Minarchy (Badnarik) vs Non-Archy (Molyneux) debate here!

[heavenlyboy34]

All the anarchists here are just posers. The only real anarchists are nihilists.

nuh-uh!

 

[literatim]

That depends on what definition of anarchy you use, it has at least two definitions. One definition is simply "no government", this is the form of anarchy that the anarcho-capitalists preach. Then there is another definition where it means not only no government, but no law and order as well, this is the form of anarchy for nihilists.

Multiple definitions for words become very troubling when they contradict each other.

Governments institute law. You cannot have law and order without it.

 

[Conza88]

All the anarchists here are just posers. The only real anarchists are nihilists.

And all the nihilists here are just posers and frauds. Cry babies who think they are somewhat unique because they find themselves in the Liberty movement.

Problem is, basically every single college professor in the social sciences is a nihilist retard.

Sorry folks, nothing unique about that.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Governments institute law. You cannot have law and order without it.

The unsettled US western frontier did.

 

[literatim]

The unsettled US western frontier did.

The western frontier had minarchies. Towns had mayors and sheriffs. Thus government was instituted locally.

 

[Kraig]

Governments institute law. You cannot have law and order without it.

You can have law and order through private court systems, private mediators, and rules that are agreed upon when signing contracts. Pretty much all auction companies have rules and third party mediators that were setup without government. Coming up with a system to cover your own ass when you are getting involved with another man via signing a contract is not only extremely natural with or without government, it is far more effective when it is a voluntary system.

Have you not read anything by Rothbard? He has covered this extremely well.

 

[Conza88]

Governments institute law. You cannot have law and order without it.

Wrong. See: Natural Law. See: Celtic Ireland. See: private courts. See: private arbitration. See: Pennsylvania 1681–1690.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard81.html

 

[literatim]

You can have law and order through private court systems, private mediators, and rules that are agreed upon when signing contracts. Pretty much all auction companies have rules and third party mediators that were setup without government. Coming up with a system to cover your own ass when you are getting involved with another man via signing a contract is not only extremely natural with or without government, it is far more effective when it is a voluntary system.

All arbitrary. Who is going to force them to obey? Just enter a contract, take their money and then snub them. Voluntary means voluntary punishment too.

Wrong. See: Natural Law. See: Celtic Ireland. See: private courts. See: private arbitration. See: Pennsylvania 1681–1690.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard81.html

Natural Law is a philosophy. If there is no arbiter of such a law then there is no law.

 

[Kraig]

All arbitrary. Who is going to force them to obey? Just enter a contract, take their money and then snub them. Voluntary means voluntary punishment too.

Do that and you end up on a black list and no one wants to do business with you. On top of that if any defense agency that does business with the court systems you violated catches you in public then they can enact punishment against you. It's not at all different that the current law enforcement and court systems, you can do whatever you want as long as you aren't caught.

Voluntary means voluntary punishment too? No, not at all, if you agree to terms of a contract, and violate that contract down the road, people will use force against you and they will be justified in doing so. If you do not agree to any contract, yet violate the rights of someone else by initiating violence, people will use force against you and will once again be justified in doing so.

You can't just make up the ideals of anarcho-capitalism to suit your disagreement with it.

 

[Conza88]

Natural Law is a philosophy. If there is no arbiter of such a law then there is no law.

Stop with the non sequitur. All those institutions I named, other than a MONOPOLY ON THE USE OF VIOLENCE OVER A GIVEN TERRITORY... CAN accomplish the distribution of justice.

History is clear about it. I gave examples, you ignored them.

Here is another you can go on ignoring..

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

And say "natural law" is just a philosophy to the individual who has the moral and ethical right to DEFEND their JUSTLY acquired PROPERTY. Self Defense by any means necessary, with does not entail the INITIATION of violence.

 

[familydog]

Myth of National Defense by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Holcombe torn within.

I am familiar with Hoppe. I am a great admirer of his.

I have this book and cherish it.

Can you refer me to the relevent parts? Speaking regards to the last couple posts of ours.

 

[Conza88]

The western frontier had minarchies. Towns had mayors and sheriffs. Thus government was instituted locally.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

 

[literatim]

Do that and you end up on a black list and no one wants to do business with you. On top of that if any defense agency that does business with the court systems catches you in public then they can enact punishment against you. It's not at all different that the current law enforcement and court systems, you can do whatever you want as long as you aren't caught.

Voluntary means voluntary punishment too? No, not at all, if you agree to terms of a contract, and violate that contract down the road, people will use force against you and they will be justified in doing so.

