Should Libertarians support anarcho-capitalism?

[A Son of Liberty]

 

[otherone]

What I think about the state isn't german.

Channeling Freud AND Godwin.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I can barely make it through one of your incoherent, rambling posts.

Nope. My ramblings are clear and concise.

Just answer the question and save us all a lot of time.

I'm going to. But we aren't finished. You haven't refuted my claim.

WHO CARES IF ANARCHISM AND CAPITALISM as you presumably define it ARE INCOMPATIBLE CONCEPTS or whatever you want to call it? NO ONE. NOT RELEVANT, dude. Not at all. None of these definitions matter if there is no State. Free exchange, or the free market... Jeezus dude, it's not all that freaking complicated.

You should care. It's detrimentally relevant. And it's very complicated. It's only simple if you haven't thought it through all the way.

For instance, I offered to you earlier the notion that someone can certainly ask what is to stop them from hiring someone to paint their house. But an ancap never asks what is to stop the anarchist from painting someone elses house instead. And there's a reason that they don't ask that question. The reason that they don't ask that question is because they know that they require the principles of coercion to force the anarchist to adhere to the capitalist's contract. They get lost in their own bull pucky when that hapopens. The anarchist does not care about the capitalists coercive principle. In fact, the anarchust rejects them.

It just won't work, man. And thats just one thing that I pulled from the top of my head. There are more. Many, many more anaolgies.

If you own your life, full stop, then there is no such thing as the State. If there is no State, then we operate on one-on-one terms, period. No one can define how those terms will play out, at the end of the day. No one cares if the market of exchange is called capitalism, or Bobism or whatever-the-$#@!-ism. No one cares. It just is how people exchange goods and services.

Quit acting like you've discovered some glitch in the matrix, NC. You haven't. You're just prattling. Statelessness is just the natural state of mankind. That's it. That's all it is. Anything else is just coercive and violent.

Holy $#@! I can't believe we're still talking about this here...

Alright. So I'll answer your question. Though, do note that you've avoided refuting my points.

It's simple. You own your life. But you are not your own foundation for moral code. That you are of Divine Origin is why you are important. You are not important because you say that you are important based on what you personally think it means to be important. The spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God expresses the spiritual relationship of God to Man and, of Man to Man, and in the light thereof, Government-to-Man.

Your moral duty is created by God's Law. Not your Law. It is Man's spiritual nature which excludes any idea of intrusion by government into this Man-to-Man spiritual relationship. IThis moral Duty excludes the anti-moral precept that the end justifies the means and the related idea that the means can be separated from the end when judging them morally. This concept therefore excludes necessarily any idea of attempting to do good by force--for instance, through coercion of Man by Government, whether or not claimed to be for his own good or for the so-called common good or general welfare.

That said, I'l loffer you some relevant reading. Which I've actually taken the answer from for the purpose of saving more redundant keystrokes. You have much learning ahead of you. Respectfully.

Old man.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...n-Principles&p=6197351&viewfull=1#post6197351

 

[Natural Citizen]

Channeling Freud AND Godwin.

Are you going to offer anything, dipsht? You never really offer anything.

Please explain to us why there would be no governing body in your ancap society.

Surely you must be capable. Do it.

 

[otherone]

Are you going to offer anything, dipsht? You never really offer anything.

I'll wait until your period is over.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I'll wait until your period is over.

Heh. Of course.

I've got stuff to do now.

I'll check back later to see if anyone figured out how to sell the idea that there won't be any governing body in an ancap pipe dream.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Refute my points in the thread. I've been very clear and precise. Do not run from them. This is functional debate. Prove to me, and everyone, why you think that you will not have a governmental body to secure the application of an anarcho-capitalist society.

Do that and I will answer your question.

You don't get to skip over my argument, though. That's not functional debate.

I don't think you actually do want a functional debate. If you did you'd know there are at least 4 major "schools" of anarchism. Your whole approach to argumentation against anarchists in this particular thread has been little more than strawmanning. You ought to take time to familiarize yourself with 1) anarchism generally and 2) the sort of anarchism your specific debate opponents are interested in.

 

[otherone]

Heh. Of course.

I've got stuff to do now.

I'll check back later to see if anyone figured out how to sell the idea that there won't be any governing body in an ancap pipe dream.

Maybe in the mean time you can figure out how you will enlighten us all as to why folks in an anarchist society are somehow exempt from moral duty.

 

[otherone]

I don't think you actually do want a functional debate. If you did you'd know there are at least 4 major "schools" of anarchism. Your whole approach to argumentation against anarchists in this particular thread has been little more than strawmanning. You ought to take time to familiarize yourself with 1) anarchism generally and 2) the sort of anarchism your specific debate opponents are interested in.

Agreed. The labeling stuff is a way of shutting down discourse. I believe a functionally "free" society wold be achievable by eliminating victimless crimes. This would de facto eliminate the artificial corpus of the state.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Maybe in the mean time you can figure out how you will enlighten us all as to why folks in an anarchist society are somehow exempt from moral duty.

