Should Libertarians support anarcho-capitalism?

[Swordsmyth]

Who decides whether a state is tyrannical, and whether the revolutionary provisional government of Ruritania will be an improvement?

The people who start and fight for or against the rebellion.

How sure are you that this "we" will include us?

Wager of battle, which is why it is a last resort, but just the possibility helps keep the government from being as tyrannical.

 

[The Rebel Poet]

Whether a weapon is "illegal" is of no consequence
...
I'm not in favor of arming communists.

If the laws are of no consequence then why have them?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Well. This is why I offered the question regarding whether I can manufacture and sell chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons in ancap world. The points which Rev makes here must be presented in order to be acknowledged. Otherwise they won't be.

Rev, I don't know where you're going with your point with regard to the 2nd. Though, I agree that we dont want communists toppling government. And I agree that any modern revolution will be by that type of group.

The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison, for example, the assumption and expectation of The Framers was that all States would marshall their forces and act jointly to crush the usurpers' forces.

Key word being 'userpers.'

 

[r3volution 3.0]

If the laws are of no consequence then why have them?

The laws affect the average person.

The laws don't, and can't ever, prevent the military from staging a coup d'etat.

A military coup d'etat is not the same as a popular revolution.

Wager of battle, which is why it is a last resort, but just the possibility helps keep the government from being as tyrannical.

I think you overestimate the people.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Well. This is why I offered the question regarding whether I can manufacture and sell chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons in ancap world. The points which Rev makes here must be presented in order to be acknowledged. Otherwise they won't be.

Rev, I don't know where you're going with your point with regard to the 2nd. Though, I agree that we dont want communists toppling government. Ad I agre ethat any6 modern revolution will be by that type of group.

The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison, for example, the assumption and expectation of The Framers was that all States would marshall their forces and act jointly to crush the usurpers' forces.

Key word being 'userpers.'

Yup

...I don't want any more people to die in a mine shaft in Ekaterinberg.

 

[lilymc]

They wrongly (very wrongly) assumed that any popular revolution would be in the interest of liberty.

...when, in fact, any popular revolution will almost certainly be illiberal (communist, in particular).

I disagree. The real threat comes from subversive people within our government and the actual powers behind the scenes....not your average Joe schmo leftist. There's more to be said about this, but…I'll leave it at that for now.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Yup

...I don't want any more people to die in a mine shaft in Ekaterinberg.

Oh, the Cellar Massacre. lol. Si...

 

[Swordsmyth]

Yup

...I don't want any more people to die in a mine shaft in Ekaterinberg.

And I don't want any more to die at Waco.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I disagree. The real threat comes from subversive people within our government and the actual powers behind the scenes....not your average Joe schmo leftist. There's more to be said about this, but…I'll leave it at that for now.

Well, I agree that the primary threat is from our existing government.

My point is that raising the black flag and slitting throats, as it were, is no solution.

A popular revolution against this government will - I personally 100% guarantee you - result in an infinitely worse government.

 

[Natural Citizen]

A popular revolution against this government will - I personally 100% guarantee you - result in an infinitely worse government.

Guaranteed.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

And I don't want any more to die at Waco.

Neither do I, but that wasn't a function of insufficient guns in private hands. There is no amount of guns in private hands which would prevent the federal state from having its way. People like to say that there are more guns in private hands in the US than in the US military, and several other large armies around the world; and that's true, but where is that getting us? The very idea that people who can't be bothered to take five minutes to vote the right way every couple years are going to risk their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" for our cause - or any cause - is absurd.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Neither do I, but that wasn't a function of insufficient guns in private hands. There is no amount of guns in private hands which would prevent the federal state from having its way. People like to say that there are more guns in private hands in the US than in the US military, and several other large armies around the world; and that's true, but where is that getting us? The very idea that people who can't be bothered to take five minutes to vote the right way every couple years are going to risk their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" for our cause - or any cause - is absurd.

Times change, now is not 1776 but the future will not be now.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Times change, now is not 1776 but the future will not be now.

Well, suffice it to say, my hope for a more liberal society does not rest on a popular revolution.

...to the contrary, I dread such an event.

The future of liberalism does not require any more Bastille-storming criminality.

That should never occur again, ever.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Here's an ism to ponder given the nature of discussion in the thread. Legitimism.

 

[Raginfridus]

Here's an ism to ponder given the nature of discussion in the thread. Legitimism.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Times change, now is not 1776 but the future will not be now.

Rev's having a different discussion than may be apparent to the casual passer-by. Though, to the point you're debating with him, he's correct in his assessment that people don't generally bother themselves about things of this significance. While the populace may certainly have plinkers tucked away in a drawer some place, the populace cares largely about the football game instead. Surely, you must agree. The only such discussion on the topic exists among small communities such as this. And even within such communities, the capacity to participate in them fruitfully, whether right or wrong in one's approach, belongs to the few. I'm generally speaking here so my thought isn't directed toward you or anyone in particular, so please don't take offense. It's nothing you said that reminded me of that, but more what Rev is hinting in his postings to the topic. Rev is, again, echoing the wisdom of Mises. Though, indirectly so. Which seems to be second nature. It's worth a rep for guiding the discussion toward the more relative level of discourse but I'll owe him one.


