Should Libertarians support anarcho-capitalism?

[Origanalist]

HA. "Natural Citizen'' is new to you.

Granted, it's very easy to say that something has been 'covered' just because an opinion has been written down some place. Right? Of course it is.


Here is the answer to the question. It is the only legitimate answer. And I'm sure that not one person on this board will disagree with me.


Libertarianism permits for voluntary socialism so long as you're a libertarian and have renounced the use of force.


That's the answer.


To continue the thread in any way whatsoever is an exercise in redundancy.


However, Individuals and groups of Individuals are free to make rules for themselves so long as other Individuals and other groups of Individuals aren't forced to do the same.


Leave me alone, though.


I opt out.

I disagree. I disagree with your use of the term voluntary socialism in relation to anarchism, this is entirely made up in your head with no basis in reality. You took something Ron said and twisted it into something he didn't say. You twisted the meaning, I don't know if you did intentionally or because you simply fail to understand.

Libertarianism permits for voluntary socialism so long as you're a libertarian and have renounced the use of force.

If you read the whole thing it's clear http://www.slobodaiprosperitet.tv/en/node/1101

And what is your definition of libertarianism?

 

[Origanalist]

Definitions of
socialism
1
n a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
Types:
Fabianism
socialism to be established by gradual reforms within the law
guild socialism
a form of socialist theory advocating state ownership of industry but managements by guilds of workers
utopian socialism
socialism achieved by voluntary sacrifice
Type of:
ideology, political orientation, political theory
an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation
n an economic system based on state ownership of capital
Synonyms:
socialist economy
Antonyms:
capitalism, capitalist economy
an economic system based on private ownership of capital
Types:
show 5 types...
Type of:
managed economy
a non-market economy in which government intervention is important in allocating goods and resources and determining prices


an·ar·chism
ˈanərˌkizəm/Submit
noun
belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Those days are over HB, what's left is what you see here. So many people simply don't come here anymore so now what's left are people espousing nonsense over and over with nobody left to refute them. I feel fortunate to have been here before it turned into this, even if it was the tail end of it.

Well, I don't know what you mean by equating HB's list of works by various authors as "those days."

We've always been for small, limited government as a platform. Limited for Liberty.

We've not been ant-government as a platform so far as I can recall. If we have and I'm mistaken, then please tell me when that time was.

That aside, let's take a look at HB's list. It contains works from a broad cast of authors. All of whom offer differing, varying, and most often contrary applications of an ideal. Now this presents a problem. I'll tell you why. It presents a problem because each and every one of those varying applications must be secured by a governmental body of some concoction which must be supported by both society as well as smart people. It's far more complex than just applying an ism to something and rolling with it. Each one of those varying applications of a single ism demand a tailored means of security. And in every case all you're doing is trading one State for another.

The application of any ism (particularly with regard to securing it) is equally as important as said principles of the ism.

I don;t agree with Hoppe, Rothbard, and sure as heck wouldn't even touch Stefan Molyneux wit ha 10 foot pole.

I like Ludwig Von Mises. He did a great job at explaining the shortcomings in the applications of his counterparts. Which is not to minimize such authors as Rothbard and Hoppe. All contributed something to the ideal.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I disagree. I disagree with your use of the term voluntary socialism in relation to anarchism, this is entirely made up in your head with no basis in reality. You took something Ron said and twisted it into something he didn't say. You twisted the meaning, I don't know if you did intentionally or because you simply fail to understand.



If you read the whole thing it's clear http://www.slobodaiprosperitet.tv/en/node/1101

Hm. I didn't even know they transcribed Ron's videos. But I don't need to read it.

Let's start with the question that was asked of Ron by the facebook subscriber in that transcript.

First question on anarchy: I want to go to this email, and this is from Nathan Kelly. And he emails in to you: would you agree that the best form of government is none at all Or put another way, the only legitimate form of governance is individual governance.

Ron Paul: Well, I'm glad he put the last sentence on, because you always want government.



Now let's go to the one I referenced...

Lianna Brease on our Facebook page asks: I'm finding myself more distant from government involvement in general. Is it healthy to think like an anarchist or what are your views on anarchy?

