Should Libertarians support anarcho-capitalism?

[Raginfridus]

I'm not contending that Anarchy is a pipedream. In fact, I contend that Anarchy could work.

I'm simply contending that Anarchy and Capitalism cannot be hyphenated in any applicable way because Anarchy and Capitalism are fundamentally different in principle to the point that they are in direct opposition to one another.

Hyphenating the two is perfectly legitimate, there's no dilemma here. Anarchy isn't the principle there are no hierarchies; and Capitalism isn't the principle rulers must set the rules of commerce.

 

[undergroundrr]

I knew someone was going to say that.

Yes. I think a lot of the thread both sides were experiencing that phenomenon. Not SOMALIA again! Lol

 

[Natural Citizen]

Was the contract signed under compulsion? If not, the obligation was taken on with no compulsion having taken place.

You tell me, undergroundrr. Is what is consentual necessarily voluntary? If so, then, how so? If not, then, why not?


I asked the question early on in the thread. Though, like my other quesions, it went completely ignored.

Additionally, and more critically, is whatever is voluntary also ethical?

For instance, earlier in the thread and elsewhere on the forum, I've seen the idea tossed out there of rule by landlord. That the property owner determined one's rights. Meaning that whomever owns the land can impose whatever laws he wishes on anyone who works or lives within his land.

Is this not the very nature of a state? If not, then, why not?

I'll have to check back later, undergroundrr. Can't really spend time on here right now but I did want to address yours and the other guy's thoughts on it.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Hyphenating the two is perfectly legitimate, there's no dilemma here.

I disagree. The dilemma exists in application. Though, one may certainly hyphenate any set of isms verbally if it suits one's whim. For instance, libertarian-communism. See? I can say it. But how do I make them appicable as an Indivisible whole in the company of my peers who understand them to be no more than two contrary nouns combined to create a formal fallacy? They're directly contrary isms in fundamental principle.

The only way you can make them applicable as an Indivisible whole is to redefine one or the other or both for the purpose of creating the illusion of applicability. Which is precisely what you guys are trying to do by redefining fundamental Anarchism to suit your whim and then hyphenating it with capitalism. It's intellectual dishonesty and of the most obtuse magnitude. It won't work, though, because we can easily go 50 pages.

Anarchy isn't the principle there are no hierarchies

Anarchy = No Ruler. Thus, no rules. No hierarchy

Capitalism isn't the principle rulers must set the rules of commerce.

You see? You just contradicted yourself. You're contending that, yes, there are rules of cmmerce, yet you only offer the argument of who sets them.

Regardless of who sets the rules of capitalism, the fact remains that there exists rules of capitalism. Without rules of capitalism, capitalism cannot work.

Unfortunately, anarchy means no rulers. So the only way you can make fundamental capitalism applicable as an Indivisible whole with fundamental anarchy is to remove all rules of capitalism or remove the principles of anarchy.

 

[undergroundrr]

You tell me, undergroundrr. Is what is consentual necessarily voluntary? If so, then, how so? If not, then, why not?

I love that question. In other words, if things are getting hot and she says "yes" does it mean "yes?" Funnily we just had that discussion with our oldest son a few days ago.

Not sure why that would affect whether anarchy and capitalism are compatible.

 

[Raginfridus]

I disagree. The dilemma exist in application. Though, one may certainly hyphenate any set of isms verbally. For instance, libertarian-communism. See? I can say it. But how do I make them appicable?

You were the kid who brought his topps to school and flashed them all over the place, then a bunch of sixth graders took them, and its been the bus driver's fault for not intervening ever since. If only there was a minarchist driving that day, you would still have those rookies... or gently scolded for hustling.

Anarchy = No Ruler. Thus, no rules. No hierarchy

Which ruler was it that legalized, for example, the rules of attraction? Was that Hammurabi? Draco? It must have been a Pope...

You see? You just contradicted yourself.

You're just pleading at this point. I've told you Anarchy and Capitalism are not as you've defined them. If you can't self correct, it is best that you opt out of ancap.

Regardless of who sets the rules of capitalism, the fact remains that there exists rules of capitalism. Without rules of capitalism, capitalism cannot work.

Unfortunately, anarchy means no rulers. So the only way you can make fundamental capitalism applicable as an Indivisible whole with fundamental anarchy is to remove all rules of capitalism or remove the principles of anarchy.

No rulers =/= no rules. Commerce does not start and stop at your convenience, you miserable statist.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Okay, undergroundrr. You're slide stepping. otherone tried that very same thing on the last page and I had to reassemble that discussion in order to force him back on topic.

So, let us reassemble our dialogue, undergroundrr.

