Should Libertarians support anarcho-capitalism?

[lilymc]

Wait, you lost me here. Granted, the State is not the true authority, but you're saying that you reject the idea that government is a legitimate instrument of the sovereign people? If that's your position, then I must ask what is your thought on Rom 13?

No, that's not what I'm saying. Unlike some here, I'm not anti-government, I'm just anti-corrupt government. And as you know, our government right now is more corrupt than most people realize. I meant I'm not opposed to the idea of a society without government… As I pointed out in my previous post, it doesn't mean that there is no authority whatsoever, it just goes to private companies instead of the State.

I shouldn't have said "I'm all for it." I guess what I meant was I wouldn't be opposed to trying it, because how much worse could it be than what we have now? That said, I also realize it is completely unrealistic, it's never going to happen.

 

[Natural Citizen]

No, that's not what I'm saying. Unlike some here, I'm not anti-government, I'm just anti-corrupt government. And as you know, our government right now is more corrupt than most people realize. I meant I'm not opposed to the idea of a society without government… As I pointed out in my previous post, it doesn't mean that there is no authority whatsoever, it just goes to private companies instead of the State.

I shouldn't have said "I'm all for it." I guess what I meant was I wouldn't be opposed to trying it, because how much worse could it be than what we have now? That said, I also realize it is completely unrealistic, it's never going to happen.

Okay. Hm. Then, how do I limit the just powers of a corportion from violating my rights? What means do I have? Is a private corporation obligated to protect my Individual rights? If so, then, why? If not, then, why not?

Additionally, can a private corporation repent? What moral duty does a private corporation have to protect my rights? Does a private corporation have a moral duty to adhere to God's Law? The Natural Law? If so, then, how so? If not, then, why not? As you may know, what is legal is seldom Lawful. Do you know what I mean when I say this?

 

[lilymc]

Very good, lil.

Any authority is a hierarchy. So to that extent one must either redefine freedom or redefine a hierarchy.

Hierarchy=State.

Hierarchy=Classes

With hierarchy, consent is limited.

And thank you for clarifying the historical definition of anarchy.

Too often, people want to change definitions to suit their whims. Or change change the words around and add an ism to it to create a different way they want it to be defined according to their own indulgences.

And you're right. Rights come from God. They are not arbitrated by worldly entities.

The very fact that it is said that worldly entities are the arbitrators of one's rights should signal the want for a tyrannical rule like we have never witnessed. Traditionally, these are people whom are overly full of their own self-importance. The are people who define moral code by their worldly whim and not by the Natural Law.

Thanks. I missed this post before. And yeah, I think that is what happened… people have changed the definition of anarchy, and there are different varieties of it. And that is what I wanted to get clarified, because as you know I usually don't even read these anarchy threads let alone post on them.

 

[Natural Citizen]

And you didn't answer my question on your thought on Rom 13, lil.

 

[lilymc]

Okay. Hm. Then, how do I limit the just powers of a corportion from violating my rights? What means do I have?

Additionally, can a private corporation repent? What moral duty does a private corporation have to protect my rights? Does a private corporation have a moral duty to adhere to God's Law? The Natural Law? If so, then, how so? If not, then, why not? As you may know, what is legal is seldom Lawful. Do you know what I mean when I say this?

Good questions, and I'd be interested in hearing what the anarchists here have to say about this. Especially those who believe in God.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Good questions, and I'd be interested in hearing what the anarchists here have to say about this. Especially those who believe in God.

Me, too. But since you agee with them and you're here, I was wondering what you had to say about it. If you feel so led to offer your justification. Is a private corporation obligated to protect my Individual, God-given, rights? If so, then, why? If not, then, why not?

Thanks

 

[lilymc]

And you didn't answer my question on your thought on Rom 13, lil.

What about it in particular? I do believe we are supposed to obey the law, and authorities, but not if they contradict divine law.

In other words, if it comes down to choosing between man-made laws and God's law, as a believer I put God's law first.

Or were you asking something else in regard to the Romans 13?

 

[Natural Citizen]

What about it in particular? I do believe we are supposed to obey the law, and authorities, but not if they contradict divine law.

In other words, if it comes down to choosing between man-made laws and God's law, as a believer I put God's law first.

Or were you asking something else in regard to the Romans 13?

Well, wait a minute. Since when is your right to offer or decline consent secured under a stateless society? The private entity has no moral duty to protect your right so what makes you think you have the right to decline? You're a customer. Nothing else. No only that, but they, as property owners, decide your rights.

Ask them and see what they tell you.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You act worldly. And you act religious. Are you challenging me to prove it, HB? Say you are. Do it.

And you didn't answer my question.

You reject the constitution, the founders, the very nature of the founding of our great nation, right? I'll cut you a break on the declaration, butI'm not too sure about that in its entirety. I'm, sure you find fault in it as well.

So, am I right, HB? You reject these people and things, right? Answer my question, please, so that we may discover your interest in the thread.

I reject the constitution, some of the founders, and WRT "the very nature of the founding of our great nation"-depends on how you define that. If you actually read the founders you'd know they all had differing opinions on pretty much everything.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I reject the constitution, some of the founders, and WRT "the very nature of the founding of our great nation"-depends on how you define that. If you actually read the founders you'd know they all had differing opinions on pretty much everything.

