OMFG, I am going to KILL MY COMPUTER. I just typed out a complete response to this post, went searching through the forum to find another post to link to, and...oh, Firefox decided to crash. Fucking great! By the way, this is a regular occurrence.
Because of that, I'm going to take my frustrations out on Conza. BTW, I removed your smilies so I could post this.
Nope, fail. Anarcho-capitalism is a subset of Libertarianism. Non Aggression axiom + respect for property rights.. Sorry mate, that ain't the same as the other types of anarchism.
"Nope,
fail," for lack of reading comprehension. I
know what anarcho-capitalism is.
It's a subset of anarchism, and it differs
philosophically from other ideas of anarchism, precisely because of anarcho-capitalist respect for private property and non-aggression. However,
by definition, all forms of anarchism including anarcho-capitalism inherently share the same governmental structure: The absence of the state. While they're philosophically different, any and every one of them could result from the absence or abolition of the state, depending on the starting conditions...because in practice, they're each different potential results of the same exact structure of statelessness. Because of that, abolition of the state is necessary but not sufficient for anarcho-capitalism to result from generic anarchy. In order for anarcho-capitalism to come about, the state must not be abolished "by any means necessary" - it must be specifically dissolved in a pro-liberty atmosphere. (Of course, I don't advocate absolute anarcho-capitalism anyway, but that's beside the point.)
That is the point I was trying to make, and it should have been completely obvious by the fact that I specifically mentioned that you are correct about the philosophical differences between different subsets of anarchism, but that the various organic expressions of anarchy all presume the same governmental structure (nonexistence).
You don't think people are able to defend their property and that they have no incentive or easy means too? You think people don't know stealing is bad? LOL.. Insurance companies won't have an incentive to defend their clients property from destruction or theft? There won't arise private security firms? The people who own the roads won't have an incentive to defend their property? Those who own apartment blocks, or a community have no incentive to make their areas safe? Even though crime in an area REMARKABLY lessens the value of those propertys...
You really have no understanding of anarchy do you? Be honest... Anarchists attack private property potentially more than they do the state. They believe the STATE is the vital PROTECTOR of private property, and private property is evil and immoral. Thus so is the state. They arrive at the same conclusion, for the wrong reasons. They see capitalism as being a form of authoritarianism.. to anarchists - "anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron... check out an anarchists perspective:
here.
Recommendations for you:
The Anarchists
- Robert LeFevre
The Anarchist Society vs. the Military State: The Insignificance of the Free Rider by Vedrun Vuk 
12: The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts
An Anarchist Legal Order by Roderick T. Long 
<----- You
The point -----> .
Just because you and the anarcho-communists don't want to be associated with each other or given the same label does not mean you are not still all anarchists.
Your pathological insistence that you are not an anarchist is simply ridiculous, and so is their own insistence that you're not an anarchist, because anarcho-capitalism is inherently and by definition a subset of anarchism (just as it is a subset of libertarianism). No matter how much closer your beliefs are to those of minarchist libertarians than those of anarcho-communists, anarcho-capitalism is still an anarchist philosophy, and an anarcho-capitalist society is one expression of an anarchist society. Of course the anarcho-communists don't consider you a "true" anarchist, but that's kind of ironic anyway, considering that if anything, anarcho-capitalists are probably the only true anarchists around. After all, voluntary socialism exists within the framework of free market capitalism in the form of cooperatives, insurance companies, etc. and voluntary communism exists within the framework of free market capitalism in the form of families/communities. By explicitly rejecting the free market, the anarcho-communists and anarcho-socialists and their other collectivist ilk must necessarily be advocating a more coercive type of economic planning or redistribution of wealth...which is inherently authoritarian and requires an institution that is essentially the government in all but name (regardless of how local or universal the collective's "authority" is). Of course, you already know that, but I like irony enough to write about it. In the sense that "monarchy" means "one ruler," "anarchy" means "no rulers."