Ron Paul: I think if somebody is an anarchist and they totally believe in no government, and they don't use force at the moment to go and start shooting up the government so we don't have any government, that would be wrong, but to be an anarchist and assume responsibility for yourself, I think this is a great idea...A libertarian society actually gives full permission for socialism. Voluntary socialism. You know, if you want to get together, and there's been experiments with that in our history, you can have voluntary socialism. If you go together and you agree and we are running this community - large, small whatever - on a socialist scheme, you should be allowed to. But we should be allowed to stay out of that. But the problem is: it is so inefficient. That the socialists know their system is going to fail, so they have to use the force of the government gun to take money from the people who aren't socialists in order to subsidize their programs.

Again, Origanalist, this is another instance where one must grasp application. Ron is applying a voluntary socialist society to anarchism by equating anarchism to voluntary socialism in his response to the lady's specific question about anarchism.

And I'm certain the Ron is quite capable of understanding a question and responding with relevant, muliti-dimensional commentary. Which he did. He knows how to answer question without going off-topic.

And what is your definition of libertarianism?

Freedom from government-over-man.

I accept Liberty-Responsiblility as an Indivisible whole, however. I reject the idea that they can be accepted and rejected piecemeal.

I also believe that absent a belief in one's Divine Origin, there is no basis for one to expect that his rights are unalienable. Therefore he has no legitimate claim to their benefits. Both Liberty and Responsibility should always be accepted or rejected as an Indivisible whole.

I share the precise sentiment echoed by Hamilton Abert Long in a great book that he wrote back in the latter half of the 20th century, ad I'll share a snip from it to same my some typing....

For every right there is a correlative, inseparable duty. For every aspect of freedom there is a corresponding responsibility, so that it is always Right-Duty and Freedom-Responsibility, or Liberty-Responsibility. There is a duty, or responsibility, to God as the giver of these unalienable rights: a moral duty to keep secure and use soundly these gifts, with due respect for the equal rights of others and for the right of Posterity to their just heritage of liberty. Since this moral duty cannot be surrendered, bartered, given away, abandoned, delegated or otherwise alienated, so is the inseparable right likewise unalienable. This concept of rights being unalienable is thus dependent upon belief in God as the giver.

This indicates the basis and the soundness of Jefferson's statement (1796 letter to John Adams): "If ever the morals of a people could be made the basis of their own government it is our case . . ."

Made country simple, I define Libertarianism as freedom from government-over-man.

Additionally, Libertine is not Libertarian. In fact, Libertine is patently contrary to Libertarian.

What's yours?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Definitions of
socialism
1
n a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
Types:
Fabianism
socialism to be established by gradual reforms within the law
guild socialism
a form of socialist theory advocating state ownership of industry but managements by guilds of workers
utopian socialism
socialism achieved by voluntary sacrifice
Type of:
ideology, political orientation, political theory
an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation
n an economic system based on state ownership of capital
Synonyms:
socialist economy
Antonyms:
capitalism, capitalist economy
an economic system based on private ownership of capital
Types:
show 5 types...
Type of:
managed economy
a non-market economy in which government intervention is important in allocating goods and resources and determining prices


an·ar·chism
ˈanərˌkizəm/Submit
noun
belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

Okay. You didn't really explain the differing modes of anarchy but I'll let you slide since it's a copypasta.

Now. Add capitalism to the equation. Add economic security to the equation.

Both are anti-capitalist. Yet both require economic security. Economic security demands servitude. Servitude is achieved by force of written rule or gun. It's just a given.

Capitalism is organization. Anarchists (at least true to their principles anarchists) reject capitalism in whole (organization) because they recognize that some capitalist transactions are accomplished by force.

To steal a quote from a good book on the topic, "It is a truism that government's power needs only to exist to be feared to be dominant, over the fear-ridden, without ever needing to be exercised aggressively."

They're both socialist in true fundamental principle. Make no mistake, there will be a State. The very idea of economic security creates a State.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Good Morning, O. Sorry.

 

[Origanalist]

Okay. You didn't really explain the differing modes of anarchy but I'll let you slide since it's a copypasta.

Now. Add capitalism to the equation. Add economic security to the equation.