They aren't. But try telling your peers that. Earlier when I asked if a guy was hanging onto someone elses pole in order to save his own life, the answer was clearly stated that the man who owned the pole had the right to knock the guy off the pole because the guy was, in the pole owner's mind, trespassing on his pole.

The end justified the means in their mind. That's the mindset we're dealing with here. And because it is anti-moral, it is not liberarian in any way.

Of course, the means cannot be separated from the end when judged morally. Right? But it's very easy for self-defined anarchists to exempt themselves in that regard in their own minds. A real anarchist doesn't accept private property ideology so to a real anarchist, the point is moot and he probably would have helped the guy out instead of murdering him because muh pole. A real anarchist would say that the pole is in use...not private.

 

[otherone]

They aren't. But try telling your peers that. Earlier when I asked if a guy was hanging onto soemone elses pole in order to save his own life, the answer was clearly stated that the a man had the rigfht to knock the guy off the pole because the guy was trespassing on his pole.

The end justified the means in their mind.

Of course, the means cannot be separated from the end when judged morally. Right?

But it's very easy for self-defined anarchists to exempt themselves in that regard in their own minds.

Immorality occurs with a state and would without one. It is not Man's place to judge another. What you are asking for is temporal consequences to immorality as decided by man, not God.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Okay.

Nope. My ramblings are clear and concise.


I'm going to. But we aren't finished. You haven't refuted my claim.


You should care. It's detrimentally relevant. And it's very complicated. It's only simple if you haven't thought it through all the way.

For instance, I offered to you earlier the notion that someone can certainly ask what is to stop them from hiring someone to paint their house. But an ancap never asks what is to stop the anarchist from painting someone elses house instead.

It is simple, actually. Anarchism as advocated here is not haphazard. It is NOT chaos. It is the REJECTION of unprovoked violence. Thus, in a thoughtful statelessness, even such passive violence as painting someone else's house is an offense, and the victim is justifiable in defending himself.

But even in the world of the State, I'd ask you what stops someone from painting someone else's house? The police? Perhaps. Ultimately, the preventative is the same except in our stateless world, we're not coerced BEFORE we've been imposed upon, you see?

And there's a reason that they don't ask that question. The reason that they don't ask that question is because they know that they require the principles of coercion to force the anarchist to adhere to the capitalist's contract.

Uh, nope. They don't "ask that question" because it's a dumb question. It's implicit in the principle. It's a given. Savvy?

They get lost in their own bull pucky when that hapopens. The anarchist does not care about the capitalists coercive principle. In fact, the anarchust rejects them.

Here's the thing. You've attached some concept of coercion to capitalism. That's fine. I don't care. What I care about is free exchange. If you want to define capitalism as having some coercive component, I'm fine with that. Again I don't care. My stateless world is a one without preemptive violence. So call it what you will - if you believe that there is some preemptive violence or coercion, or involuntary violence or coercion, implicit in capitalism, that's your thing. That's a State. That's not what we advocate.

It just won't work, man.

Can I let you in on a secret, NC? NOTHING works. Not statelessness, not the state. None of it.

What matters is that we advocate for that which is in line with what is true and real. We're never going to have a perfect society with imperfect human beings. What we can do is recognize the reality of human nature, and best align our society with that. You own your life. I own mine. I have no right to your life. You have no right to mine. That's the absence of the State. Once you lay a claim on my life, you've rejected the principle of self-ownership, and you've attempted to initiate the State. I REJECT the rejection of the principle of self-ownership, and thus I reject the State.

As they say on the info-mercials, "it's just that simple".

And thats just one thing that I pulled from the top of my head. There are more. Many, many more anaolgies.

Alright. So I'll answer your question. Though, do note that you've avoided refuting my points.

It's simple. You own your life. But you are not your own foundation for moral code. That you are of Divine Origin is why you are important. You are not important because you say that you are important based on what you personally think it means to be important. The spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God expresses the spiritual relationship of God to Man and, of Man to Man, and in the light thereof,

No argument here, brother.

Government-to-Man.

Oooooops... sooooo close...

Small 'g' government? Sure. Capital 'G' Government? Not so much... On which day did God create the State, NC? He didn't. The State came into being because of man (1 Samuel 8:6), and the State is the domain of Satan (Matthew 4:9).

Your moral duty is created by God's Law. Not your Law. It is Man's spiritual nature which excludes any idea of intrusion by government into this Man-to-Man spiritual relationship. IThis moral Duty excludes the anti-moral precept that the end justifies the means and the related idea that the means can be separated from the end when judging them morally. This concept therefore excludes necessarily any idea of attempting to do good by force--for instance, through coercion of Man by Government, whether or not claimed to be for his own good or for the so-called common good or general welfare.

That said, I'l loffer you some relevant reading. Which I've actually taken the answer from for the purpose of saving more redundant keystrokes. You have much learning ahead of you. Respectfully.

Old man.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...n-Principles&p=6197351&viewfull=1#post6197351

I'm way ahead of you... Seems like you've actually got some reading to do, yourself.

I'm pretty interested in how you can justify the State - ANY State, big ol', or itsy bitsy - in a world where men own their lives. (You can't).

 

[Lamp]

Go fuck yourself, "Natural Citizen", for starters.

