I can't make the anarchist leap.

[Spider-Man]

I can't take the anarchist leap.

By anarchist, I mean simply the absence of the state. For those of you who get hung up on terms, I of course mean market anarchism or "anarcho-capitalism."

So, like the title says, I can't make the leap from minarchy to anarchy, or from limited government to no government at all.

Every time I try to picture how the anarcho-capitalistic society would function, I see nothing in it that would prevent another state from springing up almost immediately thereafter.

In this article, N. Stephan Kinsella holds that to be an anarcho-capitalist is not to believe in something that "works," but merely to hold an ethical view that force is never justified.

I think the idea of an absolute ethical view is good, and I may even believe that there are such things that can be determined, but if it doesn't work, then what good is it? Isn't an idea's utility the ultimate judge of its correctness? If your absolute ethical system yields a social framework that has not ever and will not ever work, since force-wielding states always spring up to fill the absence thereof, then perhaps your absolute ethical system needs to be refined.

Tell me where I'm wrong. (And I say that with all sincerity. I'd prefer to be wrong on this one.)

 

[krazy kaju]

simplyanarchy.com

 

[Josh_LA]

put simply, seeing how retarded the country is today, you can't trust these people to decide for themselves, or for you.

 

[Paulitician]

If that's your reasoning I suppose you can't be a minarchist either, because big government will always spring up to take its place.

 

[Spider-Man]

If that's your reasoning I suppose you can't be a minarchist either, because big government will always spring up to take its place.

Interesting thought. I'll get back to you on that.

 

[graddium]

Every time I try to picture how the anarcho-capitalistic society would function, I see nothing in it that would prevent another state from springing up almost immediately thereafter.

Then we'd be right back to where we are now, so at the very least, we don't lose any ground, and at the most we get liberty. As a minarchist, you've already resigned yourself to what you fear of as an anarchist. So it's either admit defeat, or at least try bring about liberty.

I say give it a try.

 

[SeanEdwards]

By anarchist, I mean simply the absence of the state. For those of you who get hung up on terms, I of course mean market anarchism or "anarcho-capitalism."

So, like the title says, I can't make the leap from minarchy to anarchy, or from limited government to no government at all.

Every time I try to picture how the anarcho-capitalistic society would function, I see nothing in it that would prevent another state from springing up almost immediately thereafter.

In this article, N. Stephan Kinsella holds that to be an anarcho-capitalist is not to believe in something that "works," but merely to hold an ethical view that force is never justified.

I think the idea of an absolute ethical view is good, and I may even believe that there are such things that can be determined, but if it doesn't work, then what good is it? Isn't an idea's utility the ultimate judge of its correctness? If your absolute ethical system yields a social framework that has not ever and will not ever work, since force-wielding states always spring up to fill the absence thereof, then perhaps your absolute ethical system needs to be refined.

Tell me where I'm wrong. (And I say that with all sincerity. I'd prefer to be wrong on this one.)

Congratulations on having common sense. Anarchy is stupidity on stilts. Stop looking to have your common sense transformed into stupidity.

 

[graddium]

Congratulations on having common sense. Anarchy is stupidity on stilts. Stop looking to have your common sense transformed into stupidity.

That's your argument against anarchism? It's stupid? That's it?

I guess my counter would have to be, don't let your state brainwashing get in your way of being able to form a cogent argument.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Congratulations on having common sense. Anarchy is stupidity on stilts. Stop looking to have your common sense transformed into stupidity.

I think you forgot to get "The Market For Liberty". http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/

Listen/read and learn.

 

[SeanEdwards]

That's your argument against anarchism? It's stupid? That's it?

I guess my counter would have to be, don't let your state brainwashing get in your way of being able to form a cogent argument.

Let's have a historic citation of just one, only one, successful anarchic human society.

Until then, refutation by virtue of stupidity is the only argument I need.

 

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

It's good food for thought, but for right now, don't worry too much about it.

Minarchy, anarchy, and even extreme progressive liberalism are vastly preferable to what's happening right now. We need to scramble to put a puncture in the system, then we can get down to the major details.

 

[krazy kaju]

Congratulations on having common sense. Anarchy is stupidity on stilts. Stop looking to have your common sense transformed into stupidity.

Says someone who doesn't understand the basic theory behind anarchism. Congratulations.

 

[krazy kaju]

Minarchy, anarchy, and even extreme progressive liberalism are vastly preferable to what's happening right now. We need to scramble to put a puncture in the system, then we can get down to the major details.

Extreme progressive liberalism is not a "puncture in the system," it is the continuance of the system. Saying you want bigger government to replace big government seems odd for a libertarian or small government conservative.

 

[SeanEdwards]

Says someone who doesn't understand the basic theory behind anarchism. Congratulations.

Just one example, in the entirety of recorded human history to support the case for anarchy. Put up, or shutup.

 

[graddium]

Just one example, in the entirety of recorded human history to support the case for anarchy. Put up, or shutup.

"Murder is wrong, we should not murder."

"Show me one example, JUST ONE, of a society that has no murder. It's stupid to desire a society that has no murder, because one has never existed."

Your argument is so ridiculous, it barely deserves this much of a response.

 

[SeanEdwards]

"Murder is wrong, we should not murder."

"Show me one example, JUST ONE, of a society that has no murder. It's stupid to desire a society that has no murder, because one has never existed."

Your argument is so ridiculous, it barely deserves this much of a response.

You didn't put up, so shutup.

 

[UnReconstructed]

I find it incredibly confusing how someone that cannot get the concept of a voluntary society would find there way here. I'm not saying that ronpaulforums is advocating voluntarism but the Mises Institute does and that is the foundation for Ron Paul's economic platform. He [Ron Paul] has also stated that economic freedom is essential to liberty.

To the OP, listen to FAQ on the Economics of the Stateless Society and let me know what you think.

 

[Dary]

I can't make the anarchist leap.

Can you make him hop?

 

[Andrew-Austin]

Just one example, in the entirety of recorded human history to support the case for anarchy.

The future is just predetermined by past historical failures then?

Come on man, I don't necessarily favor anarchy over minarchy, but at least try and give a more meaningful answer then "its never been done before".

 

[SeanEdwards]

The future is just predetermined by past historical failures then?

Come on man, I don't necessarily favor anarchy over minarchy, but at least try and give a more meaningful answer then "its never been done before".

It's a very meaningful answer. We're talking about human society here, which has a long and rich tradition of different experiments in forms of organization. The American republic was itself a new incarnation of old ideas.

The fact that nobody can seem to point to a human society based on anarchic principles is quite good evidence that these principles may not be compatible with human nature. If anarchy is an ideal system for human society, then how come no society has ever been based upon an anarchic system, or even something approaching anarchy? As far as I can tell the anarchists are peddling some utopian fantasy that has no connection to human reality. I merely ask for some real world justification for these ideas, and I'm still waiting for an answer. It's pure vaporware at this point.