In the unhyphenated sense of the word, all anarchists share in common their goal to abolish the state, regardless of their actual reasons for desiring it...and anarcho-capitalists are included in that category, no matter how much anarchists of every persuasion will gripe about their association. If the anarcho-communists wanted the label of anarchism to refer to a specific political ideology that inherently implied more than a simple opposition to the state, then perhaps they should have picked a better word. Of course, the anarcho-communists probably aren't really anarchists at all in the etymologically correct sense of the word, since they seem to desire the establishment of a new state at the end of the first week...but in any case, nothing changes the fact that you in particular are indeed an anarchist in that very sense.
By the way, I wasn't arguing against anarcho-capitalism anyway. I already know that insurance companies will provide
blah, blah, blah services in the absence of government, provided government is abolished in such a way that is conducive to liberty. Heck, I think it
might even work given the correct starting conditions, though I don't have the same religious faith you have that it absolutely will work and nothing else can possibly work. I do find it a little strange that you somehow found the above passage from my previous post to be some kind of opportunity for educating me about what insurance companies do under anarcho-capitalism...it kind of came from left field. Heck, I've linked other people to Chapter 12 of
For a New Liberty myself when I thought they were totally misunderstanding anarcho-capitalists.
Yes... and you think I've presented or hold different views on this? confused -> rolleyes i.e abolish state.
Actually, you DO present different views on this below, where you mention your rejection of a gradual approach for a no-holds-barred, "I'd hit the magic button and erase absolutely all government overnight if I could" approach.
Again, never presented anything to the contrary. You are talking about people who have no respect for property rights and employ VIOLENCE and coercion - you've just made the distinction between anarchists and anarcho-capitalists lol. Or do you contend that anarcho-capitalists don't respect the foundations of their ideology? And that they have no qualms breaking the principles of non aggression and property rights?
Edit:
Somalia is doing good.. and this is from a people in Africa who traditionally have no respect for property rights at all... What would happen in the US with a profound tradition of entrepreneurship and enterprise?...........
Somalia is doing alright, but they are not a stateless society. They may not have a strong national government (and that's a good thing), but they still have local authorities to keep the peace. Does such a situation create good prospects for future anarcho-capitalism as insurance companies start gradually taking over the responsibilities of the local authorities? Sure. However, they wouldn't want the police to all be abducted by little green men and disintegrated overnight, leaving a sudden vacuum. Obviously that's not going to happen, and they're doing alright, but as I said before, I'm not arguing against localities seceding, and I'm not even necessarily arguing against anarcho-capitalism in general right now (although it's not my preference). I'm just arguing against the idea that "any way of abolishing government is a good way." More on this in a moment...
Lol, so many assumptions. The government collapsed? Why? How? Those that were in power are kicked out, but others of a different persuasion get in?
I wasn't making "assumptions." I broke things down case-by-case to illustrate why, no matter what, we are necessarily going to be engaged in a practical exercise about how to restrain and downsize the state via repeals and new Constitutional checks and balances (whether "the state" means the federal government, state governments, or local governments). Cases:
- We can downsize or abolish all government gradually and in an orderly fashion. This includes political action, civil disobedience to spark political action, pushing through repeals at federal or state levels, pushing through Constitutional checks and balances at federal or state levels, pushing for the eventual secession of one jurisdiction from a larger jurisdiction, etc. Alternatively...
- "If all government (federal and state) were ever demolished too quickly - in some kind of violent revolution of the mob, for instance -" (emphasis added to answer your question)... chaos would ensue. Odds are, the violent mob would be collectivists anyway, trying to set up a new collectivist government. Without any kind of law and order, all the "ordinary" sheeple would scramble together an iron-fisted government to crack down on the looters, pillagers, etc. In any case, the push for a new authoritarian and collectivist government would be too strong for the anarchy to ever last and spontaneously transform into anarcho-capitalism. The point here is that even if you are to commit to anarcho-capitalism, there are still bad ways to abolish the government, and if all government were abolished too quickly in a prevailing anti-liberty atmosphere, you'd have only two choices: Let the mob create their hellhole collectivist government, or try to take leadership positions and put as many checks and balances and pro-liberty measures into the new Constitution as possible (to create the best new starting point possible). Either way, such a sudden absence of government would not last for long, and after the dust settles, we're back to restraining and downsizing the new government.