Following that up, I'll have you know I have more gray hairs than black. So you can ALSO stick that "youngster" stuff up your own ass, as well.

Now that we have that settled...

No one is "forcing" you to be an anarchist, you moron. That's literally the opposite of the concept.

Unless you're even more thick than I imagine, you've detected a certain degree of hostility in this post, so far. That would be a result of your smug - yet wholly unfounded - self-assurance. You're so freaking wrong, it's not even funny.

Your INSISTENCE to have access to the implementation of force is what separates you from people of principle, young'on. It's absolutely adorable that you imagine some construct within which you can both own your own life, and yet own everyone else's life...

Maybe you could address that really simple concept, instead of prattling on like some mindless teenager post after post?

He is a genuine prick isn't he?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

They aren't. But try telling your peers that. Earlier when I asked if a guy was hanging onto someone elses pole in order to save his own life, the answer was clearly stated that the man who owned the pole had the right to knock the guy off the pole because the guy was, in the pole owner's mind, trespassing on his pole.

The end justified the means in their mind. That's the mindset we're dealing with here. And because it is anti-moral, it is not liberarian in any way.

Of course, the means cannot be separated from the end when judged morally. Right? But it's very easy for self-defined anarchists to exempt themselves in that regard in their own minds. A real anarchist doesn't accept private property ideology so to a real anarchist, the point is moot and he probably would have helped the guy out instead of murdering him because muh pole. A real anarchist would say that the pole is in use...not private.

It's not "muh pole". It's "muh property". In other words, the fruit of my labor. Ultimately, it is my right to remove from my property those who seek to impose upon it. Should I? In this particular case, no, I shouldn't. However it remains my right.

It's not just a flag pole. That's the thing. It is the fruit of my labor. It is the result of my efforts, of me mixing my labor with the world around me and as such I am 100% entitled to defend it as my own. YOUR misfortune does not obligate me at all. I'm a good person, guided by God, and I WILL try to help you. But there is no man-made obligation which requires me to do so. And those who are not moved by any guiding principle other than their adherence to their own property and thus refuse to assist you, tho' unsavory they may be, cannot be said to be acting unjustly. Period.

That's how this works. We do not get to decide what other people do with their lives and their property. It's either that, or it is chaos, you see? Either people own their lives and their justly acquired property, or it is mayhem, sir. That's all there is to it.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I don't think you actually do want a functional debate. If you did you'd know there are at least 4 major "schools" of anarchism. Your whole approach to argumentation against anarchists in this particular thread has been little more than strawmanning. You ought to take time to familiarize yourself with 1) anarchism generally and 2) the sort of anarchism your specific debate opponents are interested in.

See here - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...o-capitalism&p=6538961&viewfull=1#post6538961

In the mean time let me tell you what you ought to do. Learn that to be libertarian means one thing. And only one thing. It means to be against government-over-man. It's a single ism. It needs no accompanying ism. It s the only ism that is relevant.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Anarchists do not believe in private property. Only occupied property.

So think about what you just wrote.

You are not an anarchist. Do not try to be one.

It's not "muh pole". It's "muh property". In other words, the fruit of my labor. Ultimately, it is my right to remove from my property those who seek to impose upon it. Should I? In this particular case, no, I shouldn't. However it remains my right.

It's not just a flag pole. That's the thing. It is the fruit of my labor. It is the result of my efforts, of me mixing my labor with the world around me and as such I am 100% entitled to defend it as my own. YOUR misfortune does not obligate me at all. I'm a good person, guided by God, and I WILL try to help you. But there is no man-made obligation which requires me to do so. And those who are not moved by any guiding principle other than their adherence to their own property and thus refuse to assist you, tho' unsavory they may be, cannot be said to be acting unjustly. Period.

That's how this works. We do not get to decide what other people do with their lives and their property. It's either that, or it is chaos, you see? Either people own their lives and their justly acquired property, or it is mayhem, sir. That's all there is to it.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Immorality occurs with a state and would without one.

Agreed.

It is not Man's place to judge another.

Agreed.

What you are asking for is temporal consequences to immorality as decided by man, not God.

Disagreeed.

What I'm asking for is for someone to explain to me why there cannot be any kind of governing body in an ancap application.

Nobody has offered an answer.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

What I'm asking for is for someone to explain to me why there cannot be any kind of governing body in an ancap application.

Nobody has offered an answer.

Well, there can be. How about that?

Next...?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Anarchists do not believe in private property. Only occupied property.

So think about what you just wrote.

You are not an anarchist. Do not try to be one.

Jibberish.

As I stated, my property is my own because I have mixed my labor with the world around me. I don't abdicate my property when I'm not in physical possession of it. Only an idiot would suggest such... have I somehow un-mixed my labor with it, once it's out of my possession? No... I only abdicate my right to my property when I so choose, primarily by selling it to another.

Starting to think you're just another sour minarchist who cant stand the idea of anti-statists inhabiting this website... You're not Travlyr, are you?

 

[Origanalist]

"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.

And yet you think government, hardly by any means made up of angels, much less even decent people will protect the weak. I'll never understand this thinking. They don't want to protect, they want to control.