Should Libertarians support anarcho-capitalism?

[Natural Citizen]

I'd prefer to avoid over-simplistic labels. IRT your definition of "Minarchy", what you've described is not a state. In reference to what constitutes a "state", I gave an explicit definition in an earlier post in this thread. Your other questions concern labels, not ideologies.

No. You're afraid of establishing operating definitions. And this is of no surprise.

To your credit, you're smart enough to know the outcome.

I knew you'd run.

 

[Swordsmyth]

The continental congress was not a state.

It was a construct of states, it would not have existed without the states.

 

[otherone]

Their "volunteer" status was dubious, Sparta was military cult and the other city states required membership in the army and the ownership of expensive military equipment if you wanted citizenship and voting rights (a poll tax and a draft rolled into one), those who did not or could not do so were ruled by those who did.

Yes, I read that. None of that counters anything I've written. The point has been, and continues to be, that those who defend their communities do not require compulsion to fight. You have been saying that a state needs to compel service, even in defiance of the will of the people it's supposed to represent.

 

[otherone]

No. You're afraid of establishing operating definitions. And this is of no surprise.

To your credit, you're smart enough to know the outcome.

I knew you'd run.

Refusing to bow to your strawmen is not running. Have you read my definition of "state"? Or are you running?

 

[Swordsmyth]

Yes, I read that. None of that counters anything I've written. The point has been, and continues to be, that those who defend their communities do not require compulsion to fight. You have been saying that a state needs to compel service, even in defiance of the will of the people it's supposed to represent.

Relegation to second class subject status for not serving is not compulsion?

I have never said military service should be compelled, I have said it must be paid for and that a state is required to pay for it.

 

[otherone]

It was a construct of states, it would not have existed without the states.

It was a voluntary organization.

 

[Swordsmyth]

It was a voluntary organization.

Of involuntary states.

 

[otherone]

Relegation to second class subject status for not serving is not compulsion?

I have never said military service should be compelled, I have said it must be paid for and that a state is required to pay for it.

Ah. TAXES.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Ah. TAXES.

And the foreign conquerors won't impose them?

They are as unavoidable as death my friend.

 

[lilymc]

There is a difference between coercion and consequences, and the answer to that question depends on who you ask.

That's very vague. Who decides? And what do you do if the person you're in a dispute with says "to hell with your 'consequences.'"? It seems to me that it will eventually boil down to might makes right. Which is the very thing you guys claim to be against.

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)

Sounds great but it didn't answer either of my questions.

 

[otherone]

Of involuntary states.

Local representative government, coupled with choice, is far superior to your monolithic central government. But in the interest of "national security", you argue against decentralization. There is nothing about statelessness that prohibits banding together with other stateless communities in the interest of mutual needs, both in defense or economics, providing it is voluntary. IRT foreign aggressors, states have been conquered as readily as stateless societies.

 

[otherone]

And the foreign conquerors won't impose them?

They are as unavoidable as death my friend.

One can dream.

 

[otherone]

That's very vague. Who decides? And what do you do if the person you're in a dispute with says "to hell with your 'consequences.'"? It seems to me that it will eventually boil down to might makes right. Which is the very thing you guys claim to be against.

Everything boils down to "might makes right". The difference is that people believe the state's might is desirable, necessary and objective, and thus moral. This dovetails nicely with the "The Rule of Law is a Myth" thread. People revere the "Law", as they believe it is transcendent.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Local representative government, coupled with choice, is far superior to your monolithic central government. But in the interest of "national security", you argue against decentralization.

The colonies were involuntary states, therefore the revolutionary war does not support your argument, and I have never argued against decentralization, every concept has it's limits though.

There is nothing about statelessness that prohibits banding together with other stateless communities in the interest of mutual needs, both in defense or economics, providing it is voluntary.

And they will still not be able to defend themselves against a better organized state.

IRT foreign aggressors, states have been conquered as readily as stateless societies.

Your assertion does not make it true, and as military technology becomes more complex and expensive the state becomes ever more necessary.

 

[Swordsmyth]

One can dream.

I can dream of flying under my own power too, but I wouldn't recommend jumping off your roof.

 

[otherone]

Your assertion does not make it true, and as military technology becomes more complex and expensive the state becomes ever more necessary.

It's manifest. Recorded History is the story of one state conquering another.
Your technology comment is simply a rehashing of the "muh roads" argument.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Everything boils down to "might makes right". The difference is that people believe the state's might is desirable, necessary and objective, and thus moral. This dovetails nicely with the "The Rule of Law is a Myth" thread. People revere the "Law", as they believe it is transcendent.

A state can be an attempt to provide equal justice and protection under the law, anarchy is surrender to the law of the jungle and then to the first naked tyrant to come along.

A state is unlikely to provide perfect results but it will provide better results than anarchy.

 

[Swordsmyth]

It's manifest. Recorded History is the story of one state conquering another.

It has even more cases of states conquering stateless societies

Your technology comment is simply a rehashing of the "muh roads" argument.

No it is not.

 

[otherone]

I can dream of flying under my own power too, but I wouldn't recommend jumping off your roof.

Quite.
But you are correct in that anarchy is impossible. People simply don't want it. The preference is for feeling safe rather than being free.
Maybe the forum should be renamed "Ron Paul Forums: The Security Blanket"

 

[Swordsmyth]

Quite.
But you are correct in that anarchy is impossible. People simply don't want it. The preference is for feeling safe rather than being free.
Maybe the forum should be renamed "Ron Paul Forums: The Security Blanket"

Or RPF: how to maximize liberty in an imperfect world.