Question for anarchists - How would you handle national defense?

[TheTexan]

That is completely contradictory to what you have been saying this whole time...

Are you telling me that I'm not an anarchist, because I think people should follow a law that they agreed to follow?

Interesting.

 

[w2992]

a well armed government is an idividuals worst enemy

 

[RiseAgainst]

That's pretty much the bottom line isn't it? You can argue all day about theory but in the end the fact that anarchies don't exist settles the argument. Anarchist "theory" has been tested and failed over and over in the real world.

The countries of the world live in a state of anarchy between each other. Am I to understand you favor a world government to get rid of this anarchy? If not, why not? If the countries of the world, in your opinion, SHOULD live in a state of anarchy to one another, why not the states of this union? Why not the counties of the separate states? Why not the cities? Why not the blocks? Why not the houses? Why not the individuals?

 

[TheTexan]

That is completely contradictory to what you have been saying this whole time...

Ron Paul is ADVOCATING a return to Constitutional government.

If he was an anarchist, or whatever less provocative term you prefer, he would ADVOCATE for that instead.

Game. Over.

Even in the video he said he uses the Constitution as a tool for turning down bills, even when his real motives lie elsewhere.

Sorry, you lost.

 

[RiseAgainst]

That is completely contradictory to what you have been saying this whole time...

Ron Paul is ADVOCATING a return to Constitutional government.

If he was an anarchist, or whatever less provocative term you prefer, he would ADVOCATE for that instead.

Game. Over.

I understand before I even type this that it is a futile effort, you are not what one would classify as a "thinker" NFB.

I am an anarchist. I advocate for a return to constitutional government as opposed to what we currently have. I am still an anarchist.

You have an incredibly closed mind, and such a simple concept does not fit tightly in the self-designed box you have placed in your mind.

 

[No Free Beer]

I understand before I even type this that it is a futile effort, you are not what one would classify as a "thinker" NFB.

I am an anarchist. I advocate for a return to constitutional government as opposed to what we currently have. I am still an anarchist.

You have an incredibly closed mind, and such a simple concept does not fit tightly in the self-designed box you have placed in your mind.

That would make you a hypocrite.

You should be putting your energy into advocating for what you believe in, anarchy.

I have no problem with you believing in what you want. I just think that what you would find is something completely different that what may sound philosophically awesome.

Also, what you are in fact doing is picking what you see as the lesser of two evils. By that standard, you will be voting for either Romney or Obama in the General.

Enjoy.

 

[No Free Beer]

Even in the video he said he uses the Constitution as a tool for turning down bills, even when his real motives lie elsewhere.

Sorry, you lost.

Then, you are saying that Dr. Paul is disingenuous.

 

[Pericles]

And why couldn't I hire a private enforcer of those contracts? Why does a central state need to do this? And what of Eminent Domian and Property Taxes?

You don't own your property. You are granted the privilege of using it by the govt who can take it away at any time, for any reason.

Would a private deed enforcer be able to come to you and say "Sorry, we own this now. Get off." or "We need 10% of what we thing the value of the property is every year, or we take your property."?

The state isn't an enforcer of contracts, it's a pirate that lets it's victims trade use claims to it's booty.

One point for consideration is that if the enforcers were any good, they would (A) be well armed, and (B) have no hesitation in using those weapons - otherwise they wouldn't be much good at what they do. At some point the enforcers realize that they don't need to work for the peanuts you pay them, they can just steal your stuff because they can.

 

[No Free Beer]

anyywa, i will check back later. i have some homework to do.

 

[TheTexan]

Then, you are saying that Dr. Paul is disingenuous.

Ya, I guess, I am, technically.

It's kind of like talking to a child. You have to talk to them in terms they'd understand, like we're trying to do with you right now.

 

[Madison320]

It boggles my mind how people can have such strong convictions against socialized health care, but socialized defense and justice are not only legitimate but necessary. Everything is a product or service. From birth control to anti aircraft missiles to murder trials. Anarchism is the only truly consistent position for anyone who acknowledges the superiority of the market over central planning.

So why doesn't it exist?

Your mistake is failing to recognize the difference between mutually voluntary actions and force.