To his point...

...It took the defeat suffered by the old regime in the battle against liberalism to teach its adherents the truth that there is nothing in the world more powerful than ideologies and that only with ideas can one fight against ideas. They realized that it is foolish to rely on arms, since one can deploy armed men only if they are prepared to obey, and that the basis of all power and dominion is, in the last analysis, ideological. - Mises.

 

[lilymc]

This thread kind of went in a different direction… But I want to get back to a couple earlier posts.

This is an excellent idea as it would help in reducing fallacious arguments. The difficulty is in perspicacity, however, as a consensus IRT definitions will be difficult.
I believe it is best to abandon labels all together, and focus on principles alone.
As a start:

1) I own me.
2) You own you.
3) I own my stuff
4) You own your stuff
5) Anyone who violates 1-4 has committed a crime.

I would put it a different way. I don't own you and you don't own me. I don't own your stuff and you don't own my stuff. I also agree, of course, that the government doesn't own you or me.

So I agree, if we are talking about the proper relationship of man to man, in regard to force. That said, imo if you're basing an entire political philosophy on that one point, then you're going to have problems, because that is a very incomplete view of reality.

Are you reading the posts I'm making, or just the posts you're quoting? Because you only seem to quote me when I lash out - which I do admit I do from time to time. But I've been making very logically consistent arguments in most of my posts in this thread and this sub-forum.

I may not have read every single one of your posts, but since I joined this thread I haven't seen you refute the point that anarchy and capitalism are oxymorons in practice. If you have addressed that, please link me to the post. If you don't feel like getting into that topic anymore, no worries.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

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

Agreed. :thumbsup:

And of course it isn't just about the fact that shoes and beans are made better by the market but also why they are made better by the market-- competition and free will-- things that not only benefit the shoes and beans industry but all industries. The state is a rule enforcer not a property securer. Its innovation and theorization will go towards enforcing rules and not securing property. It does not share the same priorities as the property owner. The property owner wants security. The market is respondent to demand. Innovation and theorization would go towards securing property and not enforcing rules.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

You rarely address anything that is said by those who disagree with you. Instead of tired ad hominems, why not refute his point that Anarchy and Capitalism are oxymorons in application? Definitions are important, or else all this debating is a waste of time. In fact, sometimes people who are arguing actually agree with each other… but the problem is they're on two different pages regarding definitions.

The thing is, anarchism (generally, statelessness) and capitalism (the free exchange of goods and services) are not "oxymorons", or incompatible, or in any way at odds with each other. The proof is right there in front of your eyes, lily. You exchange goods and services without the intervention of the State every single day, broadly speaking. Sure, the State intervenes in terms of the price you pay for goods and services (through "taxation" and regulation, both in the terms by which vendors provide certain goods and services and in artificial price controls), but at ground-level, you identify a particular good or service which meets your needs, you select a vendor to provide the aforementioned good or service, and you hand over money to secure said goods or services. There is no need nor use for the State in this freely agreed-upon exchange. That is, effectively, anarcho-capitalism.

I'm not interested in childish semantics arguments where we haggle over the definition of "anarchism", or "capitalism", or anything else. I don't have time for that. I have a few days off so I'm hanging out in this forum for the fun of it - we're (presumably) all adults here, and I assume none of us have time for trivialities. I work a serious job, with real-world demands. I'm not going to waste my time, even when I have it to spare, debating the definition of words. When I use the word "anarchism", I expect that people - ESPECIALLY PEOPLE HERE - understand what I mean by that word. No one here is advocating chaos. No one here is advocating macro-statism, at least not intentionally. So I'm not going to spend my time explaining myself, that I advocate a thoughtful statelessness, which can be differentiated from minarchism in only the slightest terms. That is a waste of my time. I get where the minarchists here are coming from - I understand their point of view because I once held it myself. So when NC condescends to tell my I don't know what I'm talking about, or tells me that I need to read more... Whatever. I've done my reading. I'd gamble that I've read everything NC has read and probably more so. Or, maybe not. I don't care. I'm not here for a dick-measuring competition. I have a firm grasp of the logic and consequences behind what I understand to be true about human society.

And here's the real secret of this debate - none of it matters. Nothing is going to change. We anarchists and minarchists and even the Trumpists... we're waves upon the rocks. We're pushing back the ocean with a broom. Because the fact is, people want to be ruled, AND they want to RULE. And they will. History has bent inexorably toward democracy, and people will have it to such a degree that they will inevitably kill themselves. So we can argue over the merits of statelessness and micro-statism, but what we're REALLY doing is arguing over the number of angels on the head of a pin. In other words, it doesn't matter, and it's not going to change.

But it's good for a laugh, at the end of the day. Cheers.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Well, I agree that the primary threat is from our existing government.

My point is that raising the black flag and slitting throats, as it were, is no solution.

A popular revolution against this government will - I personally 100% guarantee you - result in an infinitely worse government.

Know how you avoid all of that? Oppose the State.

You've set yourself upon the path to totalitarianism, the Total State.

I can't believe that you can't see that.

You've set the State upon the world, AND you've stated your opposition to it's overthrow.

You're Frankenstein, sir, and you want your monster to be immortal.