Should Libertarians support anarcho-capitalism?

[LibertyEagle]

Well, people say (and believe) a lot of really stupid horse$#@!..

Not that it's up to either of us (...), but if it were up to me, I wouldn't ban any ancaps for being ancaps, ever. But, I would consider, in election season, in relation to one of our own candidates like Rand, suspending those who insist on $#@!ting on efforts to work w/in the electoral system (what should have been done last time *cough*moderation*cough*). I hope we have this problem to deal with in, what, 20 months or so... If there ends up being a contested primary, and Rand runs, that'll be a decisive moment for this forum.

Banning Ancaps for being ancaps? Never

Banning people claiming that Ron Paul supports world government? Absolutely

 

[r3volution 3.0]

 

[Natural Citizen]

Well, people say (and believe) a lot of really stupid horse$#@!..

Not that it's up to either of us (...), but if it were up to me, I wouldn't ban any ancaps for being ancaps, ever. But, I would consider, in election season, in relation to one of our own candidates like Rand, suspending those who insist on $#@!ting on efforts to work w/in the electoral system (what should have been done last time *cough*moderation*cough*). I hope we have this problem to deal with in, what, 20 months or so... If there ends up being a contested primary, and Rand runs, that'll be a decisive moment for this forum.

I don't want to ban anyone either. Of course, there will always be disagreement. But disagreement should be had intelligently and in pursuit of a solution.

However, if friends demonstrate no useful function other than to troll and to disrupt healthy discussion in pursuit of solution, then, that's another story.

I like the idea of ditching the forum itself and going to a news magazine style of platform so that people own their input Individually. In a forum platform, we all end up owning the irresponsibility of a few by simple association. If somebody posts a picture of a federal building on fire insinuaing it to be a solution to the tax system and says to pass it around, then, I'm associated with that kind of activism by way of the fact that libertarianism permits for the company of the reckless. It's counterproductive. This is not good for me or for anyone else who disagrees with that brand of solution yet we are judgd by it as a consequence of association. Not to mention that forums are a dying platform.

It'll never happen, but I like the idea.

That said, revising the site mission given where we are in all of this is a good idea. And I'm glad to see that it was bumped. We need definition. And we need to secure it.

But, no, I dont ever want to see anyone banned if their values and posting record are consistent with our mission and guidelines.

 

[otherone]

If a form of political order results in tyranny, "well, they weren't zealous enough to survive, so F-em" isn't a good defense of that system.

The goal is maximizing human liberty, not just saying that people should want liberty, and condescending to them when they don't.

Liberalism is a humanitarian ideology; the well being of the people is the whole point.

Liberty occurs only when individuals advocate for it for themselves. You are advocating for world government. It is you that are condescending to people. If people don't want it, who are you or I to tell them otherwise?

 

[otherone]

Wait a second... I want to be clear on your position. Are you saying that it always boils down to might makes right because of corrupt people, but in your view might makes right is false? Or do you believe that "might makes right" is the actual reality? To put it another way, do you believe in natural law / divine law?

I believe that violence, except in defense of natural rights, is always wrong. If my neighbor extorts 20k from me with the threat of violence, it is a crime. If my neighbors band together to do so, it is not justified simply because they've all agreed to do it.

 

[Madison320]

We've been over this. Voluntary service is not compulsion, hence, not a state. There is a plethora of historical examples of armies disbanding after conflicts are resolved.

Do you have an example of a recent one?

 

[undergroundrr]

World government will be made up of nation-states, whether minarchies or maxarchies. The longer we go on with the state as is, the closer we get to a United States of Earth. It just takes the right president and congress to make it happen in accord with other nation-states.

Being for anarchy doesn't mean one feels there's a realistic chance of it happening. An anarchist recognizes that any size state is up to no good the moment it violates an individual's rights, which is unavoidable even for the smallest town council. Therefore, minimizing and even eliminating the state and encouraging citizens of other states to do so is the proper path to peace and happiness.

Minarchists haven't figured out how to make the state smaller. Anarchists haven't figured out how to eliminate it, but they're completely on the same mission. If we get down to eliminating the position of mayor from all jurisdictions and the minarchists decide to stage a violent takeover, a well-armed populace can cross that bridge when we come to it.

 

[Madison320]

Anarcho-capitalism is an extremely appealing idea, you know.

Shoes are better made on a market than by a monopoly.

Beans are better made on a market than by a monopoly.

...etc

It only makes sense that the securing of property would itself also be best accomplished on a market, at first glance.

I don't want to insult our ancap allies too much - and they are allies, despite our disagreements - but it makes sense that a young person who just discovered libertarianism, who just started thinking about economics, about the natural (or God-given, as your perspective may be) beauty of the market economy, about the invisible hand, etc, would want to apply that to everything, and buy into anarcho-capitalism. That's fine. But adherence to abstract principles without regard for their practical consequences is a mistake. Theory without practice is blind; practice without theory is retarded.

The first time I heard about it, it sounded like a good idea. If less government is good, why not no government? But then I started thinking it thru.

 

[Madison320]

World government will be made up of nation-states, whether minarchies or maxarchies. The longer we go on with the state as is, the closer we get to a United States of Earth. It just takes the right president and congress to make it happen in accord with other nation-states.

Being for anarchy doesn't mean one feels there's a realistic chance of it happening. An anarchist recognizes that any size state is up to no good the moment it violates an individual's rights, which is unavoidable even for the smallest town council. Therefore, minimizing and even eliminating the state and encouraging citizens of other states to do so is the proper path to peace and happiness.

Minarchists haven't figured out how to make the state smaller. Anarchists haven't figured out how to eliminate it, but they're completely on the same mission. If we get down to eliminating the position of mayor from all jurisdictions and the minarchists decide to stage a violent takeover, a well-armed populace can cross that bridge when we come to it.

I partly disagree because anarchists assume it doesn't matter which part of the state you reduce. For example suppose the 2 choices for the US were to eliminate everything but the military or everything but social security. Since both are about the same size anarchists would say it doesn't matter which gets eliminated. But we'd be far better off with just a military compared to just social security. Unless our new masters that conquer us were nicer than the current ones. But I don't really want to take that chance and I don't want to go thru the "getting conquered" part.

Anyway I think in reality anarchists probably are allies to libertarians because I don't think they believe their own crap. How many anarchists would support eliminating the police and courts in their hometown? None in reality.

 

[undergroundrr]

I partly disagree because anarchists assume it doesn't matter which part of the state you reduce. For example suppose the 2 choices for the US were to eliminate everything but the military or everything but social security. Since both are about the same size anarchists would say it doesn't matter which gets eliminated. But we'd be far better off with just a military compared to just social security. Unless our new masters that conquer us were nicer than the current ones. But I don't really want to take that chance and I don't want to go thru the "getting conquered" part.

Anyway I think in reality anarchists probably are allies to libertarians because I don't think they believe their own crap. How many anarchists would support eliminating the police and courts in their hometown? None in reality.

Anarchists and minarchists are both at a loss as to how either can be pulled off. With the symbiosis of the Warfare State, Welfare State and Fed, nobody Democrat or Republican gets to choose between welfare and warfare. The reduction of either in isolation is out of the question. If you want one, you get the other.

To talk about taking things down to the level of local police and courts is indestinguishably pie-in-the-sky to outright anarchy. Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. No need to alienate people on precisely the same mission you're on.

 

[The Rebel Poet]

Anarchists and minarchists are both at a loss as to how either can be pulled off. With the symbiosis of the Warfare State, Welfare State and Fed, nobody Democrat or Republican gets to choose between welfare and warfare. The reduction of either in isolation is out of the question. If you want one, you get the other.

To talk about taking things down to the level of local police and courts is indestinguishably pie-in-the-sky to outright anarchy. Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. No need to alienate people on precisely the same mission you're on.

+Rep

 

[A Son of Liberty]

The first time I heard about it, it sounded like a good idea. If less government is good, why not no government? But then I started thinking it thru.

Did you ever start thinking about where some people derived the right to rule over other people?

Asking for a friend...

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I partly disagree because anarchists assume it doesn't matter which part of the state you reduce. For example suppose the 2 choices for the US were to eliminate everything but the military or everything but social security. Since both are about the same size anarchists would say it doesn't matter which gets eliminated. But we'd be far better off with just a military compared to just social security. Unless our new masters that conquer us were nicer than the current ones. But I don't really want to take that chance and I don't want to go thru the "getting conquered" part.

Anyway I think in reality anarchists probably are allies to libertarians because I don't think they believe their own crap. How many anarchists would support eliminating the police and courts in their hometown? None in reality.

You are mistaken. (You probably also haven't read the history of police and law in Murica, chronicled in various posts and threads by AF and I)

The town that eliminated the police-
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/...warning-city-eliminates-police-depart/437834/

 

[A Son of Liberty]

You are mistaken. (You probably also haven't read the history of police and law in Murica, chronicled in various posts and threads by AF and I)

The town that eliminated the police-
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/...warning-city-eliminates-police-depart/437834/

+rep, sir.

I'm surprised to see a member whom I recognize to be somewhat of a regular here to make such a foolish statement.

