Is it still anarchists fault Ron Paul isn't winning?

[BSWPaulsen]

I agree...but I'm an anarchist. Read my thread on NAP, Utilitarianism, and Natural Law. I endeavor to show both NAP and utility fail to limit coercion in every circumstance. I also try to show that deontonlogical and consequentialist ethics fail to accurately predict human behavior in different conditions. I also try and explain why both are apllicable in the same cases sometimes, one or the other is applicable other times, but at no time does practicality make something moral or lawful (according to natural law).

I've read it. It solved nothing. There is no need to point out that various forms of ethics cannot accurately predict human behavior all of the time. It's self-evident. I've stated previously I reject the notion of natural law (fallacy of reification that it is), so that is a complete non-starter for me.

My conclusion is at the end of the post, but in short it's that the state is still a criminal operation and must not go unpunished or unrecognized as such. The fact extortion or theft can have better outcomes than not aggressing, in extreme situations, doesn't logically mean that it ceases to be a criminal act. What it means is that corroborating and mitigating circumstances must be taken into account in sentencing of this crime once prosecuted (via a private legal system under panarchism - an anarchist legal order - obviously), leading to different renumerative and retributive (if any) penalties given the specific case by case circumstances.

The concept of an anarchist legal system exists as a meaningful entity in theory only. In practice it would be nonsense.

#1) Foremost, as pointed out in my dealings with Cabal, there is no monopoly on force that would coerce individuals into being beholden to said "anarchist legal system". It would have no power to make sure the NAP is actually upheld, individuals retaining the natural right to simply opt out of any "anarchist legal system" in the first place. How do you make them accountable to something they want no part of in the first place? You can't.

#2) Morally, even if we assume #1 can somehow be gotten around, detaining suspected criminals would require violating NAP, or having a functionally useless justice system. Crimes, even of the decidedly NAP-violating kind, do not always have an obvious culprit. Absent a monopoly on force there is no moral authority to detain what could very well be innocent individuals.

#3) The wealthy, or the mob, would subvert any meaningful notion of justice in a private legal system, because they would become the monopoly of force if it is the only legal system existent. There would be no binding social contract (yes, I know anarchists absolutely detest social contracts that are involuntary, but in my mind it represents the best solution to the justice system problem) of any sort that would attempt to establish an objective notion of justice uniform to the entire society.

If one were to believe the free market would solve this problem of a monopolized force naturally arising to fix the problem, then you end up with a multitude of justice systems, and in the end it becomes completely arbitrary and meaningless to the concerned society. The first time Sally, contractually beholden to Private Legal System A, is accused by John, contractually beholden to Private Legal System B, of stealing his car would already represent the death knell of any solution you've offered. Or we could just bring up Rambo, contractually obligated to nobody, just plainly refusing to deal with any accusations of crime because it is his natural right.

It's all ridiculous. Give me something that works better than the involuntary social contract that delineates not just the law, but execution of the law in case of violation. Otherwise it's all a joke.