I can't make the anarchist leap.

[NMCB3]

An armed populace would stop another state from springing up. The biggest empires in the world have not been a match for guerrilla warfare tactics. Just like the USA could not conquer Vietnam, they will not be able to conquer an anarchist civilization.

The anarchist community would simply refuse consent. The State would simply give up the lost cause. It would cost too much. Like England in the revolutionary war against the colonials.

True, but also when one state invades and conquers another they typically utilize the existing method of control and oppression, ie. the state system of government, because the people are used to it. Without any centralized power there is no way to assert their authority.

 

[The_Orlonater]

The only role the state should provide is an unbiased court system to punish those who harm or do damage to others. And some voluntary taxation for the roads, and trains, but that's about it for me.

 

[sailor]

You're right. What makes something good is that it works. Drinking poison is not good, for no other reason than it kills you. Capitalism is good because it provides prosperity. Communism is bad because it brings poverty. Consequences are the ultimate consideration for determine what is good or bad.

And I agree with you that anarcho-capitalism would not work, as far as in providing a long-lasting stable society of relative freedom. Anarcho-capitalists tend to believe that "initiation of force" is always wrong, and that's why they're anarcho-capitalists. I contend that it's neither right or wrong intrinsically. I think freedom can only be maximized, and it requires some initiation of force. Initiation of force just has to be minimized.

So you agree that the end justifies the means. That makes you a moral relativist. That means you are up there with George Bush, the necons, Leon Trotsky and Vladimir Lenin.

Jesus is very angry with you, boy!

 

[mediahasyou]

The only role the state should provide is an unbiased court system to punish those who harm or do damage to others. And some voluntary taxation for the roads, and trains, but that's about it for me.

Road, trains are not the best option for transportation. Roads take up space, are dangerous, and need upkeep.

If roads were not paid for by the state, there would be a higher demand for transportation that does not use roads. possibly: helicopters, planes, flying cars

Demand would drive these prices down significantly.

 

[SeanEdwards]

So you agree that the end justifies the means. That makes you a moral relativist. That means you are up there with George Bush, the necons, Leon Trotsky and Vladimir Lenin.

Jesus is very angry with you, boy!

You're a moral relativist too. You're just too stupid to recognize it or too dishonest to admit it.

 

[Ben2008]

So you agree that the end justifies the means. That makes you a moral relativist. That means you are up there with George Bush, the necons, Leon Trotsky and Vladimir Lenin.

Jesus is very angry with you, boy!

Of course the ends justify the means. Read some Ayn Rand. That which is good is that which works toward nourishing and sustaining life. That which is bad is that which works against it. Morality is nothing more than that. That's not "moral relativism" though. What works is not contingent upon my opinion of what works. Something either works or it doesn't. It's objective.

Granted, Rand concluded that initiation of force is not conducive toward sustaining life. But I differ with her there. A minimum of initiation of force is necessary to nourish and sustain life. In other words, we need limited government to maximize liberty. The reason liberty is good is because it works.

 

[Conza88]

You're a moral relativist too. You're just too stupid to recognize it or too dishonest to admit it.

Anarcho-capitalist FAQ

“To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.”
~ Amos Bronson Alcott

Wake the fuck up, you minimal statist / socialist.

 

[Conza88]

Of course the ends justify the means. Read some Ayn Rand. That which is good is that which works toward nourishing and sustaining life. That which is bad is that which works against it. Morality is nothing more than that. That's not "moral relativism" though. What works is not contingent upon my opinion of what works. Something either works or it doesn't. It's objective.

Granted, Rand concluded that initiation of force is not conducive toward sustaining life. But I differ with her there. A minimum of initiation of force is necessary to nourish and sustain life. In other words, we need limited government to maximize liberty. The reason liberty is good is because it works.

Read some Rand?

Maaaaaaaaaaate... read some Rothbard. Rand is a tard compared to Rothbard, he bitch slaps her silly. (And yes I've read Atlas, Fountainhead etc.. epic fiction books)

 

[Truth Warrior]

Of course the ends justify the means. Read some Ayn Rand. That which is good is that which works toward nourishing and sustaining life. That which is bad is that which works against it. Morality is nothing more than that. That's not "moral relativism" though. What works is not contingent upon my opinion of what works. Something either works or it doesn't. It's objective.

Granted, Rand concluded that initiation of force is not conducive toward sustaining life. But I differ with her there. A minimum of initiation of force is necessary to nourish and sustain life. In other words, we need limited government to maximize liberty. The reason liberty is good is because it works.

"The end justifies the means." -- Karl Marx

That's some pretty crappy company that you're agreeing with there.<IMHO>

 

[The_Orlonater]

Road, trains are not the best option for transportation. Roads take up space, are dangerous, and need upkeep.

If roads were not paid for by the state, there would be a higher demand for transportation that does not use roads. possibly: helicopters, planes, flying cars

Demand would drive these prices down significantly.

We can all take care of the roads, we don't just have to sit on our ass and wait. I just don't want to pay a toll every few roads, and not everyone has enough money to get security guards or police for their own neighborhood. I think the toll would be a little more expensive, especially from everyday usage.

Trains are a great way for transportation, but there's very little space to build the rest of them. I don't see how a few train companies can really compete. It would be quite difficult, don't you think?

Edit: This is done by small communities, no federal government what so ever.

Just throwing out a thought.

 

[Ben2008]

Read some Rand?

Maaaaaaaaaaate... read some Rothbard. Rand is a tard compared to Rothbard, he bitch slaps her silly. (And yes I've read Atlas, Fountainhead etc.. epic fiction books)

What do you mean? Rothbard's metaethics are basically the same as Rand's. Rothbard justfies anarcho-capitalism on the basis that he thinks anarcho-capitalism is most compatible with man's nature in order for him to live and prosper. The end justifies the means again.

 

[Conservationist]

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."

We either master power, or it constantly sabotages us.

Anarchy is a well-meaning joke, like all liberal ideas. Individuals managing themselves = no one with an eye on the road ahead.

A better idea is cooperation, which probably requires hereditary roles, which is ultra-taboo in our current witless political spectrum.

 

[sailor]

You're a moral relativist too. You're just too stupid to recognize it or too dishonest to admit it.

How am I a moral relativist?

You are a troll as far as I can see. You had nothing to reply to me, so you came back with a one liner saying I was stupid?

Is that the best you could come up with? And who do you think this makes look stupid, me or you?

 

[mport1]

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.)

Anarchy would work, and much better than minarchy would. I would suggest you read/listen two one of the following books. They give a very good picture for what anarchy would likely look like and how it would function in a superior way to the current state of affairs or limited government.


Practical Anarchy - Found in audio and pdf form here http://www.freedomainradio.com/books.html (goes well with Everyday Anarchy and Universally Preferable Behaviour but Practical Anarchy looks at the practical questions you are probably more interested in)

The Market For Liberty - Very good in most aspects and again looks at a lot of the practicalities. http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/

For A New Liberty - In print and audio. Also everything else by Rothbard is good. http://mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp