Ron Paul is very clear. He is NOT an Anarcho-Capitalist

[erowe1]

We can start with Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire.

Can you be more specific?

 

[mczerone]

Worst case I imagine would be something like the Mongols knocking on your front door before raping and slaughtering everyone you hold dear. Check out those podcasts by the way, pretty enthralling history.

The Mongols relied on neighboring states to bow to their demands. Their opponents all had irrational means to defend themselves, and didn't engage in cooperation when it would have been advantageous because they had base instincts to be a "great nation." Not only that, but they weren't innovating new protection services because they were always fighting the last war.

If a group comparable to the Mongols showed up today, would you rather live in (a) a nation that is powerful, but has a proven track record of losing to unconventional warfare and has the ability to surrender on your behalf while usurping a portion of your wealth to entrench themselves, or (b) a land where you are free to choose your defense situation, have enormous wealth, and get to decide yourself when to give in or stay fighting?

Nobody's proposing a "power vacuum" - we're saying that power rightfully lies in the individual. Not the walled city, not the state capital, and not the federal state. How you use that power is up to you.

 

[familydog]

The problems Machiavelli puts forth in The Prince, would be exacerbated in a completely stateless environment given the nature of human beings.

So, your argument is thus:

1. Human beings are too dangerous and psychotic to organize themselves in a peaceful manner on their own.
2. Therefore, we need a small group of human beings (who don't abide by this same 'human nature') to have a monopoly on violent behavior enforcement.
3. This small group of human beings are special and won't desire to dominate others. We just need to elect the "right" people.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Can you be more specific?

That^^ plz.

 

[Matthew5]

Only on this forum could we go from a Ron Paul video to talking about Mongol invasions. Oh, RPF...

 

[Pericles]

Can you be more specific?

As Rome collapses, western Europe becomes anarchist fantasy land. There are no states, governments, etc. - just people. To the extent there is a unifying entity in western Europe, it becomes the Catholic church. To the extent there is a system of ethics, it is nominally christian, but most tribes spend their efforts in raiding their neighbors. Warlords eventually manage to create a following and control territory and populations, leading to serfdom for the majority of people, until the strongest of the strong men creat the Holy Roman empire, which has a short lifespan before it breaks up. The next few hundred years are spent creating the nation states and principalities, which of course evolve into the major countries of Europe by the 18th Century.

I suppose western civilization is no longer a required course in becoming a notionally educated person.

 

[erowe1]

As Rome collapses, western Europe becomes anarchist fantasy land. There are no states, governments, etc. - just people. To the extent there is a unifying entity in western Europe, it becomes the Catholic church. To the extent there is a system of ethics, it is nominally christian, but most tribes spend their efforts in raiding their neighbors. Warlords eventually manage to create a following and control territory and populations, leading to serfdom for the majority of people, until the strongest of the strong men creat the Holy Roman empire, which has a short lifespan before it breaks up. The next few hundred years are spent creating the nation states and principalities, which of course evolve into the major countries of Europe by the 18th Century.

I suppose western civilization is no longer a required course in becoming a notionally educated person.

When I said "more specific," I didn't just mean to say the same thing with more words, but to cite specific facts. Which particular areas were in anarchy? Your description, with tribes and warlords, doesn't sound like anarchy to me. But maybe some were. If so, I'd be interested in knowing which, and why you believe they were.

But it's true, I have never had a course in Western civilization.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

As Rome collapses, western Europe becomes anarchist fantasy land. There are no states, governments, etc. - just people. To the extent there is a unifying entity in western Europe, it becomes the Catholic church. To the extent there is a system of ethics, it is nominally christian, but most tribes spend their efforts in raiding their neighbors. Warlords eventually manage to create a following and control territory and populations, leading to serfdom for the majority of people, until the strongest of the strong men creat the Holy Roman empire, which has a short lifespan before it breaks up. The next few hundred years are spent creating the nation states and principalities, which of course evolve into the major countries of Europe by the 18th Century.

I suppose western civilization is no longer a required course in becoming a notionally educated person.

I think you mean a 'nominally' educated person. I'm not sure what a 'notionally educated person' would be...

You're completely wrong about there being no states or governments after the fall of Rome, of course. Indeed, even while Rome persisted, there were well established 'monarchical' tribes throughout Western Europe. Just because statist historians referred to them as 'barbarians' does not mean that they were an 'anarchist fantasy land' full of 'just people'.

You're also hilariously wrong about the duration of the Holy Roman Empire, unless you consider nearly 1,000 years to be a 'short lifespan'.

Honestly your post is exhibit 'A' in the case against statist education.

 

[Pericles]

When I said "more specific," I didn't just mean to say the same thing with more words, but to cite specific facts. Which particular areas were in anarchy?

But it's true, I have never had a course in Western civilization.

If you define anarchy as no government or state, just Europe west of the Danube and north of Sicily from around 300 AD to 800 AD. There wasn't always an England, France, Germany, Spain, etc.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

If you define anarchy as no government or state

I don't believe anyone here defines 'anarchy' as 'no government'. No state, indeed. No government? Not so much.

 

[Pericles]

I think you mean a 'nominally' educated person. I'm not sure what a 'notionally educated person' would be...

You're completely wrong about there being no states or governments after the fall of Rome, of course. Indeed, even while Rome persisted, there were well established 'monarchical' tribes throughout Western Europe. Just because statist historians referred to them as 'barbarians' does not mean that they were an 'anarchist fantasy land' full of 'just people'.

You're also hilariously wrong about the duration of the Holy Roman Empire, unless you consider nearly 1,000 years to be a 'short lifespan'.

Honestly your post is exhibit 'A' in the case against statist education.

One who thinks he is educated, but isn't. The Wikipedia entry for the Holy Roman Empire is Exhibit "A" of that.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Only on this forum could we go from a Ron Paul video to talking about Mongol invasions. Oh, RPF...

Don't you just love this place?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

'kay. That's a new one on me. *shrug*

Oh, I see. You think I looked up my history of the HRE on Wikipedia...

You continue to be wrong.

 

[Quark]

It's quite clear to me that Ron Paul hasn't asked himself this question in detail, because he hadn't had the need to. He says that he hasn't sorted the idea of "competing police" out. Why? Likely because it isn't an important question in our current environment. Possibly if we are to reach the point that the only thing left of the state was the monopoly on law enforcement, then we can ask the question. As of now, the only people interested in it are those who ask scholarly questions for the sole purpose of asking them with the endeavors of a logically consistent and contained (deductively) philosophy. This is not necessary in the world of political action, which tends to focus on the greatest issues and reduces (by greatness) to the lesser ones as each one is solved. The progressives learned this to be the easiest way to bring more government and collective power over time. They might believe in the abolition of private property, for example, but they don't think it is the core issue, but rather something to strive for in the distance. The same should be said for liberty, if we are to choose to reach our goal of anarchy. I'm almost certain that self-designated minarchists, if in the world of minarchy, were given the option to abolish the police when presented with deductive arguments based on the NAP, and arguments of efficiency, they'd do so upon reason. That's what is important. To hold high views for liberty, the NAP, and to do what one can to reduce violence and aggression, not increase it, but to have reason for these beliefs as well. If one has reason, then one will solve problems as they arise.

 

[erowe1]

'kay. That's a new one on me. *shrug*

Oh, I see. You think I looked up my history of the HRE on Wikipedia...

You continue to be wrong.

I just checked the wikipedia article on the HRE and it looks pretty erudite to me. I'm sure that, like all wikipedia articles, there are things wrong with it. But it's obvious that it would take someone whose knowledge of the subject is leagues beyond mine to improve much on it.

Pericles, what's wrong with it?

 

[erowe1]

It's quite clear to me that Ron Paul hasn't asked himself this question in detail,

Do you really think this? Knowing who his influences and friends are?

 

[Quark]

Do you really think this? Knowing who his influences and friends are?

That's the impression I got from this, from the video: "but I haven't sorted all this out ... eh, I really haven't been able to figure this out about competing police forces and.."

 

[erowe1]

That's the impression I got from this, from the video: "but I haven't sorted all this out ... eh, I really haven't been able to figure this out about competing police forces and.."

I think that's an honest answer from a person who knows what he's talking about. People who think they know how the free market would provide something the government currently does are putting too much trust in their own imaginations.

 

[Quark]

I think that's an honest answer from a person who knows what he's talking about. People who think they know how the free market would provide something the government currently does are putting too much trust in their own imaginations.

I never meant to imply that Ron Paul doesn't know what he's talking about. What I was expressing is that Ron Paul likely didn't go into a thorough and detailed questioning of the concept as he would in regards to other more crucial (to him) topics.

As for your comment in regards to the free-market, could the same not be said for other more Ron Paul oriented topics, say competing currencies? How does he know that competing currencies will sort themselves out under free-market rules, but he cannot say whether or not competing law enforcements will also sort out? What element is different between the two?

Since he didn't specifically mention a conceptual difference between the two, I'm assuming that he A. Hasn't found it yet, but he expects it to exist (through his skepticism) or B. Hasn't found the market rules that would sort out the law enforcement market. That either means he doesn't know because he hasn't looked into it enough, or nobody knows. If we appeal to the latter, than can't we say the same for any other concept of free-market spontaneous order? Of course, this is assuming we do everything deductively and no inductive work is there for substantiation.

 

[Pericles]

I just checked the wikipedia article on the HRE and it looks pretty erudite to me. I'm sure that, like all wikipedia articles, there are things wrong with it. But it's obvious that it would take someone whose knowledge of the subject is leagues beyond mine to improve much on it.

Pericles, what's wrong with it?

You obviously did not have Professor Doctor Zoltan Kostolnik has the gatekeeper in the History Department.....

Of course, after the death of Charlemagne who had taken over the Merovingian dynasty (to the the extent there was anything is what is now France that was worth being king of...) unites the rest of the territory to be the Holy Roman Empire at is inception, is split among his sons, which while nominally are the Holy Roman Empire, start its breakup, so that by the time of the "official" death of the Empire in 1806, it was nothing more than a title claimed by a German King (of which there were several ....)

Point is that the history of western Europe until the 30 Years War is one of breakup of political entities, and the acquisition of power by those able to do so. Pretty much sucked to be anybody but the nobility, and even then some other noble would be after your head. In short, Hobbes description of life being "nasty, brutish, and short".

Things don't stabilize until the entities get big enough and large enough to maintain a balance of power, which still breaks down into a series of minor and major wars, even through the "100 Years Peace".

Lesson being - if you don't have enough power to defend what is yours, it won't be yours for long. The exception being the US from 1781 to post 1913.