You can't just make up the ideals of anarcho-capitalism to suit your disagreement with it.

There will always be people to do business with. And if you are rich and powerful, you could just turn the table and say they ripped you off: fake contract and all.

They will use force to enforce their own laws? So might makes right?

The only real anarchists are nihilists.

 

[Kraig]

There will always be people to do business with. And if you are rich and powerful, you could just turn the table and say they ripped you off: fake contract and all.

They will use force to enforce their own laws? So might makes right?

The only real anarchists are nihilists.

Yes, that's true in both anarchy and minarchy. Or did you think that criminals have nowhere to turn under minarchy? Did you think they cannot band up and form a "black market"? Did you think you cannot simply "turn the table and say they ripped you off" under the current court system right now? Or any court system?

Do you have anything that is specific to minarchy vs. anarchy, or government vs. anarchy? Your point is completely irrelevant.

Morally might doesn't make right, but it does decide who is in control. If good people want to run society, if they want a society that is dominated by good morals and cooperation, they will have to cooperate to defend it. No magical system of government is going to change that.

 

[literatim]

Yes, that's true in both anarchy and minarchy. Or did you think that criminals have nowhere to turn under minarchy? Did you think they cannot band up and form a "black market"? Did you think you cannot simply "turn the table and say they ripped you off" under the current court system right now? Or any court system?

Do you have anything that is specific to minarchy vs. anarchy, or government vs. anarchy? Your point is completely irrelevant.

Morally might doesn't make right, but it does decide who is in control. If good people want to run society, if they want a society that is dominated by good morals and cooperation, they will have to cooperate to defend it. No magical system of government is going to change that.

All I am saying is that everyone here that is claiming to be an anarchist is a poser because the only real anarchists are nihilists. Under the nihilist view there is no such thing is morality, all that matters is what the mightiest think is right.

 

[Kraig]

All I am saying is that everyone here that is claiming to be an anarchist is a poser because the only real anarchists are nihilists. Under the nihilist view there is no such thing is morality, all that matters is what the mightiest think is right.

Yeah and you are wrong, you don't get to redefine words as you see fit. Under the an-cap view there is such a thing as morality.

Anarchy:

1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

 

[literatim]

Yeah and you are wrong, you don't get to redefine words as you see fit. Under the an-cap view there is such a thing as morality.

Anarchy:

1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

Under nihilism there is morality as well. Each individual has their own moral compass and so there are many different moral paths. The only ability you have to enforce your morality on anyone else is through force. Otherwise, they will do whatever their moral compass allows them to do, even if it is to use force against someone else. Since there are all forms of moral paths, one is bound to be to enforce their morality on everyone else.

An-caps think they have a moral right to no government because of Natural Law. Nihilists don't believe there can be a Natural Law without someone enforcing the Law upon them, so there is no right to having no government.

 

[Kraig]

Under the nihilist view there is no such thing is morality, all that matters is what the mightiest think is right.

Under nihilism there is morality as well. Each individual has their own moral compass and so their are many different moral paths.

I think you are getting a little carried away with your generalizations and attempts to label people. Now you are twisting what the word nihilism means to make it seem similar to anarcho-capitalism, yet based on my understand of the word what you are saying doesn't apply.

Nihilist:
1. total rejection of established laws and institutions.
2. anarchy, terrorism, or other revolutionary activity.
3. total and absolute destructiveness, esp. toward the world at large and including oneself: the power-mad nihilism that marked Hitler's last years.
4. Philosophy.
a. an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth.
b. nothingness or nonexistence.
5. (sometimes initial capital letter) the principles of a Russian revolutionary group, active in the latter half of the 19th century, holding that existing social and political institutions must be destroyed in order to clear the way for a new state of society and employing extreme measures, including terrorism and assassination.
6. annihilation of the self, or the individual consciousness, esp. as an aspect of mystical experience.

Of course it still may depend on which definition you use, but if that is the case then it seems like you are switching back and forth as you see fit. When I use the word anarchy I am consistently using it for the meaning of "a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.".

Which version of the word "nihilism" are you referring to?

 

[literatim]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

The typical use of nihilism is moral and epistemological. The other forms do not relate to the topic at hand.

 

[Kraig]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

And belief in the meaning of life has what to do with the anarchy vs. government debate? Oh yeah, "the only real anarchists are nihilists"? So if you believe life has meaning, you aren't a nihilist, so you can't be an anarchist either? Why?