Should Libertarians support anarcho-capitalism?

[Impartial_Truth]

Certainly all whites are not one race. Germans for example are different than Spaniards. Spaniards different than Italians. Italians different than Slavs. When I say white, I refer to as most people generally do, to Europeans.

Europe is a history of ethno-states. Different ethnicities of the Aryan race. The southern Europeans are partially Aryan while the Northern Europeans are mostly Aryan (Germans) or full Aryan (Nordic).

Certainly many civilizations had multi-racial elements within their societies including the Roman Empire. As a group however ultimately individuals are loyal to race and act accordingly. I do not regard the Jews as a race. Races follow nature. They fight for land and food. Jews follow the alien-logic of un-nature. Jews draw humans away from the natural struggle. Todays Jews are not the original semites out of Mesopotamia, but eastern European Khazars.

All major historical events are nothing more than the self preservation drive of the races.

 

[undergroundrr]

It seems like most self-identifying anarcho-capitalists are neither for anarchy (they want government-enforced borders controls) or for free-market capitalism (they want government-enforced border controls, i.e. trade restrictions).

Is this my imagination? Are there any open borders anarcho-capitalists in the house?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Which government?

Anarchy always gives way to some kind of government.

How many times, exactly, has that been? Hmm?

And if you ever have anarchy that does not then by definition it's score is 0.0

Once again, please... in English?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

It seems like most self-identifying anarcho-capitalists are neither for anarchy (they want government-enforced borders controls) or for free-market capitalism (they want government-enforced border controls, i.e. trade restrictions).

Is this my imagination? Are there any open borders anarcho-capitalists in the house?

:raises hand:

I don't oppose borders, as long as they're privately owned.

 

[Origanalist]

It seems like most self-identifying anarcho-capitalists are neither for anarchy (they want government-enforced borders controls) or for free-market capitalism (they want government-enforced border controls, i.e. trade restrictions).

Is this my imagination? Are there any open borders anarcho-capitalists in the house?

I would say that is a false perception and rpf's is not a good example to use as a measuring stick.

 

[lilymc]

Okay, "Natural Citizen". You go ahead and be "done" because of the - what - 3 anarchists here.

You're joking right? Heck, I'm beginning to think this place should be renamed anarchistforums.com

 

[Natural Citizen]

You're joking right? Heck, I'm beginning to think this place should be renamed anarchistforums.com

Few, very few, of the half-wit, do-nothings, around here who pop off about anarchy have any idea of what anarchy actually is.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Few, very few, of the half-whit, do-nothings, around here who pop off about anarchy have any idea of what anarchy actually is.

But they are overloaded with fantasies, daydreams and wishes about it.

 

[Natural Citizen]

But they are overloaded with fantasies, daydreams and wishes about it.

Well. Libertarianism permits for anyone's presence whome identifies as such. But just because they are present does not, and seldom does, mean that they understand what it is that they identify with.

It's exceptionally laughable to hyphenate capitalism with anarchism. That alone should serve to indicate who you're arguing with.

Don't waste your time. They're contained here. Be satisfied with that.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Well. Libertarianism permits for anyone's [presence whome identifies as such. but just because they are preset does not, and seldom does, mean that they understand what it is that they idetify with.

It's exceptionally laughable to hyphenate capitalism with anarchism. That alone should serve to indicate who you're arguing with.

Don't wast your time. They're contained here. Be satisfied with that.

But every now and then I get the urge to annoy that pig:

Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Robert Heinlein

 

[A Son of Liberty]

You're joking right? Heck, I'm beginning to think this place should be renamed anarchistforums.com

There are literally maybe 3 anarchists posting in this subforum only. You're deluded.

This place should be renamed Trumpforums.com

Few, very few, of the half-whit, do-nothings, around here who pop off about anarchy have any idea of what anarchy actually is.

YOU don't have any idea of what anarchy is.

