Should Libertarians support anarcho-capitalism?

[Impartial_Truth]

So we could substitute an Australian Aborigines for Prince Harry of England without any major change?

There are major differences in intelligence and levels of culture among the races.

 

[Natural Citizen]

So we could substitute an Australian Aborigines for Prince Harry of England without any major change?

No. We mind our own business.

There are major differences in intelligence and levels of culture among the races.

Some of the most undereducated, most reckless, people I've ever talked with are white. In fact, if you look at the global education stats, America is around third from the bottom. Not that America is wholly white, but you get the idea.

In our case, the public education system is a failure. To that extent we need to separate education and state.

 

[Swordsmyth]

So we could substitute an Australian Aborigines for Prince Harry of England without any major change?

There are major differences in intelligence and levels of culture among the races.

Do they have the same culture?

Don't ask stupid questions.

If you found a good Australian Aborigine with a Christian liberty culture he might be an improvement over the slimy Brit Royals.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I think that the biggest problem by far today is that when self-defined libertarians talk about libertarianism, they always remove it's foundation for moral code and try to run with its principles alone. You can't do that. Individual Liberty's principles are to be accepted or rejected Indivisibly with its foundation for moral code. Reason being is that if you separate them, then you remove one's right of claim to Liberty's benefits fully.

This is basic. But it's something that has become lost with the youth and rejected by the opportunistic.

Ya, true. If secular libertarians want to develop a moral code they should check into something better thought out like Ethics Of Liberty (though I have some serious qualms with this book).

 

[DavidFriedman]

European nations were not based on race.

Starting with Ancient Greece, to the Roman Empire, to all modern day nations in Europe. They are all based on race.

That isn't close to true. If you define "race" so broadly that all whites are one race, then European nations are all one race, so not based on race. If you define it as ethnicity, then England, for most of a thousand years, was a mix of Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Normans, and Norsemen. France was a mix of Bretons, Norse descended Normans, Franks, ... .

The Roman Empire included Italians, Gauls, Berbers, Jews, ...

 

[Origanalist]

That isn't close to true. If you define "race" so broadly that all whites are one race, then European nations are all one race, so not based on race. If you define it as ethnicity, then England, for most of a thousand years, was a mix of Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Normans, and Norsemen. France was a mix of Bretons, Norse descended Normans, Franks, ... .

The Roman Empire included Italians, Gauls, Berbers, Jews, ...

You will find a lot of false things and just plain opinions stated as facts around here these days.

 

[otherone]

You will find a lot of false things and just plain opinions stated as facts around here these days.

government schools.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

This is my issue with Anarcho-Capitalism.

Let's say the US becomes Anarcho-Capitalist. What is going to stop Russia from taking Alaska, China from taking our Pacific Islands, or Mexico reclaiming Texas?

 

[PierzStyx]

No it is quite possible, we used to have less, if you don't think we can achieve less government I am not sure why you are here.

The USA has never had less government. Don't believe me, just ask this guy:

A slave state can be nothing less than a militaristic tyrannical state as it holds millions in forced servitude and seizes their life, liberty, and property at will while justifying beating, torturing, stealing, and even killing those who demand their basic human liberties or who dare to stand up for themselves.

 

[PierzStyx]

That isn't close to true. If you define "race" so broadly that all whites are one race, then European nations are all one race, so not based on race. If you define it as ethnicity, then England, for most of a thousand years, was a mix of Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Normans, and Norsemen. France was a mix of Bretons, Norse descended Normans, Franks, ... .

The Roman Empire included Italians, Gauls, Berbers, Jews, ...

Blacks, Africans, Asians in the form of Arabs, Persians, and a host of other Middle Eastern people, even the odd East Asian Chinese.

The fact is that Rome was incredibly multicultural and for the most part Rome allowed for a wide variety of cultures and practices in the Empire. As long as you paid your taxes and didn't start an armed rebellion the Empire was content to let you marry, worship, and do whatever you wanted.

