Should Libertarians support anarcho-capitalism?

otherone said:
here' a link for a list of current anarchist societies. You'll have to scroll down past the list of current minarchies first.
Click to expand...


Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, Australia. Those are the top 5 on the Heritage economic freedom list. Obviously not perfect but compare that to the bottom 5, Eritrea, Republic of Congo, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea.
 
lilymc said:
Everyone is always looking for some sort of Utopia on earth. The anarchists remind me of communists who seem to sincerely believe that their system can really work if we just try it! :)
Click to expand...

Why do you assume an anarchist believes the lack of a state would lead to utopia? Did anyone claim that here or anywhere?

I get it. You folks don't like the idea of private law. People with money would just bribe the judges. We need a state because you don't have injustice in state courts.

You don't like the idea of private security. Someone else's security agency would attack you and steal from you if you couldn't afford to hire your own to protect you. We need a state because government police don't attack innocent people or steal from them.

You don't like the idea of private security because they would just attack each other in an attempt to become governments and rule over everyone. We need a state because they have no need for wars of aggression.

All of the shitty things that happen in the world now would happen with or without a state ruling over you. The questions are, would private people making their own decisions lead to better solutions, and if a state does nothing to eliminate the bad things, but often exacerbates them, then why institutionalize making people slaves to them?
 
The Gold Standard said:
Why do you assume an anarchist believes the lack of a state would lead to utopia? Did anyone claim that here or anywhere?

I get it. You folks don't like the idea of private law. People with money would just bribe the judges. We need a state because you don't have injustice in state courts.

You don't like the idea of private security. Someone else's security agency would attack you and steal from you if you couldn't afford to hire your own to protect you. We need a state because government police don't attack innocent people or steal from them.

You don't like the idea of private security because they would just attack each other in an attempt to become governments and rule over everyone. We need a state because they have no need for wars of aggression.

All of the $#@!ty things that happen in the world now would happen with or without a state ruling over you. The questions are, would private people making their own decisions lead to better solutions, and if a state does nothing to eliminate the bad things, but often exacerbates them, then why institutionalize making people slaves to them?
Click to expand...

A state reduces injustice, we do not claim it eliminates it, and those private agencies would end up imposing themselves on everyone and becoming a tyrannical state, the best option is to beat them to the punch and create a state designed to minimize injustice.
 
Swordsmyth said:
A state reduces injustice, we do not claim it eliminates it, and those private agencies would end up imposing themselves on everyone and becoming a tyrannical state, the best option is to beat them to the punch and create a state designed to minimize injustice.
Click to expand...

The problem with anarchists is that they view all actions as the same. They don't split them into force actions and voluntary actions. The ideal is situation is for government to prevent force actions but allow voluntary actions. Anarchists don't understand the difference between voluntary and force. They observe that when the government tends to leave voluntary actions alone, it's a good thing so they think if the government leaves force actions alone it will also be a good thing.
 
Madison320 said:
The problem with anarchists is that they view all actions as the same.
Click to expand...

Ancaps are not Anarchists. Anarchy and capitalism are polar opposite in principle. Therefore they cannot be hyphenated in application. These words can only be hyphenated verbally.

These people are not Anarchists.

It comes down to definition in application.

Hopefully an ancap will give us their definition of Anarchism. None have yet to do so fruitfully.
 
Last edited:
Any power, any hierarchy, whether private or not, needs only to exist to be feared. the minute you employ a hierarchy of any sort, you employ a coercive mechanism that causes a fear of government-over-man. You've created a state. You are lo longer an anarcist. You are a government. Bottom line.

And that's okay. Just be honest about it. Don't say that you're anti-state when you are, in fact, creating a state. lol.
 
Last edited:
The Gold Standard said:
I get it. You folks don't like the idea of private law.
Click to expand...

To repeat, any hierarchy needs only to exist to be feared. Whether private or not. Any law is coercion whether private or not. Any entity which arbitrates legalities is a hierarchy. An authority. Coercion is coercion is coercion. Real Anarachists reject coercion of any kind. Real Anarchsts particularly reject the nature off anything that is private.