You have your conception of how we should all live, and you're irritated that a (quite) few of us don't agree with you. Too bad for you. That's all the proof you need (if you agree that people own their own lives, which should be your starting point) that your ideas are BOLLOCKS.

 

[afwjam]

Ah, screw it. The nuts have officially taken over the asylum. I'm done.

Guess you weren't here before when we really hashed some of this stuff out, all philosophical and principles. Today it's RPF light with a side of trump ham by comparison.

 

[afwjam]

Yup, they sure have. It's sad.

Lol

 

[afwjam]

"If men were angels no government would be necessary"

When Christ brings us his kingdom those who enter it will govern themselves, until then government is needed to protect the weak from the strong as best as flawed humans can do so.

what if some Christian's like to live like they are in Christs kingdom right now? Do you think he is powerless now? Do you think we are powerless to live right now?

 

[Raginfridus]

some Christian's like to live like they are in Christs kingdom right now

This has been the majority eschatology for millennia. Only in American, Evangelical circles is it otherwise believed. There are several Protestant churches that still teach this, but is alien to The Late Great Planet Earth masses, who gawk about for a literal thousand year kingdom and die never having lived as lords. As far back as you can look for interpretations of the strongman parables and St John's Apocalypse, you will find the opinion that Christ has overwhelmed, bound, and taken Lucifer's throne.

Whatever evil is there in the world is residual and ex homine. With the captor lead captive, only Virtus can transform a mere h o m o into a man; the onus is completely voluntary, which is something most modern Americans hate. They beg the State to do as Christ compelled them, thus the Socialist phenomenon. You'll see that slavish mentality in secularists too, because atheists by and large are just Evangelicals w/o a God.

 

[Natural Citizen]

YOU don't have any idea of what anarchy is.


You have your conception of how we should all live, and you're irritated that a (quite) few of us don't agree with you. Too bad for you. That's all the proof you need (if you agree that people own their own lives, which should be your starting point) that your ideas are BOLLOCKS.

Young son of liberty, you are free to make rules for yourself so long as others are not forced to equally do the same. This is fundamental. I'm hardly irritated by this ideal. I applaud this philosophy. The worthy men who actually fought to secure such ideals within the Declaration of Independence were hunted down, tortured, killed, their families tortured and killed, and their homes burned down.

As an Individual, you are free to be an Anarchist in America for the simple fact that, indeed, those worthy whom were hunted down, tortured, killed, their families tortured and killed, and their homes burned down, sacrificed as much for the security of your freedom to choose to be an Anarchist in America.

But comparable to the fact that Democracy and A Democracy as a secured application are two contrary ideologies, Anarchy as an ideal and Anarchy as a secured application, too, are contrary.

Any ideology, if it is to be applied as a societal driver, must be secured. And therein lies the shortcoming in your logic when you pop off about no government whatsoever. It's very shallow, very shortsighted, to believe that, on one hand, you're anti-government, but, on the other hand, want to make applicable an ideology knowing (in your case, not knowing) that any ideology must be secured by some kind of coercive principle or body of wise men (not reckless men) if it is to be made applicable in society as an ideology to live and operate by. The latter point, to be clear, demands additional principles and ideals, which, again, is obvious that you haven't thought through all the way. This, to reiterate my previous point, is a common, observable, shortcoming among reckless thinkers and reckless actors.

For example, while a capitalist is certainly free to ask what is going to stop him from hiring someone to paint his house, what you half-wits never ask is what is going to stop the Anarchist that the Capitalist hired to paint his house from painting someone elses house instead of the Capitalist's. How would this 'free contract' be secured? Hm? How? Tell us, young son of liberty. Are you going to take him to court? Anarchists don't believe in coercive entities. So that won't work. Anarchists reject the principles of Capitalism because they believe those principles to be coercive. So, Ya gonna shoot the guy when he fails to appear? Burn his house down if he doesn't accept your principles? What. What are you gonna do?