 

[Pericles]

The countries of the world live in a state of anarchy between each other. Am I to understand you favor a world government to get rid of this anarchy? If not, why not? If the countries of the world, in your opinion, SHOULD live in a state of anarchy to one another, why not the states of this union? Why not the counties of the separate states? Why not the cities? Why not the blocks? Why not the houses? Why not the individuals?

This is probably the best argument that one can make.

The counter is that the anarchistic society has high transaction costs - treaties, various norms that all obey, and the world has a number of conflicts - it is more accurate to say that for the world that war is the normal state, and peace is the exception.

 

[Madison320]

The countries of the world live in a state of anarchy between each other. Am I to understand you favor a world government to get rid of this anarchy? If not, why not? If the countries of the world, in your opinion, SHOULD live in a state of anarchy to one another, why not the states of this union? Why not the counties of the separate states? Why not the cities? Why not the blocks? Why not the houses? Why not the individuals?

No, I don't favor world government because most conflict is local. I'm probably not going to have to resolve a dispute with some guy in Russia, but possibly with my neighbor.

If anarchies are so great, where are they???

 

[Madison320]

Government "theory" has been tested and failed over and over in the real world. Just because it exists doesn't mean it's a success.

Yeah, governments have a pretty low batting average, I'll give you that. Beats the hell out of zero though doesn't it?

 

[Madison320]

It's not a different discussion. The Constitution has not worked to restrain the govt from violating the rights of the people. The state works with impunity in its endless foreign and domestic wars, it wastes resources on pet projects, and it destroys any notion of "rights" via personal behavior prohibitions, eminent domain, and taxation.

Your "natural rights" wouldn't be supported for free in a stateless society. But they aren't supported for free now. You have to pay exorbitant amounts for sub-par service, to enforce "rights" that you don't necessarily agree with.

But your rights would be supported in a responsive manner by voluntarily funded, efficient institutions that care about the well being of their subscribers. You would get the best price for the best service, or you could switch providers.

Sounds better than enormous prices for the crappiest service imaginable and a prohibition of switching providers!

If all you say is true why are aren't there any successful anarchies in existence?

 

[Madison320]

Ah, I see. So then you are not interested in any actual understanding or knowledge, only in flexing your rhetorical skills and waving your epeen around?

If you asked for the solution to a complex mathematical equation, which I could not myself solve, and I provided you with a source which contained the solution, is that solution invalid simply because I, your humble servant, did not deliver it to you of my own cognition?

Grow up.

Damn, you're rude. Just tell me where all the successful anarchies are. Yeah, I know governments suck, but I see alot of them that are a hell of a lot better than Somalia.

 

[otherone]

The purpose of the state is to protect the Rights of the individual. With Anarchy, the Rights of the individual are protected by the individual (not that this is a bad thing). The problem, however, is that humans are genetically tribal.

 

[RiseAgainst]

Damn, you're rude. Just tell me where all the successful anarchies are. Yeah, I know governments suck, but I see alot of them that are a hell of a lot better than Somalia.

Tell me where the successful minimal governments are. If the only thing you are interested in is what exists, and what you can do, why are we having this conversation? The war on drugs exists, deal with it. NDAA, Patriot, etc. exist, therefore they are right.

Your line of reasoning is shallow and devoid of any rational pursuit of what is right and just.

 

[RiseAgainst]

The purpose of the state is to protect the Rights of the individual. With Anarchy, the Rights of the individual are protected by the individual (not that this is a bad thing). The problem, however, is that humans are genetically tribal.

There is nothing wrong with tribalism. Humans are indeed social creatures, anarchism =/= anti-socialism. Anarchism = anti-rulers. Anarchism = anti-force. Anarchism = voluntary interaction.

The only just authority is that which is derived from voluntary, mutual consent.

 

[otherone]

There is nothing wrong with tribalism. Humans are indeed social creatures, anarchism =/= anti-socialism. Anarchism = anti-rulers. Anarchism = anti-force. Anarchism = voluntary interaction.

For tribalism to exist, there needs to be those who are not members of the tribe. And while those of the tribe enjoy 'voluntary interaction', those who compete for resources with the tribe most certainly do not. You know....like prison gangs.....