The term anarcho-capitalism is redundant. Capitalism means anarchy.

No they aren't. They're two terms which are in direct opposition to each other in fundamental principle.

No, capitalism means capitalism. Anarchy mean anarchy.

I agree that if you want to opt out and if you want to get together and take care of yourselves and be self-reliant, then you should be free to do that. Especially if you've renounced the use of force because then I don't have to worry about you. Libertarianism permits for this.

Again, though, and for the last time, once you hyphenate Anarchy with Capitlism as an application, you've inserted a coercive principle into the program in the eyes of the Anarchists.

So. The question naturally follows how that gets settled.

That's all I'm saying, man.

Capitalism is coercive?

Yes. What If I don't pay?

What purpose does a contract serve? Does a contract not obligate me to be held liable if I refuse to hold up my end of the contract?

So. You gonna take me to court? Court equals coercion. You gonna shoot me if I don't obey the contract? That's consequence. Coercion.

Was the contract signed under compulsion? If not, the obligation was taken on with no compulsion having taken place.

You tell me, undergroundrr. Is what is consentual necessarily voluntary? If so, then, how so? If not, then, why not?


I asked the question early on in the thread. Though, like my other quesions, it went completely ignored.

Additionally, and more critically, is whatever is voluntary also ethical?

For instance, earlier in the thread and elsewhere on the forum, I've seen the idea tossed out there of rule by landlord. That the property owner determined one's rights. Meaning that whomever owns the land can impose whatever laws he wishes on anyone who works or lives within his land.

Is this not the very nature of a state? If not, then, why not?

I love that question. In other words, if things are getting hot and she says "yes" does it mean "yes?" Funnily we just had that discussion with our oldest son a few days ago.

Not sure why that would affect whether anarchy and capitalism are compatible.

Now. undergroundrr, you left off in our discussion asking whether the contract was signed under compulsion. Did you not? Let's continue.

I said that I don't know, you tell me. Though, I offered that the means of deciding whether the contract was signed under compulsion was to first consider and conclude whether what is consentual is necessarily voluntary. And if so, then, how so? If not, then, why not? This is how one defines compulsion in direct context with your question. You see? This is what I mean throughout the thread when I state that operational definition is necessary if one would attept to make an ideal applicable in any society.

Do you not agree that clarifying if what is consentual is necessarily voluntary is an acceptable means of deciding whether the contract was signed under compulsion?

Seems logical to me.

It's hardly, hot. lol. For you maybe. But not for me. Respectfully. I'm cool as a cucumber.

I'm trying to help you guys out, really.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I can't take you seriously, man.

You may go.

You were the kid who blah blah blah blah blah..

 

[Raginfridus]

 

[Natural Citizen]

lol. Okay, Ragin, that was funny.

 

[undergroundrr]

I offered that the means of deciding whether the contract was signed under compulsion was to first consider and conclude whether what is consentual is necessarily voluntary.

Are you suggesting that there's no such thing as a completely voluntary agreement?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Force and violence are part of humanity. The only question is who will control force. Are you going to have force under objective control with clearly defined laws? Or is force going to be exercised at whim? When force is exercised at whim people will justify almost any act of violence. For example, people who bomb abortion clinics twist it in their minds why it is okay.

You guys are literally making the EXACT same arguments that progressives make for the unlimited State.

Stop being a coward. Grow a set and learn when you keep it in the holster and when you pull the trigger.

That is LITERALLY what all human interactions come down to. Do we trust the party we're engaging, or do we not trust them. It doesn't matter if there's a State to intervene or not - much as it may attempt, it the State is not everywhere at all times.

You're right - force and violence are a part of humanity. But YOU want to institutionalize force and violence, and make it intrinsic to every interaction. It does not need to be. Everyone has their hand on the hilt, it's whether one needs to draw, which is decidedly rare, regardless of whether there is a State or not.

As I get older, and I learn more about the world in which I live, I become more and more convinced that people who want a State - actively want a State like some of the people here in this thread - are nothing more than lazy cowards who genuinely want to go through life without having to think about anything, nor attend to their own safety.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Are you suggesting that there's no such thing as a completely voluntary agreement?

I'm pretty sure he's a waste of time. He's trying to engage us in a semantics argument, not a philosophical argument.

 

[The Rebel Poet]

I'm pretty sure he's a waste of time. He's trying to engage us in a semantics argument, not a philosophical argument.

All philosophical arguments are predicated on semantic arguments.

 

[otherone]

As I get older, and I learn more about the world in which I live, I become more and more convinced that people who want a State - actively want a State like some of the people here in this thread - are nothing more than lazy cowards who genuinely want to go through life without having to think about anything, nor attend to their own safety.

