I made the switch to Anarcho-capitalism....what a trip!

[idiom]

I look forward to your manifesto. I'm sure Hobbs has nothing on you.

Manifestos tend to get people killed. Usually millions at a time.

Private courts would rise up based on reputation. If they'd rule willy-nilly people would not use them.

A. It wasn't an example of willy-nilly. It was an example of a slight disagreement possibly between two cultures on how property is fundamentally defined.

B. Some people benefit from courts that rule willy-nilly. Say you are a thug. If you have a captured court, you are no longer a thug. You are a Voluntary Enforcement Agency. Like a government but without taxation, so even more legitimate. You stick to the NAP. Everything you take from people is taken fairly due to them violating the NAP. There is a lot of room for deep pockets to warp a court subtly. Very hard to start a shooting war with a Court that's only being a little weird.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Can you give me some evidence for this accusation? I've always viewed Molyneux as a raving anti-theist idiot, and I've often wondered if he was a statist in disguise. If that accusation against him (Which I have heard before) is true, that would confirm my suspicions about him.

[h=2]Newsflash! Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio, has won the 2012 Liberty Inspiration Award!
followed by Ron Paul and Tom Woods/Antonio Buehler[/h]http://www.freedomainradio.com/Home.aspx

 

[Occam's Banana]

I guess you missed this part:

No, I didn't "miss it" - it simply isn't relevant to anything I said.

I wasn't talking about the NAP, nor was I responding to any statement about the NAP.

 

[AlexAmore]

I think one major reasons for disagreements between minarchists and anarchists is their solution paradigm. Minarchists seek their solution in the political world and Anarchists seek their solution everywhere else.

I think technology will be a huge catalyst for Anarchy. Bitcoin-like currencies, and 3D printing are some things that come to mind that will allow one to go around government and thus weaken it. The younger generation will grow up with mounds of decentralized information through technology/internet. I think this will all combine to form a nice environment for anarchism to grow. Suppose government's unsustainable practices finally lead to a crash, I suspect advanced technology will swoop in and people will realize government is unnecessary. It may not happen at the next crash, or the next after that, but I think technology may ultimately be a part of the paradigm shift.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Manifestos tend to get people killed. Usually millions at a time.



A. It wasn't an example of willy-nilly. It was an example of a slight disagreement possibly between two cultures on how property is fundamentally defined.

B. Some people benefit from courts that rule willy-nilly. Say you are a thug. If you have a captured court, you are no longer a thug. You are a Voluntary Enforcement Agency. Like a government but without taxation, so even more legitimate. You stick to the NAP. Everything you take from people is taken fairly due to them violating the NAP. There is a lot of room for deep pockets to warp a court subtly. Very hard to start a shooting war with a Court that's only being a little weird.

There's a certain amount of arbitrariness to any legal/judicial system. All we can do is look for the "least bad" way of going about it. The idea of private courts is not bad-it just needs more thought. Same with Constitutionalism. The Constitutionalists have been operating without a coherent legal theory for 200+ years, arbitrarily making shit up as they go along...killing and imprisoning many thousands of innocents along the way.

 

[brandon]

Just wait until a couple years from now when you make the trip all the way back to a moderate like me.

 

[Ronin Truth]

I think one major reasons for disagreements between minarchists and anarchists is their solution paradigm. Minarchists seek their solution in the political world and Anarchists seek their solution everywhere else.

I think technology will be a huge catalyst for Anarchy. Bitcoin-like currencies, and 3D printing are some things that come to mind that will allow one to go around government and thus weaken it. The younger generation will grow up with mounds of decentralized information through technology/internet. I think this will all combine to form a nice environment for anarchism to grow. Suppose government's unsustainable practices finally lead to a crash, I suspect advanced technology will swoop in and people will realize government is unnecessary. It may not happen at the next crash, or the next after that, but I think technology may ultimately be a part of the paradigm shift.

• "An anarchist is anyone who believes in less government than you do."
• "If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one."
• "Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure."
• "A limited government is a contradiction in terms."