I'm staggered that such a woeful misunderstanding of our view of statelessness/voluntarism persists here, after literally YEARS of debate on the topic.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You are mistaken. (You probably also haven't read the history of police and law in Murica, chronicled in various posts and threads by AF and I)

The town that eliminated the police-
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/...warning-city-eliminates-police-depart/437834/

+rep, sir.

I'm surprised to see a member whom I recognize to be somewhat of a regular here to make such a foolish statement.

I'm staggered that such a woeful misunderstanding of our view of statelessness/voluntarism persists here, after literally YEARS of debate on the topic.

[h=2]Varnell City Council votes 3-1 to disband the agency, putting Whitfield County Sheriff's Office in charge of law enforcement[/h]

 

[Natural Citizen]

Hey, does anarcho-capitalism allow me to manufacture and sell chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons to whomever I want?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Here's some thoughts from real Anarchists on the use of the oxymoronic term ''anarcho-capitalism''...

Section F: Is “anarcho”-capitalism a type of anarchism?

Anyone who has followed political discussion on the net has probably come across people calling themselves “libertarians” but arguing from a right-wing, pro-capitalist perspective. ...

In the US, though, the Right has partially succeeded in appropriating the term “libertarian” for itself. Even stranger is that a few of these right-wingers have started calling themselves “anarchists” in what must be one of the finest examples of an oxymoron in the English language: “Anarcho-capitalist”!!!

Arguing with fools is seldom rewarded, but to let their foolishness to go unchallenged risks allowing them to deceive those who are new to anarchism. This is what this section of the FAQ is for, to show why the claims of these “anarchist” capitalists are false. Anarchism has always been anti-capitalist and any “anarchism” that claims otherwise cannot be part of the anarchist tradition. It is important to stress that anarchist opposition to the so-called capitalist “anarchists” do not reflect some kind of debate within anarchism, as many of these types like to pretend, but a debate between anarchism and its old enemy, capitalism. In many ways this debate mirrors the one between Peter Kropotkin and Herbert Spencer (an English capitalist minimal statist) at the turn the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century and, as such, it is hardly new.

Introductory snip taken from The Anarchist FAQ Editorial Collective - An Anarchist FAQ (07/17), ''Section F: Is “anarcho”-capitalism a type of anarchism?''

F: Is “anarcho”-capitalism a type of anarchism?
F.1 Are “anarcho”-capitalists really anarchists?
F.2 What do “anarcho”-capitalists mean by freedom?
F.2.1 How does private property affect freedom?
F.2.2 Do “libertarian”-capitalists support slavery?
F.3 Why do anarcho”-capitalists place little or no value on equality?
F.3.1 Why is this disregard for equality important?
F.3.2 Can there be harmony of interests in an unequal society?
F.4 What is the right-“libertarian” position on private property?
F.4.1 What is wrong with a “homesteading” theory of property?
F.5 Will privatising “the commons” increase liberty?
F.6 Is “anarcho”-capitalism against the state?
F.6.1 What’s wrong with this “free market” justice?
F.6.2 What are the social consequences of such a system?
F.6.3 But surely market forces will stop abuses by the rich?
F.6.4 Why are these “defence associations” states?
F.7 How does the history of “anarcho”-capitalism show that it is not anarchist?
F.7.1 Are competing governments anarchism?
F.7.2 Is government compatible with anarchism?
F.7.3 Can there be a “right-wing” anarchism?
F.8 What role did the state take in the creation of capitalism?
F.8.1 What social forces lay behind the rise of capitalism?
F.8.2 What was the social context of the statement “laissez-faire?”
F.8.3 What other forms did state intervention in creating capitalism take?
F.8.4 Aren’t the enclosures a socialist myth?
F.8.5 What about the lack of enclosures in the Americas?
F.8.6 How did working people view the rise of capitalism?

 

[Origanalist]

Here's some thoughts from real Anarchists on the use of the oxymoronic term ''anarcho-capitalism''...

Does he have a degree in anarchy, or maybe a anarchists licence?

 

[pcosmar]

Did you ever start thinking about where some people derived the right to rule over other people?

Asking for a friend...

The "right to rule" is what the Revolution was fought over,, and what founded this country.

Initially,, there were no "rulers".
There were elected representatives. NO one ruled.
There were NO Police.. the concept had not yet been introduced. and there were protections written in to protect from such.

sadly we are a long way from what was intended.

However,, humans need some form of organization to resist "Rulers"

and sadly,, humans here cheer the warlords and welcome a strongman to tell them what to do. every 4 years.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Does he have a degree in anarchy, or maybe a anarchists licence?

License, you mean? I dunno. But, like the rest of us, he knows that anarchy and capitalism are oxymorons. lol.