Yes, I know. I just wanted to see you admit to it so that we know your stake in this debate.

Thank You.

 

[lilymc]

Me, too. But since you agee with them and you're here, I was wondering what you had to say about it. If you feel so led to offer your justification. Is a private corporation obligated to protect my Individual, God-given, rights? If so, then, why? If not, then, why not?

Thanks

First, I don't agree with them. Again, what I meant was that I wouldn't be opposed to trying that, simply because what we have now is completely corrupt and getting worse as time goes on.

That said, you do bring up a very good point. No, a private corporation is not obligated to protect our inalienable God-given rights. I guess it's possible that the public would support an "arbitration group" that does recognize natural law and the idea that our rights are inalienable. As a son of liberty put it, the good groups would "rise to the top." But, if the people do not understand the true nature of our rights, then that's a different story.

Again, I want to hear what the anarchists here have to say about that.

Well, wait a minute. Since when is your right to offer or decline consent secured under a stateless society? The private entity has no moral duty to protect your right so what makes you think you have the right to decline? You're a customer. Nothing else. No only that, but they, as property owners, decide your rights.

Ask them and see what they tell you.

I get what you're saying, but I'm just saying that I will always put God first, in the event that it comes down to choosing an unjust man-made law or divine law.

 

[Lamp]

Bid thy cousin/ sus domesticus/ friends with benefits the kais'r himself hath said good morrow. Tis fine Cletus Billy Bob Jr. The 3rd? Tis fine. Thee big loveable inbr'd hill of lard thou. F'r thou hast gone out of the way to stalk mine own threads and be'est an insuff'rable fudgepack'r who doth have no life.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes, I know. I just wanted to see you admit to it so that we know your stake in this debate.

Thank You.

y/w Patrick Henry, et al have my back on this one too, bro.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Again, I want to hear what the anarchists here have to say about that.

They're not anarchists.

Anarchists reject coercion. Anarchists reject private property rights. Anarchists reject capitalism.

 

[lilymc]

They're not anarchists.

Anarchists reject coercion. Anarchists reject private property rights. Anarchists reject capitalism.

Not to change the topic and open up a whole new can of worms, but another contradiction that I see is people who claim to be against "might makes right" yet daily support slaughtering innocent, vulnerable animals simply because they want to satisfy their tastebuds.

Unless it's necessary, I think that's a clear-cut example of "might makes right."


*Puts on flame suit*

 

[Natural Citizen]

Not to change the topic and open up a whole new can of worms, but another contradiction that I see is people who claim to be against "might makes right" yet daily support slaughtering innocent, vulnerable animals simply because they want to satisfy their tastebuds.

Unless it's necessary, I think that's a clear-cut example of "might makes right."


*Puts on flame suit*

Well. it's interesting to note that our confused friends who think they're anarchists tend to try to separate the means from the end, now isn't it?

It's very convenient to try to run with the principles and ditch the primary foundation for moral code that defines said principles, isnt it?

All on has to do is reject God as the giver of rights and deem oneself his own foundation for moral code.

Of course, this is how we've ended up with people like Hitler throughout history.

Then, again, Hitler was destroyed. As was his government.

Really, this is the main thing to worry about when peope want to play cowboy. The biggest fear is another government who doesn't agree with you. They will come with guns, gernades, tanks, soldiers, drones and bubble gum and they will mop the streets with the blood of those whom they disagree with.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Well. it's interesting to note that our confused friends who think they're anarchists tend to try to separate the means from the end, now isn't it?

It's very convenient to try to run with the principles and ditch the primary foundation for moral code that defines said principles, isnt it?

All on has to do is reject God as the giver of rights and deem oneself his own foundation for moral code.

Of course, this is how we've ended up with people like Hitler throughout history.

Then, again, Hitler was destroyed. As was his government.

Really, this is the main thing to worry about when peope want to play cowboy. The biggest fear is another government who doesn't agree with you. They will come with guns, gernades, tanks, soldiers, drones and bubble gum and they will mop the streets with the blood of those whom they disagree with.

Meh, statists are the ones who have rejected God from the beginning. 1 Kings 8:6. They continue to do so as they make the Godless secular State master of their lives.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Meh, statists are the ones who have rejected God from the beginning. 1 Kings 8:6

Exactly. Thank You.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Anyway. This thread is boring now. And you people are pretty much defeated since you haven't offered any reason why coercion cannot exist in an anarcho-capitalist society.

End of the day, it's simple. If I, as an anarchist, do not pay you for your services, what are you going to do about it? Hm? What. Nothing? Ha. If you do nothing to coerce me into paying, then, I have no motivation to pay and your society crumbles under its own weight. Capitalism cannot work without a coercive act to secure payment for services whether it be private court or threat of a private bullet. Either way, it's coercion.

The only thing you guys have demostrated is distaste for another government cutting into your share of the turf.

 

[lilymc]

Meh, statists are the ones who have rejected God from the beginning. 1 Kings 8:6

Very true, but I think he's saying that if one rejects the foundation for our rights, then ultimately anything goes. You may not have a State, but you will have something that's just as bad as the State, if people disregard the true nature of our rights or believe that morals are subjective.