That Rome's "barbarians" were the Germans so lauded by white nationalists just "spreading their culture" is of course ignored too.

 

[PierzStyx]

This is my issue with Anarcho-Capitalism.

Let's say the US becomes Anarcho-Capitalist. What is going to stop Russia from taking Alaska, China from taking our Pacific Islands, or Mexico reclaiming Texas?

You're asking the wrong questions. In anarcho-capitalism there would be no USA.

 

[PierzStyx]

What is your stance?

LIbertarianism is a voluntaryist belief as it denies the right of any group, including the government, to initiate violence and force their will on others. This means that while not anarchist, libertarianism certainly allows for anarchy to exist. And vice versa, in an anarchist society you have the freedom to be libertarians. So in a certain sense, whether you support anarcho-capitalism or not is irrelevant for a libertarian. The question is do libertarians believe that people should be free to be ancaps. And the answer to that is yes.

This of course is not true of any Statist philosophy, including minarchy. As statists believe they have the right to initiate violence against peaceful people in order to force them to do something against their will or have their property taken, liberty violated, and possibly even their life ended. Statism of all stripes is founded on compulsion and bloodshed. And if you refuse to acknowledge the rule of the State then it is your blood that is shed. That isn't liberty and Statism isn't going to acknowledge your liberty. It exists to violate it, its existence is a violation of your liberty.

So the real question is if at the end of the day libertarians can support minarchy because libertarians envision a much freer people than any statist philosophy will ever allow for.

 

[thoughtomator]

An-cap is what you get when you make a gross error on the nature of property rights, and build a religion on top of that.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

You're asking the wrong questions. In anarcho-capitalism there would be no USA.

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.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

An-cap is what you get when you make a gross error on the nature of property rights, and build a religion on top of that.

I seem to recall you being an anarcho-capitalist, though...

 

[The Gold Standard]

This is my issue with Anarcho-Capitalism.

Let's say the US becomes Anarcho-Capitalist. What is going to stop Russia from taking Alaska, China from taking our Pacific Islands, or Mexico reclaiming Texas?

The people in Texas would fuck up any military that tried to occupy the state. As for the others, who knows? How do you know those things would happen anyway? How do you know that people from neighboring states wouldn't volunteer to fight for the people in those places?

Do these invasions happen before the market had time to set up defense services for those people? If not, then I would definitely side with for profit defense.

 

[Krugminator2]

The USA has never had less government. Don't believe me, just ask this guy:

A slave state can be nothing less than a militaristic tyrannical state as it holds millions in forced servitude and seizes their life, liberty, and property at will while justifying beating, torturing, stealing, and even killing those who demand their basic human liberties or who dare to stand up for themselves.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Origanalist]

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.

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.

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.

Was that supposed to be satire? I can't tell around here anymore.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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.

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.

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.

You demonstrate yet again that the best arguments statists can come up against anarchism are strawmen. Thanks for this dazzling virtuoso display of ignorance, tho. ~hugs~

Since you're almost new, you should know we've done the Somalia debate/discussion thing a bunch of times. You aren't impressing anyone.

 

[Krugminator2]

You demonstrate yet again that the best arguments statists can come up against anarchism are strawmen. Thanks for this dazzling virtuoso display of ignorance, tho. ~hugs~

Since you're almost new, you should know we've done the Somalia debate/discussion thing a bunch of times. You aren't impressing anyone.

You've not settled it. Much smarter people than you think it is an insane idea. In fact, no one can demonstrate how it will work.

FA Hayek thought it idiotic.


Here is what Mises thought about Rothbard's anarchism from someone who sat in Mises' seminar.

Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.

Just reading the comments on this site about how people here would shoot different people who have wronged them shows why anarchy is an awful idea. You need a monopoly on force to set objective rules of the game and someone to enforce those rules objectively as possible.