Both are anti-capitalist. Yet both require economic security. Economic security demands servitude. Servitude is achieved by force of written rule or gun. It's just a given.

Capitalism is organization. Anarchists (at least true to their principles anarchists) reject capitalism in whole (organization) because they recognize that some capitalist transactions are accomplished by force.

To steal a quote from a good book on the topic, "It is a truism that government's power needs only to exist to be feared to be dominant, over the fear-ridden, without ever needing to be exercised aggressively."

They're both socialist in true fundamental principle. Make no mistake, there will be a State. The very idea of economic security creates a State.

What? Try to make sense please. Economic security does not require servitude. Free trade is not servitude. Freely exchanging your labor for goods and property and vice versa is not servitude.

What capitalist exchanges are accomplished by force?

 

[Origanalist]

Hm. I didn't even know they transcribed Ron's videos. But I don;t need to read it.

Let's start with the question that was asked of Ron by the facebook subscriber in that transcript.

First question on anarchy: I want to go to this email, and this is from Nathan Kelly. And he emails in to you: would you agree that the best form of government is none at all Or put another way, the only legitimate form of governance is individual governance.

Ron Paul: Well, I'm glad he put the last sentence on, because you always want government.


Now let's go to the one I referenced.


Lianna Brease on our Facebook page asks: I'm finding myself more distant from government involvement in general. Is it healthy to think like an anarchist or what are your views on anarchy?


Ron Paul: I think if somebody is an anarchist and they totally believe in no government, and they don't use force at the moment to go and start shooting up the government so we don't have any government, that would be wrong, but to be an anarchist and assume responsibility for yourself, I think this is a great idea...A libertarian society actually gives full permission for socialism. Voluntary socialism. You know, if you want to get together, and there's been experiments with that in our history, you can have voluntary socialism. If you go together and you agree and we are running this community - large, small whatever - on a socialist scheme, you should be allowed to. But we should be allowed to stay out of that. But the problem is: it is so inefficient. That the socialists know their system is going to fail, so they have to use the force of the government gun to take money from the people who aren't socialists in order to subsidize their programs.

Again, Origanalist, this is another instance where one must grasp application. Ron is applying a voluntary socialist society to anarchism by equating anarchism to voluntary socialism in his response to the lady's specific qustion about anarchism.




Freedom from government-over-man.

What's yours?

That means anarchism which you are explicitly rejecting here so excuse me if I'm a tad confused.

here is the full trascript, I'll let people draw their own conclusions, obviously I don't agree with you.