- "If just the US government collapsed but state governments remained" ... this would be a much more interesting situation, since local authorities could still keep law and order in the meantime. This goes for situations in which the raging mobs storm the White House and the French Revolution comes to America, and it goes similarly for secession as well. It applies to pretty much any scenario that would free some or all states from the federal government but leave state governments (or perhaps just local governments) standing intact. In any such case, we would then be performing an exercise in gradually downsizing and restraining state/local government, which is much more manageable, but still a matter of creating Constitutional checks and balances to prevent the continual progress from being undermined.
As you see, that was a case-by-case account...yet you just picked the second scenario and decided that I was making "assumptions" by addressing it. Frankly, I think you have some serious misconceptions about what the word "assumption" even means.
A gradual approach? Wow... so Fabian of you..
My gradual approach makes me about as Fabian as your radical approach makes you a Maoist.
The real question is;
Do you Hate the State? by Murray Rothbard... The difference being, I am a Radical and an abolitionist and you, are a conservative and gradualist...
"The difference is that the abolitionist always holds high the banner of his ultimate goal, never hides his basic principles, and wishes to get to his goal as fast as humanly possible. Hence, while the abolitionist will accept a gradual step in the right direction if that is all that he can achieve, he always accepts it grudgingly, as merely a first step toward a goal which he always keeps blazingly clear. The abolitionist is a "button pusher" who would blister his thumb pushing a button that would abolish the State immediately, if such a button existed. But the abolitionist also knows that alas, such a button does not exist, and that he will take a bit of the loaf if necessary – while always preferring the whole loaf if he can achieve it.
It should be noted here that many of Milton’s most famous "gradual" programs such as the voucher plan, the negative income tax, the withholding tax, fiat paper money – are gradual (or even not so gradual) steps in the wrong direction, away from liberty, and hence the militance of much libertarian opposition to these schemes.
His button-pushing position stems from the abolitionist’s deep and abiding hatred of the State and its vast engine of crime and oppression. With such an integrated world-view, the radical libertarian could never dream of confronting either a magic button or any real-life problem with some arid cost-benefit calculation. He knows that the State must be diminished as fast and as completely as possible. Period.
And that is why the radical libertarian is not only an abolitionist, but also refuses to think in such terms as a Four Year Plan for some sort of stately and measured procedure for reducing the State. The radical – whether he be anarchist or laissez-faire – cannot think in such terms as, e.g.: Well, the first year, we’ll cut the income tax by 2%, abolish the ICC, and cut the minimum wage; the second year we’ll abolish the minimum wage, cut the income tax by another 2%, and reduce welfare payments by 3%, etc. The radical cannot think in such terms, because the radical regards the State as our mortal enemy, which must be hacked away at wherever and whenever we can. To the radical libertarian, we must take any and every opportunity to chop away at the State, whether it’s to reduce or abolish a tax, a budget appropriation, or a regulatory power. And the radical libertarian is insatiable in this appetite until the State has been abolished, or – for minarchists – dwindled down to a tiny, laissez-faire role.
I'm much more radical than a gradualist who would cut the income tax by 2% while foregoing a viable opportunity for abolishing it outright. Really, when I say I favor a gradual approach, you should keep in mind that I'm mainly saying that in contrast to those who advocate storming the Bastille. There are a lot of shades of "gradualism." To elaborate:
- I'm against violent revolution for many obvious reasons, but one of them is that such an environment would not only put anarcho-capitalism out of the question, but it would also make it extremely difficult to even achieve a new government favorable to minarchist views. When I think of people "abolishing" government by any means necessary, as soon as possible, something resembling this image comes to mind.
- I'm also against taking the wrong opportunities first and repealing certain legislation in the "wrong order." Very often, government creates one horrible regulation and then creates another one to smooth out some of the worst "side effects" of their original blunder, rather than repealing it outright. The new legislation is also bad, but without it, the first law might be intolerable. For instance, consider the example of local cable and telephone monopolies: If certain regulations restraining their practices were removed before their government-granted monopoly status were erased, the usage terms and prices of Internet access would become onerous, without any checks from either competition or government.
