whats funny and ironic about this though is they all admire and support Ron Paul despite the fact that Ron Paul is firmly a constitutionalist and thus a Minarchist.

I've noticed the an-cap belligerence myself quite a few times. And actually I've often found they lose interest in Ron Paul. It goes something like this: "Yeah, I was really into Ron Paul and participated in helping his 2008 campaign but I'm not really into that anymore. It did get me on the road to anarcho-capitalism though. I just grew up and realized politics isn't the answer". If you've ever listened to Free Talk Live (I haven't in several years), you've heard this plenty of times.

But really there's no need for a fight and there should be cooperation. Ancaps should know that Americans will never vote to abolish the state one day and they'll wake up to anarcho-capitalism the next. Minarchism is a more incremental solution, and the ancaps could request to buy up some federal or state land to form their own small stateless society and I think most minarchists would agree to the proposal. One more "laboratory of experiment" if you will, and if it succeeds - expect more stateless societies. The minarchists who wouldn't agree to the proposal - well they can fight with the ancaps til they're blue in the face for all I care, but it's a wasted argument until we get to the point of minarchism.

 

[erowe1]

Im clearly failing at this because your now arguing that we cant even have a discussion based on comparing different opinions or thoughts?? What is a discussion then in your mind?

I never argued aything like that.

In my OP I made it very clear where I was coming from and outlined my views, reasoning, and questions clearly. You saying that my thoughts are random and without reason is ridiculous.

I'm not saying that. I'm asking. Hence the curly symbol after the word "source." If it is the case that your thoughts are without reason, that would merely be helpful to know going into the discussion.

I'll have to re-read your OP again and look for the clear reasoning.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I've noticed the an-cap belligerence myself quite a few times. And actually I've often found they lose interest in Ron Paul. It goes something like this: "Yeah, I was really into Ron Paul and participated in helping his 2008 campaign but I'm not really into that anymore. It did get me on the road to anarcho-capitalism though. I just grew up and realized politics isn't the answer". If you've ever listened to Free Talk Live (I haven't in several years), you've heard this plenty of times.

But really there's no need for a fight and there should be cooperation. Ancaps should know that Americans will never vote to abolish the state one day and they'll wake up to anarcho-capitalism the next. Minarchism is a more incremental solution, and the ancaps request to buy up some federal or state land to form their own small stateless society and I think most minarchists would agree to the proposal. One more "laboratory of experiment" if you will, and if it succeeds - expect more stateless societies. The minarchists who wouldn't agree to the proposal - well they can fight with the ancaps til they're blue in the face for all I care, but it's a wasted argument until we get to the point of minarchism.

I'd let them try. Why not?

We really need worldwide minarchy before that's even worth consideration, however. Otherwise, someone would just attack the ancap society. And I don't believe the bullcrap that America is the only country that would be an empire. We are, fundamentally, because we can. If our empire fell, someone else's would take over. Which is fine if we have a strong national defense. Which an ancap society would not. And while I'm quite pro-gun, I'm not really comfortable with private citizens owning predator drones, and certainly not a nuclear arsenal. You kind of need a state to ban people from owning that type of stuff, although they also need to ban themselves from owning it.

Ultimately though, imagine that an airplane is in China. One group of people wants to fly to California, another to Texas. While there is a slight disagreement on where they want to go, BOTH groups would be better off either way. Better to have to drive from California to Texas than from China to Texas, you know? Fundamentally, there's a slight disagreement between even more moderate libertarians and anarchists when compared to the disagreement between the establishment and the moderate libertarians.

That does depend on how loosely you define "Moderate libertarian" of course. As I said, I'm not really counting supporters of fiat money, gun control, restrictions on any drugs, or foreign military adventurism as a moderate libertarian. They are just statists. I'm thinking of someone that maybe wants a small safety net and a few public programs when I say "Moderate libertarian."

 

[gwax23]

I never argued aything like that.



I'm not saying that. I'm asking. Hence the curly symbol after the word "source." If it is the case that your thoughts are without reason, that would merely be helpful to know going into the discussion.

I'll have to re-read your OP again and look for the clear reasoning.

Look I dont know why this has to be so difficult. I dont even know what Im arguing with you about anymore. If theres something you need to say then say it. All im doing is trying to start a discussion about Anarcho Capitalism and Minarchism.


Please feel free to add to this discussion by providing an argument a belief or even your favorite color Ill take that at this point.