As an Individual, however, you're free to be anti-government it so long as I'm not forced to equally do the same. Libertarianism (which, so you know, means to be against government-over-man) permits for you to get together with your peers and start an anarchist commune. Go. See ya. Hit the bricks. It would actually be helpul since you half-wits are why people don't take fundamental libertarians seriously. They associate us with you shortsighted, anti-government, wanna be a cowboy and haven't learned how to water your horse yet, types.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Actually, young son of liberty, you shouldn't even call yourself an Anarchist. You aren't one. If you were, you'd know that the moral foundation and principles for Anarchy and Capitalism are diametrically opposed to each other. I got to chuckling when you mentioned that you liked the idea of private borders. Yet any fundamental Anarchist would laugh at the mention of private property rights. Ya half-wit.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Few, very few, of the half-whit, do-nothings, around here who pop off about anarchy have any idea of what anarchy actually is.

I haven't noticed any of the half-wit anti-anarchists around here in recent months who understand anarchy either.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I haven't noticed any of the half-wit anti-anarchists around here in recent months who understand anarchy either.

In what way? If you're going to make that claim, then you have to support it.

To be clear, I'm not against anarchy as an ideal. If you want to be an anarchist, then, you're free to be an anarchist. To repeat, libertarianism permits for the ideal.

What I reject is this silly, intellectually dishonest, notion, that anarchy, if practiced as an applicable ideal (an application of an ideal) for the purpose of guiding function and operation of a society, will not require a coercive entity or governing body.

I contend that any ideal which is placed into application 1 - must be secured, and 2 - by default, will entail a governing body or coercive entity to secure said ideal. I contend that most people who merely identify as anarchists on this board 1 - do not understand this, or 2 - do understand this and are simply being dishonest.

I also contend that anarchy and capitalism are diametrically in opposition with each other in principle. I contend that the anarchists who have been vocal in the discussion lack the capacity to understand this fact.

So, tell me what I'm wrong about, please. And why am I wrong about it? Tell me how anarchy and capitalism can exist and function hyphenated in application and without a coercive entity or governing body who decide rules, HB. Fundamental anarchists reject the very whim of property rights and coercive rules. Capitalism cannot survive without coercive rules that rwquire one to fulfill a contract or property rights. So how do those two mix? Hm? How? I contend that you'd have flotsam and jetsam on day 1.

For instance, what if you send me a water bill and I tell you to pack sand because I catch the water that drains from the mountain. And so does my neighbor. And his neighbor And their neighbor. Pretty soon your whole economic system will fail unless there's some rule that exists to protect the economic security of your water company.

Not one anarchist (meaning many people here who identify as such, however it's obvious that many don't even understand that which they identify with) has offered a single explanation for any of the many inconsistencies. Aside from a comment from AF that made sense, all I've seen are simple one-liners that just run from and purposely avoid the responsibility of having to own up to the facts that are being offered which correctly contradict the legitimacy that their little no government utopia will, in fact, be without a coercive entity of sort. Respectfully.

I've never really seen one single person around here who identifies as an anarchist actually try to present a legit, thoroughly explained, case for how it (in this case, anarcho-capitalism...lolol) would specifically work without coercion of some sort. Explain to me why an anarchist is suddenly going to accept coercion. Alternatively, explain how a capitalist is suddenly going to just be okay with a free contract with an anarchist who fundamentally rejects the rules of capitalism. Similarly to the case which I presented to young son of liberty about the deal to paint the house. All we see are threads like this asking the question. We see no explanation of how it will work. Ever.

Thanks.

 

[Natural Citizen]

It seems to me that today people tend to want to attach an ism to any whim that they have and think that people are just supposed to accept it as legit, regardless of whether they've thought it through all the way. As if they have a right to have their feelings addressed by way of the fact that they've attached an ism to them. It's laughable and comparable to the way that the cultural Marxists try to institutionalize equality.

At this rate, somebody could bump into a wall and the next thing you know we're talking about bumpingintoawallism.