Should Libertarians support anarcho-capitalism?

[Raginfridus]

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.

Proudhon himself scorned intellectual consistency. I don't think he'd mind if somebody associated as anarcho-capitalists.

 

[lilymc]

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.

Once again, we don't want to hear someone else's ideas in a long winded, poorly formatted wall of text. We want to hear what you guys genuinely believe, in your own words. A number of questions have been avoided. For example, a few pages back I asked a son of liberty if he considered private police, private courts or arbitration to be a form of authority. He didn't answer, in fact I don't think he's been back to this thread since then.

I also asked how you would handle criminals or people who reject your private enforcement agencies, if you claim to be against coercion? I get the feeling that anarchists believe that if we just get rid of the state, all of a sudden everyone is going to be peaceful and virtuous, similar to how communists believe we can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya. But that's not realistic, that goes directly against human nature. So, are you really against all authority and coercion? Or are you guys only against authority and coercion of "the state"?

 

[otherone]

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?

The state doesn't manufacture magic defenders. The same folks would defend it regardless of type of organization. If you believe people can't organize without a commissar behind them with a gun to their head, then I can see why you believe that compulsion is required.

 

[Swordsmyth]

The state doesn't manufacture magic defenders. The same folks would defend it regardless of type of organization. If you believe people can't organize without a commissar behind them with a gun to their head, then I can see why you believe that compulsion is required.

People must be PAYED to give up enough of their time to be competently trained and deployed, modern military arms and equipment are expensive as well.
Most people would go free-rider if anyone tried to pay mercenaries to defend the island and they would be too few and too ill equipped.
Those who employed the mercenaries would very likely end up using them to conquer the island themselves.

 

[otherone]

I also asked how you would handle criminals or people who reject your private enforcement agencies, if you claim to be against coercion? I get the feeling that anarchists believe that if we just get rid of the state, all of a sudden everyone is going to be peaceful and virtuous, similar to how communists believe we can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya. But that's not realistic, that goes directly against human nature. So, are you really against all authority and coercion? Or are you guys only against authority and coercion of "the state"?

There is a difference between coercion and consequences, and the answer to that question depends on who you ask. "Anarchy" is not one set idea, other than the abolition of the state. I define "the state" as an artificial third party. This third party has no rights, therefore cannot be a victim in civil or criminal matters. To claim otherwise is collectivism. Some may argue that a little collectivism is required to secure order. The problem with this is the degree of individual rights violations by the state is subjective. There is no template, other than majority consent.

 

[otherone]

People must be PAYED to give up enough of their time to be competently trained and deployed, modern military arms and equipment are expensive as well.
Most people would go free-rider if anyone tried to pay mercenaries to defend the island and they would be too few and too ill equipped.
Those who employed the mercenaries would very likely end up using them to conquer the island themselves.

If people can't be bothered to defend themselves from invaders without compulsion, then what difference does it make if they are conquered?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Once again, we don't want to hear someone else's ideas in a long winded, poorly formatted wall of text. We want to hear what you guys genuinely believe, in your own words. A number of questions have been avoided. For example, a few pages back I asked a son of liberty if he considered private police, private courts or arbitration to be a form of authority. He didn't answer, in fact I don't think he's been back to this thread since then.

I also asked how you would handle criminals or people who reject your private enforcement agencies, if you claim to be against coercion? I get the feeling that anarchists believe that if we just get rid of the state, all of a sudden everyone is going to be peaceful and virtuous, similar to how communists believe we can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya. But that's not realistic, that goes directly against human nature. So, are you really against all authority and coercion? Or are you guys only against authority and coercion of "the state"?

As we've been through a bazillion times on this and threads like it, it's about voluntary. I don't mind voluntary associations to protect property, life, liberty, etc. If you think this is egalitarian and unrealistic as communism, you should examine closely constitutionalism. (not the unrealistic and irrational promises, the practice)

 

[Madison320]

The state doesn't manufacture magic defenders. The same folks would defend it regardless of type of organization. If you believe people can't organize without a commissar behind them with a gun to their head, then I can see why you believe that compulsion is required.

Ok, do I have this correct? I asked the following:

"How are you going to defend the island from invaders?"

And your answer is:

"The people that live on the island would defend it"

Is that about right?

 

[Swordsmyth]

If people can't be bothered to defend themselves from invaders without compulsion, then what difference does it make if they are conquered?

Because sheep should be protected, it is the right thing to do, and if they get conquered you and I do as well, then you can enjoy the tyranny that anarchy always brings instead of the minarchy that might have delayed, limited or prevented it.

As always anarchy is a short sighted and heartless philosophy.

 

[Swordsmyth]

As we've been through a bazillion times on this and threads like it, it's about voluntary. I don't mind voluntary associations to protect property, life, liberty, etc. If you think this is egalitarian and unrealistic as communism, you should examine closely constitutionalism. (not the unrealistic and irrational promises, the practice)

It has better results than anarchy.

 

[otherone]

As we've been through a bazillion times on this and threads like it, it's about voluntary. I don't mind voluntary associations to protect property, life, liberty, etc.

This was the "intent" of the founders; a voluntary association, comprised of the constituent states, for the mutual benefit of it's members.