 

[Krugminator2]

Stop being a coward. Grow a set and learn when you keep it in the holster and when you pull the trigger.

No thanks. I don't want to be making those decisions and I sure as hell don't want you making them.

That is LITERALLY what all human interactions come down to. Do we trust the party we're engaging, or do we not trust them. It doesn't matter if there's a State to intervene or not - much as it may attempt, it the State is not everywhere at all times.

Right. But having clearly defined rules and means of enforcement increases the number of people you can trust and trade with and thus increases prosperity. Anarchy would create a very small, tribal world. Think about why everyone wants to trade and park money in the United States. People know there is a strong rule of law here. Nobody is stealing your money. Whereas people don't want to readily trade with businesses in banana republics because they have weaker rule of law. Having basic rules of corporate governance has made the US much more prosperous, because it has decreased the risk of investing in US business.

You're right - force and violence are a part of humanity. But YOU want to institutionalize force and violence, and make it intrinsic to every interaction.

That's absolutely correct. I do support having the state have a monopoly on force. I don't want people self-seceding and doing whatever they think is best. I don't want nut jobs like Adam Kokesh making up the rules in their head and rationalizing whatever violence they might use.

As I get older, and I learn more about the world in which I live, I become more and more convinced that people who want a State - actively want a State like some of the people here in this thread - are nothing more than lazy cowards who genuinely want to go through life without having to think about anything, nor attend to their own safety.

I don't think that is laziness. This isn't the wild west. I want to spend time thinking about making money not my safety. In a given week, I desire to spend zero time thinking about someone harming me. If I am harmed I don't want to be the one responsible for doling out justice. That is a very inefficient use of time. If someone thinks I harmed them, I certainly don't want them acting like Pablo Escobar toward me.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

All philosophical arguments are predicated on semantic arguments.

They are, but we're not at a point here @ RPF where we need to be defining Anarchism and Capitalism. That's been done. Those terms are understood by pretty much everyone here discussing this topic... we don't need to be peddling in trivialities at this point, when we've done all that leg work, do we? And even if we've got some folks here who are new to the matter, we veterans don't need to continually explain ourselves on the most elementary matters, do we?

 

[Origanalist]

They are, but we're not at a point here @ RPF where we need to be defining Anarchism and Capitalism. That's been done. Those terms are understood by pretty much everyone here discussing this topic... we don't need to be peddling in trivialities at this point, when we've done all that leg work, do we? And even if we've got some folks here who are new to the matter, we veterans don't need to continually explain ourselves on the most elementary matters, do we?

Well, yes you do. Because one person continually makes it necessary by injecting ridiculous nonsense.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

No thanks. I don't want to be making those decisions and I sure as hell don't want you making them.

Here's your problem - SOMEONE is going to be making those decisions. It's either you or me. It should be both of us.

You don't get to outsource this decision without deferring quality.

Honestly, we're better off when you and I make that decision. For reference I direct you to Tamir Rice, et al.

Right. But having clearly defined rules and means of enforcement increases the number of people you can trust and trade with and thus increases prosperity. Anarchy would create a very small, tribal world. Think about why everyone wants to trade and park money in the United States.

Preemptive violence does not presume rules and enforcement. It means you've inaugurated a body which can LITERALLY upend those norms. You've inaugurated a body which can on a whim indiscriminately and with prejudice determine the outcome of disputes, etc. This is what we see today in our world with the all-powerful State. There is no objective standard.

People know there is a strong rule of law here. Nobody is stealing your money. Whereas people don't want to readily trade with businesses in banana republics because they have weaker rule of law. Having basic rules of corporate governance has made the US much more prosperous, because it has decreased the risk of investing in US business.

People do business here in the US because there is lucrative incentives to do business here. They do not do business here because they believe that their business practices will be protected.

The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. That's not a paperwork reason to not do business in the US.

That's absolutely correct. I do support having the state have a monopoly on force. I don't want people self-seceding and doing whatever they think is best. I don't want nut jobs like Adam Kokesh making up the rules in their head and rationalizing whatever violence they might use.

Micro-secession is a principle which Mises advocated as a foundational principle. It's not even arguable.

I don't think that is laziness. This isn't the wild west. I want to spend time thinking about making money not my safety. In a given week, I desire to spend zero time thinking about someone harming me. If I am harmed I don't want to be the one responsible for doling out justice. That is a very inefficient use of time. If someone thinks I harmed them, I certainly don't want them acting like Pablo Escobar toward me.

Okay. No argument against stateessjess.

 

[undergroundrr]

Nobody is stealing your money.