- In line with the previous bullet-point, it's important to remember that if we were to make any severe misstep by repealing legislation in the wrong order, public backlash could create a reactionary shift towards statism. The same also applies to any scenario in which we were to miraculously push through some massive reduction in the more basic governmental responsibilities without any warning, before the masses are educated enough to be comfortable with it. This is why I oppose using the hypothetical "magic button to erase ALL government," but I'm perfectly fine with secession of states from the union.
- Although I advocate rapid and tremendous cuts in spending, the size and scope of government, etc., there are a few areas that I believe we must be especially cautious about moving too quickly on: One is public schools. After that, if we are to ever move from minarchism to anarchism, we must be very careful about the manner and speed in which we shifted the government's responsibilities to the private sector in terms of roads, courts, and defense. If nothing else, insurance-based private defense companies require planning and time on the part of entrepreneurs to set up, and if we ever dissolved such "night watchman" sectors of the government too quickly, the resulting void could get very ugly.
Really, I'm only gradual to the extent that I want the changes we make to stick. Similarly, I only accept compromise in the right direction. Within those confines, I'm as radical as I think I can afford to be.
Many people have wondered: Why should there be any important political disputes between anarcho-capitalists and minarchists now? In this world of statism, where there is so much common ground, why can’t the two groups work in complete harmony until we shall have reached a Cobdenite world, after which we can air our disagreements? Why quarrel over courts, etc. now? The answer to this excellent question is that we could and would march hand-in-hand in this way if the minarchists were radicals, as they were from the birth of classical liberalism down to the 1940s. Give us back the antistatist radicals, and harmony would indeed reign triumphant within the movement."
If that's the case, we
still shouldn't be arguing about courts. Instead, anarcho-capitalists should be presenting their concerns about the minarchists' "excessive" gradualism and lack of sufficient radicalism, pointing out specific areas in which we could make faster progress. Arguing about courts does nothing to solve Rothbard's actual beef with the minarchists.
Nope. This is what I have previously said:
Why would you want to reestablish a flawed concept / experiment? You don't care about the generations to come? Your childrens, children? The US.. we'll say lasted roughly what... a decade before Washington issued an executive order on
Foreign Policy matters. It set the precursor.
It is irrefutable - the state won't remain limited.
Now, THIS - the bolded part, emphasis added myself - is what you call an assumption. It is an unfounded and unimaginative assumption at that. Your basic argument is this: The Constitution failed to restrain the state, and states are historically known to expand their power. Despite the fact that there have been very few earnest historical attempts to create a Constitutionally limited state, the failure of the Constitution necessarily demands the failure of any and all subsequent attempts. Do you not see the logical fallacy here? To give an analogy, it's as if you're saying:
"A structural engineering fault in this parking garage made it collapse into itself. After all, heavy stone always falls to the ground when given the chance. Therefore, every parking garage will have similar engineering faults and will not stand the test of time."
If we were to implement
all of the checks and balances I suggest, I
challenge you to find some way in which the government could escape its restraints. You never really properly replied to this post, giving one of the most dismissive bullshit posts I've ever seen in post 31:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1829941&postcount=29
Most of the post is irrelevant to this discussion, but I'll repost the relevant portion right after this post.
Pure minds don't seek power. Collectivists gravitate to the power centers because they want to impose their will on others. If you were to establish another limited state; it would also inevitably - end up as tyranny if the hearts and minds of people abandon liberty. Which to the products of welfarism and public education and the 4th estate - THEY HAVE. Essentially, there WILL be a need to have a revolution down the track; after generations have become used to and accustomed to the FABIAN and gradualist approach / growth of the state. They'll have to fight for their rights again, all because you failed to learn from history. Why should you care though, you'll be long gone right?