 

[otherone]

Because sheep should be protected, it is the right thing to do, and if they get conquered you and I do as well, then you can enjoy the tyranny that anarchy always brings instead of the minarchy that might have delayed, limited or prevented it.

As always anarchy is a short sighted and heartless philosophy.

My point was that people put effort and resources into those endeavors they find valuable.
Those who don't advocate for their own liberty won't have it, either due to invaders or your beneficent shepherd. Usually it is the interests of the shepherd that are being protected, not the herd.

 

[Madison320]

Ok, do I have this correct? I asked the following:

"How are you going to defend the island from invaders?"

And your answer is:

"The people that live on the island would defend it"

Is that about right?

Of course this is all the answer I'm going to get. The reason is that any organized attempt to protect the island from invaders results in a GOVERNMENT!

 

[Swordsmyth]

My point was that people put effort and resources into those endeavors they find valuable.
Those who don't advocate for their own liberty won't have it, either due to invaders or your beneficent shepherd. Usually it is the interests of the shepherd that are being protected, not the herd.

And the shepherds don't have the resources on their own but many sheep are willing to supply them IF everybody does.

THE PRISONERS DILEMMA:

Two members of a criminal gang are arrested and imprisoned. Each prisoner is in solitary confinement with no means of communicating with the other. The prosecutors lack sufficient evidence to convict the pair on the principal charge. They hope to get both sentenced to a year in prison on a lesser charge. Simultaneously, the prosecutors offer each prisoner a bargain. Each prisoner is given the opportunity either to: betray the other by testifying that the other committed the crime, or to cooperate with the other by remaining silent. The offer is:

• If A and B each betray the other, each of them serves 2 years in prison
• If A betrays B but B remains silent, A will be set free and B will serve 3 years in prison (and vice versa)
• If A and B both remain silent, both of them will only serve 1 year in prison (on the lesser charge)

Without the assurance that everyone else will share the costs everybody assumes that they will be betrayed and so they betray, or they are the ones who would betray in the first place.

 

[otherone]

Ok, do I have this correct? I asked the following:

"How are you going to defend the island from invaders?"

And your answer is:

"The people that live on the island would defend it"

Is that about right?

Yes. If the people wanted to. My point is that the same people who choose to fight for a state would choose to fight voluntarily in a stateless society. Are you arguing for organization? The same people within a state with the ability to lead would exist in a stateless society. Do you believe a standing army and conscripted soldiers are required to defend a community? If so, then if conflict is against the will of the people, then what's the point?

 

[Madison320]

As we've been through a bazillion times on this and threads like it, it's about voluntary. I don't mind voluntary associations to protect property, life, liberty, etc. If you think this is egalitarian and unrealistic as communism, you should examine closely constitutionalism. (not the unrealistic and irrational promises, the practice)

OK, let's suppose you want to defend your anarchy island voluntarily. You ask for voluntary donations to defend the island and get 20 volunteers and 100 ounces of gold. You go buy some weapons and train the volunteers in case of attack. Guess what. YOU are the government.

 

[otherone]

And the shepherds don't have the resources on their own but many sheep are willing to supply them IF everybody does.

THE PRISONERS DILEMMA:

Two members of a criminal gang are arrested and imprisoned. Each prisoner is in solitary confinement with no means of communicating with the other. The prosecutors lack sufficient evidence to convict the pair on the principal charge. They hope to get both sentenced to a year in prison on a lesser charge. Simultaneously, the prosecutors offer each prisoner a bargain. Each prisoner is given the opportunity either to: betray the other by testifying that the other committed the crime, or to cooperate with the other by remaining silent. The offer is:

• If A and B each betray the other, each of them serves 2 years in prison
• If A betrays B but B remains silent, A will be set free and B will serve 3 years in prison (and vice versa)
• If A and B both remain silent, both of them will only serve 1 year in prison (on the lesser charge)

Without the assurance that everyone else will share the costs everybody assumes that they will be betrayed and so they betray, or they are the ones who would betray in the first place.

Wars could not be fought without the people being eager to fight. The state relies upon this.

 

[otherone]

OK, let's suppose you want to defend your anarchy island voluntarily. You ask for voluntary donations to defend the island and get 20 volunteers and 100 ounces of gold. You go buy some weapons and train the volunteers in case of attack. Guess what. YOU are the government.

Your use of the term anarchy is misleading. In addition, you are confusing government and state. The purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual. When it violates individual rights to do so, it becomes the state.

 

[Madison320]

Yes. If the people wanted to. My point is that the same people who choose to fight for a state would choose to fight voluntarily in a stateless society. Are you arguing for organization? The same people within a state with the ability to lead would exist in a stateless society. Do you believe a standing army and conscripted soldiers are required to defend a community? If so, then if conflict is against the will of the people, then what's the point?

As soon as you organize a defense, that IS the government!

The point you are missing is that ANY organized defense IS government. It doesn't matter whether it was organized voluntarily or not. Someone leads it. Somone has access to more force than anyone else and is now making the decisions.

 

[otherone]

As soon as you organize a defense, that IS the government!

The point you are missing is that ANY organized defense IS government. It doesn't matter whether it was organized voluntarily or not. Someone leads it. Somone has access to more force than anyone else and is now making the decisions.

Individuals will always have varying degrees of force at their disposal. If the individual violates someone's rights, he is a criminal.