Ron Paul on Anarchy
Posted Fri, 19/09/2014 - 06:41 by Jadranko Brkic

“That the socialists know their system is going to fail, so they have to use the force of the government gun to take money from the people who aren't socialists in order to subsidize their programs. Libertarianism gives full legal protection of anybody who wants to have voluntary socialism. But socialists never will endorse the idea of you having your personal liberty where you can take care of yourself and not ask for nothing from anybody else.” These are two excerpts from a 3-hour long “In Depth with Ron Paul” C-SPAN program, where a former Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) answered viewer questions about anarchy. Watch the full 3-hour In Depth with Ron Paul C-SPAN program about Dr. Paul's life and career here. The show ran on August 3, 2014. Source 1: Nate Kelly YouTube channel. Source 2: TheAnarchast YouTube channel. Translated by Jadranko Brkic.
(see video at the bottom of transcript)
Transcript:
First question on anarchy:
I want to go to this email, and this is from Nathan Kelly. And he emails in to you: would you agree that the best form of government is none at all Or put another way, the only legitimate form of governance is individual governance.
Ron Paul:
Well, I'm glad he put the last sentence on, because you always want government. Who should be the government? The perfect world, if we were all perfect people, there would only be self government. And our responsibility would be to ourselves, and that's what my goal is, to always move in that direction.
Today, to be a participant in the debate and say that tomorrow we are going to get rid of every single government – well, if one person does it and nobody else does, that's not going to work. But I think we're moving to the age where governments are much less important, and I think we should. I think that people are realizing that governments mess up. I think the 20th century was such a horrible century that we are waking up to the fact that you can't trust government. You can't trust them to run the economy, you can't trust them to run the monetary system, you can't trust them to run foreign policy, I mean it's just a total disaster. So I think the least amount of government is the best.
I do not call myself an anarchist, but I think to have the goal of self-government is a very good goal, and if you can't have that, then as close to home as possible. And I think that's a natural tendency to have individuals and family government, local community government. And if you had a free society, we probably wouldn't have more than that. And our founders intended that to be. You know, when they wrote the constitution, I think they planted some seeds there that have grown to the point where if the constitution had worked perfectly, we wouldn't have this monster over here in Washington. It wouldn't exist. But, all the regulations and details and taxation and abuse of rules and president writing
laws and bashing the Congress for not speeding up, running executive orders and all this, that wouldn't be true. That is the trend that we have to reverse. I'm optimistic to think that we are changing the views of a new generation, the millennials are looking at this and they are seeing what they are inheriting. I think they see a mess and I think they are very open to the views of saying: yes, the biggest problem we have is way too-much government, too-much centralized government, and the more self-responsibility and self-government we have, the better.
Second question on anarchy:
Lianna Brease on our Facebook page asks:
I'm finding myself more distant from government involvement in general. Is it healthy to think like an anarchist or what are your views on anarchy?
Ron Paul:
I think if somebody is an anarchist and they totally believe in no government, and they don't use force at the moment to go and start shooting up the government so we don't have any government, that would be wrong, but to be an anarchist and assume responsibility for yourself, I think this is a great idea. And there's a lot of people, there's a lot of very close friends of mine who think political action is terrible and worthless. I happen to be one that believes that education is probably paramount. But political action can be very helpful. And sometimes political action, my elections and things and galvanizing interest is a measurement of our success on our ideas. So I think this is very important. But anarchy is not harmful to me, as long as you especially if you are true libertarian, you've rejected the use of force, I don't have to worry about you.
If you don't want to, your biggest problem of being an anarchist in the government that doesn't agree with you is that when I want to opt out they are going to come with guns. But you know, we do have instances where some people do get to opt out. When you think about the Amish and the Mennonites, I think they get exempt and ... they like to … Just think, those groups, why couldn't all of us have that opportunity? Look, we voluntarily want to get out and we want to take care of ourselves. Either an individual should be allowed to do that and get no benefits from the government, or a group can do this. A libertarian society actually gives full permission for socialism. Voluntary socialism. You know, if you want to get together, and there's been experiments with that in our history, you can have voluntary socialism. If you go together and you agree and we are running this community - large, small whatever - on a socialist scheme, you should be allowed to. But we should be allowed to stay out of that. But the problem is: it is so inefficient. That the socialists know their system is going to fail, so they have to use the force of the government gun to take money from the people who aren't socialists in order to subsidize their programs.
Libertarianism gives full legal protection of anybody who wants to have voluntary socialism. But socialists never will endorse the idea of you having your personal liberty where you can take care of yourself and not ask for nothing from anybody else.
Video:

http://www.slobodaiprosperitet.tv/en/node/1101

 

[The Gold Standard]

There are only 3 arguments anyone can make against the feasibility of anarchy.

1. It's never worked before.

And depending on definitions, this may be true. Just like in the 1800s, moving vehicles that weren't powered by animals never worked before, and therefore were simply an unrealistic fantasy.

2. I don't believe it can work.

This isn't an argument; it's an opinion. And you are welcome to it. You believe that private defense contractors would gang up on their customers. You believe that people would form a state to protect them. You believe this. You believe that. Well, good for you, but that doesn't make this point any more valid. You could be completely wrong about how things would work out.

3. Smart guy A used arguments 1 and 2.

Lot's of smart people use the first two arguments, so they can't be wrong. Especially when people that preach anarchy haven't convinced me otherwise.

 

[pcosmar]

I dunno.

How would you enforce it?

some sort of Authority, no doubt.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Yeah. I think it best.

here is the full trascript, I'll let people draw their own conclusions, obviously I don't agree with you.


http://www.slobodaiprosperitet.tv/en/node/1101

 

[Natural Citizen]

What? Try to make sense please. Economic security does not require servitude.