You know, your attitude sometimes reminds me a lot of socialize_me and some other vehement anti-anarcho-capitalists. Whereas they continually make unimaginative assumptions about how anarcho-capitalism cannot possibly work and a state is the
only option, you continually make unimaginative assumptions about how Constitutional limitations cannot possibly work and anarcho-capitalism is the
only option. Both stem from the same know-it-all attitude, and if I were feeling particularly like an asshole today, I would respond to your assumption with one of theirs. In any case, I do believe that there are Constitutional limitations that would probably work indefinitely, and I've thought of some candidates. Please, try to find some "security vulnerabilities" with them (taken together), and I'll see about patching them if need be. However, don't just dismiss them without due consideration and the assumption that you already know it all: I'm certainly not dismissing anarcho-capitalism without consideration, after all.
In any case, my position certainly does not stem from an
indifference toward future generations! On the contrary, I believe that a Constitutional republic (or many), if "done right," is
probably more perpetually pro-liberty and stable than anarcho-capitalism might be. I could be wrong, but in any case...how quickly do you really think you could ever achieve anarcho-capitalism anyway, Conza? Honestly, I don't think this is a matter of one generation (us) spending a few years fixing our mess, abolishing the government in favor of anarcho-capitalism, and then living happily ever after. We may very well spend the rest of our lives promoting liberty and never achieving it (whether in the sense of minarchism or anarcho-capitalism), and the future generations you're speaking of might still have to do the same. I'd love to create a world in which our children, grandchildren, etc. perpetually live in peace and never have to spare a thought about those who might take away their liberty, but I don't think we can magically create that kind of world over the next decade alone.
Books on anarcho-capitalism? I have not read any from cover to cover, but I've dabbled. I've read the most "radical" portions of
For a New Liberty and refer to them occasionally, I've skimmed through the rest, I've read articles on Lew Rockwell's site, I've read a bit of
Healing Our World (not necessarily anarcho-capitalist, but close), etc. Nick Coons is also a very good representative of strict adherents to the non-aggression axiom. I am certainly no authority on anarcho-capitalism, the proposed methods to achieve it, the hypothetical arguments about how it might work, or the comprehensive counter-arguments against common objections...but I certainly know enough to debate it on an Internet forum. That said, I rarely actually debate anarcho-capitalism itself. Half of our arguments are about terminology half the time anyway, like when you steadfastly refuse to accept the completely valid label of anarchist, which applies equally to Murray Rothbard as it does to Noam Chomsky.
More importantly though, I'm not even debating anarcho-capitalism right now anyway! I'm RARELY EVER on the attack about anarcho-capitalism, and when I am, I merely raise concerns, rather than arrogantly proclaim that it cannot possibly work. Of course, you apparently consider even the most innocuous and gentle concerns about anarcho-capitalism to be a grave mistake only a noob with no grasp of the philosophy whatsoever could possibly make.
In contrast, you're constantly making blunt and aggressive attacks on anyone hinting their preference for a Constitutional republic, constantly forcing them to defend the mere idea that any Constitutional republic might work...but whenever I mention specific checks that probably
would work, you either totally ignore them or just attack them blindly with a generic comment about how no Constitutional check or limit could ever work, because the current Constitution was a failure, the worst rise to the top, and we should "learn from history."
Your repetitive and annoyingly vocal contempt for minarchism in multiple posts in almost every single thread you post in wouldn't be so bad if you didn't refuse to consider or seriously address viable minarchist ideas...but since that is the case, your complete and almost religious intolerance for minarchist thought goes well above and beyond the occasional intolerance that militant old school conservatives display towards anarcho-capitalists. It's as if every other poster on this board is a "fail" because they're not marching in lock-step with Murray Rothbard. Please, grow some respect for other people.
In this thread, I'm NOT arguing against anarcho-capitalism. I am arguing against the idea that there's no such thing as abolishing government too fast, and I'm also strongly objecting to the unimaginative assumptions that no Constitutional limits or checks could ever possibly restrain a state. If you remember, I raised similar objections when socialize_me acted as if anarcho-capitalism could never possibly work. While I prefer minarchism, I disagree with the closed-minded attitude that both the militant anarcho-capitalists and the militant minarchists or Constitutionalists have.
And remember, you shouldn't believe the media hype.. OR do you think they are responsible enough to accurately report a people, who are remarkably better off without a government? 