-- Bob LeFevre

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm no good at convincing anyone by argument. Although I understand the logical principles, and spend hours alone going over the logic in my own head, when it comes to a debate situation, my mind is too slow to present a coherent argument. Thus, I mostly just sit and listen, and hope that people will read my Facebook posts which I have plenty of time to draft.

I'm the opposite. I think too fast for most people to keep up. But I struggle to present it in a way people will understand. I think that's more bbecuase they are not willing to do so than anything else.

Newsflash! Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio, has won the 2012 Liberty Inspiration Award!
followed by Ron Paul and Tom Woods/Antonio Buehler

http://www.freedomainradio.com/Home.aspx

Yeah, he still sucks. Anti-theists suck.

You should be nice because Christmas is coming. Fag.

Whatever. Merry Christmas. Wait a minute... both of those are two syllable words, so you probably need an explanation of what they mean. Heck, do you know what "probably" and "explanation" mean?

That's the thing about persuasive writing/speaking. You have to speak in terms the audience understands. I've had to do similar things with conservative Republicans in my family. Standard Constitutionalism alone is rather above their heads most of the time, so trying to discuss more complicated philosohpical waxings of any sort (political, religious, or other) is almost as pleasant as hitting my head on a brick wall.

Yep.

Although, I don't know where you get your theory that constitutionalists have murdered thousands of innocents. I was under the impression that the people who did that didn't care much for the constitution.

It's not, actually. There is no more a "right" to privacy than there is a "right" to a job, an education, health care, etc., etc., etc.



Srsly? Griswold v. Connecticut doesn't ring a bell? Howzabout "penumbras" and "emanations" ... ?

Some of the more infamous instances of jurisprudential piffle have "emanated" from federal courts' support for vague & ill-defined "rights" judges have "discovered" in the Constitution - including that of "privacy" (from whence "penumbras," to name but one sample of the aforementioned piffle).

Griswold v Connecticut had no constitutional basis. Banning birth control is stupid, of course. But under the constitution it is a state issue, not a Federal issue.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Yeah, he still sucks. Anti-theists suck.

WWJD?

Merry Christmas!

 

[Occam's Banana]

Griswold v Connecticut had no constitutional basis. Banning birth control is stupid, of course. But under the constitution it is a state issue, not a Federal issue.

Not that I disagree - I don't - but the contraception aspect is entirely beside the point in the matter at hand.

It was Griswold v. Connecticut in which SCOTUS "discovered" the allegedly Constitutional "right to privacy" - contrary to HB's bizarre claim that SCOTUS has ruled that there is no such thing as a "right to privacy."

 

[idiom]

No, I didn't "miss it" - it simply isn't relevant to anything I said.

I wasn't talking about the NAP, nor was I responding to any statement about the NAP.

When you read NAP, think 'Non-aggression Against Property'.

You were discussing the fundamental nature of things. The NAP is built upon very specific and very controversial definitions. All parties must agree on those definitions for it to work.

There's a certain amount of arbitrariness to any legal/judicial system. All we can do is look for the "least bad" way of going about it. The idea of private courts is not bad-it just needs more thought. Same with Constitutionalism. The Constitutionalists have been operating without a coherent legal theory for 200+ years, arbitrarily making shit up as they go along...killing and imprisoning many thousands of innocents along the way.

Yes, but believers in the NAP deny any arbitrariness in their thinking, as Occam's Banana just demonstrated.

This goes to the core of An-Cap thinking. Its not based on any true A priori ideas, like objectivisim or kantianism or utilitarianism for example. Its core principles are based in culture, with cultural assumptions filling in all the gaps.

Until these are acknowledged and addressed the theory won't move forward.

 

[Ronin Truth]

The Sacred Nonaggression Principle (pdf)

 

[Christian Liberty]

WWJD?

Merry Christmas!

Tell anti-theists like Molyneux to repent?

Not that I disagree - I don't - but the contraception aspect is entirely beside the point in the matter at hand.

It was Griswold v. Connecticut in which SCOTUS "discovered" the allegedly Constitutional "right to privacy" - contrary to HB's bizarre claim that SCOTUS has ruled that there is no such thing as a "right to privacy."