 

[erowe1]

ancaps could request to buy up some federal or state land to form their own small stateless society and I think most minarchists would agree to the proposal

If someone agreed to that proposal, wouldn't that make them an anarchist, and not a minarchist?

 

[erowe1]

..

 

[erowe1]

Look I dont know why this has to be so difficult. I dont even know what Im arguing with you about anymore. If theres something you need to say then say it. All im doing is trying to start a discussion about Anarcho Capitalism and Minarchism.


Please feel free to add to this discussion by providing an argument a belief or even your favorite color Ill take that at this point.

OK. Since the labels are the issue then, what do you mean by the terms "anarcho-capitalism" and "minarchism"? Anything I could say about either would depend on what they mean.

 

[gwax23]

OK. Since the labels are the issue then, what do you mean by the terms "anarcho-capitalism" and "minarchism"? Anything I could say about either would depend on what they mean.

My understanding of Anarcho Capitalism is no government. Anarchy. They claim that law enforcement, defense, protection of property rights and other rights can be achieve through the private sector.

Minarchy is the belief that states ought to exist but should be limited only to Justice and Defense.

 

[emazur]

If someone agreed to that proposal, wouldn't that make them an anarchist, and not a minarchist?

Only if they agreed to the proposal AND joined the newly formed stateless society instead of staying in the minarchist one. Even then, it might not make them a committed anarchist - they might just want to test the waters

 

[erowe1]

My understanding of Anarcho Capitalism is no government. Anarchy. They claim that law enforcement, defense, protection of property rights and other rights can be achieve through the private sector.

Minarchy is the belief that states ought to exist but should be limited only to Justice and Defense.

It looks like you're using the words "state" and "government" interchangeably. Is that intentional?

 

[gwax23]

It looks like you're using the words "state" and "government" interchangeably. Is that intentional?

Yes

 

[erowe1]

Yes

To me that's a problem.

What is the definition of a state/government?

 

[Danan]

If someone agreed to that proposal, wouldn't that make them an anarchist, and not a minarchist?

Yes it would. A state that allows for micro-secession is essentially a voluntarist/anarchist society.

 

[gwax23]

To me that's a problem.

What is the definition of a state/government?

Whats yours?

 

[Danan]

Only if they agreed to the proposal AND joined the newly formed stateless society instead of staying in the minarchist one. Even then, it might not make them a committed anarchist - they might just want to test the waters

That's not true. That's like saying you can't be an anarchist if you want to stay a member of your golf club.

As long as you believe that the state has no authority on peoples' property who have opted out of that state, you are effectively an anarchist. That's because under that system the state/government would essentially be a voluntary association (as you could leave it at any moment).

 

[erowe1]

Whats yours?

Roughly as follows, although if it's to be the basis for discussion, they may need to be refined or definitions from elsewhere used:

Government - The set of rules by which any group of two or more people interact with one another
State - A group of one or more people who uses violence to rule over another group of one or more people without their consent

 

[erowe1]

Only if they agreed to the proposal AND joined the newly formed stateless society instead of staying in the minarchist one. Even then, it might not make them a committed anarchist - they might just want to test the waters

Either someone thinks the minarchist society ought to require people to be members without their consent or not. If they do, then they wouldn't support permitting anarchists to form their own anarchist societies. If they don't, then they aren't minarchist, they're anarchist.

 

[gwax23]

Roughly as follows, although if it's to be the basis for discussion, they may need to be refined or definitions from elsewhere used:

Government - The set of rules by which any group of two or more people interact with one another
State - A group of one or more people who uses violence to rule over another group of one or more people without their consent

Okay interesting. I think we can use these definitions especially if your going to be the one explaining things in posts to come. If I make a post Ill simply refer to this when talking about either concept.

Maybe give a real world example to better illustrate the difference between the two.

 

[Danan]

Roughly as follows, although if it's to be the basis for discussion, they may need to be refined or definitions from elsewhere used:

Government - The set of rules by which any group of two or more people interact with one another
State - A group of one or more people who uses violence to rule over another group of one or more people without their consent

I'd rather call what you call government "governing principles". Government to me is an institutionalized body of people governing others. Essentially what you called "state". Which is what I would consider the geographical boundaries over which a government claims to be the sole arbiter of law and having a monopoly of the initiation of force.

Could be a language problem for me, though.