The very second that you introduce coercion in any enforceable, applicable, way, you are no longer an anarchist because you establish a means to cause fear of government-over-man. All you're doing is trading one state for another state.


People with money would just bribe the judges. We need a state because you don't have injustice in state courts.
Click to expand...

Nyooooo. I would opt out of your private police and private courts and I would compete with you with my own private police and my own private courts until I had monopoly and you were out of business. This is the nature of competitive capitalism. That's what I'd do.

Now, what do you think is going to happen when we disagree? I'll tell you how it's going to end. I'm going to hire all of your private police and I'm going to hire your private court because they have no moral obligation to work for you. Or do they? Do they have a moral obligation of any kind? If so, then, what its it?

The only obligation they have is to make money. Then we're gonna take over. We're going to come over to your house and we're gonna blow you off the face of the earth and we're gonna say wut..wut now? I'm offering private security, who wants some? Also I now have a private garden, a private fire company, a private mill, a private gas station, heck, I have a private everything all of a sudden.

What is there to stop me, Gold Standard? Is there anything to stop me from doing that? What's to stop me? If there is, then, what is it? Tell me.

Surely it's easy for you guys to ask what's to stop you from doing it. But you never ask what's to stop me from doing it. And therein lies your shortcoming.

You don't like the idea of private security. Someone else's security agency would attack you and steal from you if you couldn't afford to hire your own to protect you. We need a state because government police don't attack innocent people or steal from them.
Click to expand...

You're already a state by the fact that you employ police and courts. Again, any hierarchy need only exist in order to be feared. Fear of government-over-man.
 
Last edited:
Natural Citizen said:
To repeat, any hierarchy needs only to exist to be feared. Whether private or not. Any legality is coercion. Coercion is coercion is coercion. Real Anarachists reject coercion of any kind. Real Anarchsts particularly reject the nature off anything that is private.

The very second that you introduce coercion in any enforeceable, applicable, way, you are no longer an anarchist because you establish a means to cause fear of government-over-man.
Click to expand...

Another problem with anarchists is that they can only make vague, abstract arguments. It's harder to get specifics out of an anarchist than it is to get an answer from Zippy. Suppose you have a small island and you want to make it an anarchy. How's that going to work? How're you going to defend the island from invaders? How're you going to handle criminals? You probably won't get an answer. It's "beneath" them to deal with the real world.
 
Madison320 said:
Another problem with anarchists is that they can only make vague, abstract arguments. It's harder to get specifics out of an anarchist than it is to get an answer from Zippy. Suppose you have a small island and you want to make it an anarchy. How's that going to work? How're you going to defend the island from invaders? How're you going to handle criminals? You probably won't get an answer. It's "beneath" them to deal with the real world.
Click to expand...

Wut? You've gotten extremely, ridiculously specific and detailed answers. You just don't want to fucking read. You want to be spoon-fed. It's y'all CONstitutionalist minarchists who have yet to come up with a coherent legal theory after 200+ years of opportunity to work on it.
 
heavenlyboy34 said:
Wut? You've gotten extremely, ridiculously specific and detailed answers. You just don't want to $#@!ing read. You want to be spoon-fed. It's y'all CONstitutionalist minarchists who have yet to come up with a coherent legal theory after 200+ years of opportunity to work on it.
Click to expand...

I think the following question narrows the whole thing down:

You want to establish a small island as an anarchy. How are you going to defend the island from invaders?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
Why Do Some Libertarians Support Socialism?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
286
acptulsa
acptulsa
PAF
Globalists Are Rebranding Their “Woke Capitalism” Agenda After Crushing Setbacks
Replies
16
Views
183
devil21
D
PAF
The Dark MAGA Gov-Corp Technate
Replies
5
Views
130
TheTexan
TheTexan
Occam's Banana
Debate: libertarians should vote for Kamala Harris (Eakle vs. Fitzgerald)
Replies
3
Views
4K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
PAF
Javier Milei, Libertarian Anarcho-Capitalist
Replies
17
Views
4K
acptulsa
acptulsa
Back
Top