Valid point. I get that. SCOTUS did indeed say there was a "right to privacy". Its just that they were wrong about that.

When you read NAP, think 'Non-aggression Against Property'.

You were discussing the fundamental nature of things. The NAP is built upon very specific and very controversial definitions. All parties must agree on those definitions for it to work.



Yes, but believers in the NAP deny any arbitrariness in their thinking, as Occam's Banana just demonstrated.

This goes to the core of An-Cap thinking. Its not based on any true A priori ideas, like objectivisim or kantianism or utilitarianism for example. Its core principles are based in culture, with cultural assumptions filling in all the gaps.

Until these are acknowledged and addressed the theory won't move forward.

No worldview works without some assumptions. When starting from a Biblical, Christian-based worldview, however, anarchism works.

 

[idiom]

No worldview works without some assumptions. When starting from a Biblical, Christian-based worldview, however, anarchism works.

When starting a very limited subset of the many biblical, christian worldviews. Even in the Bible, in Israel, it didn't last long. It was constantly being over-run and eventually they threw the system out for monarchy.

So when you say 'it works' you either need an example, or a qualifier. Like, 'it might work'. Or, 'Anarchism resolves in theory'.

States, for all there many flaws, spontaneously form, pretty reliably. You don't need a government to come in and create a new government. People form a new one all by themselves if there is a vacuum. This is pretty solid empirically.

Now on the other hand An-Caps refuse to even try forming a geographical region without a 'state'. Until you have a theory that either spontaneously forms, or you are willing to deliberately try out, then its all just so much intellectual masturbation.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I've been minarchist for awhile now (like Ron Paul). People keep saying that I'll eventually slip in to ancap/anarchist camp..... been reading and listening to Spooner, ROthbard, etc..... I'm still a minarchist.... I still believe that government as small as possible to accomplish those few things that are necesary to hold a nation together is preferable to a nationless-faction based fantasy that would quickly be overun by the remaining governments of the world ie China.

Allow me to go out on a limb and explain that this is just because you are over 30.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

States, for all there many flaws, spontaneously form, pretty reliably. You don't need a government to come in and create a new government. People form a new one all by themselves if there is a vacuum. This is pretty solid empirically.

Umm, this is only true if you look solely at a very, very short slice of human existence.

 

[Christian Liberty]

When starting a very limited subset of the many biblical, christian worldviews. Even in the Bible, in Israel, it didn't last long. It was constantly being over-run and eventually they threw the system out for monarchy.

Yet 1st Samuel 8 clearly shows that their throwing it out was WRONG! And the Israelites were taken over because they refused to obey God, not because they refused to appoint a human king.

So when you say 'it works' you either need an example, or a qualifier. Like, 'it might work'. Or, 'Anarchism resolves in theory'.

I said that it works in the sense that there is no hypocrisy. Not necessarily that it will survive. Come to think of it, what does "working" mean anyway? For those of us who reject aggression, anarchy is the only thing that "works."

States, for all there many flaws, spontaneously form, pretty reliably. You don't need a government to come in and create a new government. People form a new one all by themselves if there is a vacuum. This is pretty solid empirically.

So what? Does that make the institution of the State morally acceptable? Pragmatism is not in any way a moral argument. Tyrannies develop naturally too. Is that OK?

Now on the other hand An-Caps refuse to even try forming a geographical region without a 'state'. Until you have a theory that either spontaneously forms, or you are willing to deliberately try out, then its all just so much intellectual masturbation.

Who says an-caps won't try to impose their theory on a geographical region? I'd love to get to a point where aggression was seen as so morally disgusting that a threat along the lines of "Anyone who tries to exercise force by calling themselves 'government' will be shot on sight" wouldn't offend a normal person any more so than "If a common thug tries to kill my kids, they'll be shot on sight."

Allow me to go out on a limb and explain that this is just because you are over 30.

LOL!

 

[Tod]

Who is the woman in this gif?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Who is the woman in this gif?

Jennifer Lawrence. She's fond of talking about farts!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Politicians have appealed to Constitutionalism to justify their every heinous action. The most obvious is the War Between The States, but there are horrors to be found every generation.