What capitalist exchanges are accomplished by force?

Well, economic security and economic prosperity are two, quite different, applications. They are more than mere words. Much like Life is more than merely existing. And much like the pursuit of happiness is much more than an ideal. It's an ever-changing aspiration. It's a constantly expanding vision of self-fulfillment. That vision comes from self-realization and from self-development, morally and intellectually. And in every regard.

When I say economic security, I'm talking about the fact that any society will ultimately turn into a State in some form. In any society there will be a hierarchy. This means rules. This means coercion. And this means that someone has to enforce it.

Then again, what if someone cant work anymore? What if someone is disabled? Who is going to check your shipping containers from imports outside of your society in order to make sure your material economy isn't blown up?

And I still never got arounf d to the free rider problem. What happens if you own the dam and some people get the overflow? Now all of a sudden he sees that he doesn't have to pay like the other guy. What if someone consumes more than he should? What decides what is fair and what isnt? Another thing is that human nature dictates that if a man can get away with paying as little as possible, or nothing at all, then, by gosh he'll try.

Those are just remedial situations and one could go much deeper. I just don't really feel like it, O. I'm serious, now. I'm just really tired of this thread.

As it is, every State and even the federal government has an economic security department. Homeland security has one where they specifically acknowledge that economic prosperity and economic prosperity are seen different in terms of physical defense.

Once a State or hierachy is established....and it will be in any society, coercion exists by default. One little rule enforced by a hierarchy is all it takes to establish a State.

Free trade is not servitude.

Yeah, I agree.

Freely exchanging your labor for goods and property and vice versa is not servitude.

Yeah, I agree.

What capitalist exchanges are accomplished by force?

I use the word coercion. What happens if I refuse to pay you for digging my basement? What fear do I have in a capitalist society of not paying you aside from getting my ass kicked nice and good? Are you gonna call the po po.

One need only look at our situation now. We haven't had true capitalism in a very long time. We have corporatism and mercantilism disguised as capitalism. This is because of the state merging with special interests.

It won't be any different in any other society because any society will ultimately enlist a hierarchy which, itself, exists as a coercive entity. A State.

And then you start all over again. Private courts, private police, private armies and on down the list. You end up with the same thing you didn't like in the first place. The difference is that there is no means, no chains, to bind them down from their mischief.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Well, economic security and economic prosperity are two, quite different, applications. They are more than mere words. Much like Life is more than merely existing. And much like the pursuit of happiness is much more than an ideal. It's an ever-changing aspiration. It's a constantly expanding vision of self-fulfillment. That vision comes from self-realization and from self-development, morally and intellectually. And in every regard.

Whe nI say economic security, I'm talking about the fact that any society will ultimately turn into a State in some form. In any society there will be a hierarchy. This means rules. This means coercion. And this means that someone has to enforce it.

Than again, what if someone cant work anymore? What if someone is disabled? Who is going to check your shipping containers from imports outside of your society?

And I still never got arounf d to the free rider problem. What happens if you own the dam and some people get the overflow? Now all of a sudden he seesthat he doesn;t have to pay like the other guy. Whatt if someone consumes more than he should? What decides wht isfair and what isnt?

Those are just remedial situations and one could go much deeper. I just don't really feel like it, O. I'm serious, now. I'm just really tired of this thread.

As it is, every State and even the federal government has an economic security department. Homeland security has one where they specifically acknowledge tht economicprosperity and economic prosperity are seen different in terms of physical defense.

Once a State or hierachy is established....and it will be in any society, coercion exists by default. One little rule enforcedby a hierarchy is all it takes to establish a State.



Yeah, I agree.



Yeah, I agree.





I use the word coercion. What happens if I refuse to pay you for digging my basement? What fear do I have in a capitalist society of not paying you aside from getting my ass kicked nice and good?

Leadership=/= governance. There's leadership structure in businesses and churches(the Russian patriarchs tend to be particularly strong leaders, btw), but you wouldn't call them "governments" or "states". You're going to have to bring moar solid evidence to warrant your claims, comrade. ~hugs~

 

[Natural Citizen]

Leadership=/= governance. There's leadership structure in businesses and churches(the Russian patriarchs tend to be particularly strong leaders, btw), but you wouldn't call them "governments" or "states". You're going to have to bring moar solid evidence to warrant your claims, comrade. ~hugs~

How do either of those entities protect the rights of The One?

You can't win, HB. It's a losing game, brother.

Now leave me alone dammit.

All of yuns.

If you want to do anarchy, then, go do it. lol. If it worked so well, why ya around here bugging us?

Is it maybe because...oh..I dunno...you need us? ...But for waht?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

How do either of those entities protect the rights of The One?

You can't win, HB. It's a losing game, brother.

Now leave me alone dammit.

All of yuns.

If you want to do anarchy, then, go do it. lol. If it worked so well, why ya around here bugging us?

Is it maybe because...oh..I dunno...you need us? ...But for waht?

To persuade y'all to keep your government to yourselves. You have a lot of difficulty with that, as the folks in Germany, Japan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Qatar, Lebanon, Okinawa, Pakistan, and several dozen other places can attest.

 

[Natural Citizen]

To persuade y'all to keep your government to yourselves. You have a lot of difficulty with that, as the folks in Germany, Japan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Qatar, Lebanon, Okinawa, Pakistan, and several dozen other places can attest.

You're one happy-go-lucky, dude, HB. lol.

Anyway. Bye.

 

[PierzStyx]

Yes, but if the US dissolves the other countries will still exist, with organized military forces, and have nothing but local militias to deal with in the former US lands.

Not necessarily. There are not just numerous militias in the USA, but numerous large PMCs that are apparently large enough that they have been doing the heavy lifting in Iraq for a decade now. Let us both not make the mistake of assuming that just because something has always been done a certain way that it must always happen or can only happen that way.

 

[PierzStyx]

1. Ask that guy's relatives if they would rather live like animals in Africa or live in civilization. For all the whining, I suspect 100% will choose America when it is all said and done.

2. Slavery ended in 1865 and two-thirds of the population lived in states without slaves before then. The United States is the most successful experiment in human history. It is not a slave state. The United States invented freedom. Slavery was a short term aberration that occurred for political reasons. Civilization did not exist in human history until the United States was founded. People lived short brutal lives before the founding of the United States. The average lifespan was 35 in 1776. The countries that are successful today basically copied the US. The ones that don't copy the US live like it is 1776 still.

3. If you want a picture of where people actually are tortured and killed- not pretend torture like being taxed at 15%- all you have to do is look at anarchist Somalia. I won't even post a picture of a starving Somalian because of how graphic it is. Anarchy is the moral equivalent to Marxism. It is the absence of freedom.

1. Africa is home to the oldest civilizations in history. And if you think that someone would rather be a slave than free, even in supposed "uncivilized" or "poor" conditions, then you're a buffoon. Explains why you're a statist bootlicker though.

2. Maybe two-thirds of the white population. There were around 4-5 million slaves in the USA and only 476,748 free blacks. Further, just because you aren't a slave does not mean that you have your freedom. In any case, the presence of millions of people held in abject slavery is fact against the lie that America was some bastion of freedom or that it ever had a small minarchist government. And far from being an aberration slavery predates the Pilgrims, with the first slaves being brought to Jamestown in 1619, a full year before the Pilgrims arrived in Plymouth in 1620. Slavery was a foundational aspect of American existence.

No, the US didn't invent freedom. This is a stupid statement. John Locke, the origin of many "American" ideas was English and you can find many liberty ideals as far back as ancient China.

The lifespan of humans has increased because of the technological changes began by the Industrial revolution, which began in England.

3. I've already shown you a picture of a man who was literally tortured. One of millions.

The problem with Somalia are all teh groups fighting and killing to establish their version of the centralized state. Statism is murdering Somalia while anarchy is teh only think providing for Somalian.

As for anarchy, John Locke recognized that complete anarchy is complete freedom.

 

[Raginfridus]

Is it libertarian to tell other libertarians they shouldn't support anarcho-capitalism? Make up your own mind.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Is it libertarian to tell other libertarians they shouldn't support anarcho-capitalism? Make up your own mind.

Yes, unless you use the government to tell them they can't.