Should Libertarians support anarcho-capitalism?

[otherone]

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.

A state provides it's people with the illusion of security and order. Until it doesn't.

 

[Swordsmyth]

A state provides it's people with the illusion of security and order. Until it doesn't.

A state provides it's people with a semblance of security and order. Until it doesn't.

Anarchy doesn't even provide that.

 

[otherone]

A state provides it's people with a semblance of security and order. Until it doesn't.

Anarchy doesn't even provide that.

You are correct. But the taxes are less.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You are correct. But the taxes are less.

But the losses to theft and pillage are greater.

 

[otherone]

But the losses to theft and pillage are greater.

You haven't seen my tax bill.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You haven't seen my tax bill.

Brigands and conquerors tend to take EVERYTHING you own, often including your life.

 

[otherone]

Brigands and conquerors tend to take EVERYTHING you own, often including your life.

Yes. Fear is the diet of the state. People take comfort in the actual annual pound of flesh extracted, providing it diminishes the possibility of phantoms, bugbears and brigands. But the brigands remain, in defiance of the state. The difference is the people are robbed twice.

 

[otherone]

Brigands and conquerors tend to take EVERYTHING you own, often including your life.

Whose responsibility is it to secure your family, your life, and your possessions?

 

[Swordsmyth]

Yes. Fear is the diet of the state. People take comfort in the actual annual pound of flesh extracted, providing it diminishes the possibility of phantoms, bugbears and brigands. But the brigands remain, in defiance of the state. The difference is the people are robbed twice.

Most people are never robbed by criminals in a properly run state and the conquests are held off for a lot longer as well.

Whose responsibility is it to secure your family, your life, and your possessions?

Mine and the state's.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

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

I think this is illustrative of the ancap mentality in general, and why it troubles some of us.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Originally Posted by otherone

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

I think this is illustrative of the ancap mentality in general, and why it troubles some of us.

Precisely. And precisely. I, too, think it's illustrative of the ancap mentality in general. And, this, too, is what I find so troublesome about it.

 

[otherone]

I think this is illustrative of the ancap mentality in general, and why it troubles some of us.

Why?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Why?

If a form of political order results in tyranny, "well, they weren't zealous enough to survive, so F-em" isn't a good defense of that system.

The goal is maximizing human liberty, not just saying that people should want liberty, and condescending to them when they don't.

Liberalism is a humanitarian ideology; the well being of the people is the whole point.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Liberalism is a humanitarian ideology; the well being of the people is the whole point.

Your thought here echoes those of Mises.

Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace - Mises

In hindsight Mises' thoughts on it differed a bit from those of Rothbard...

For it should never be forgotten that a libertarian society does not mean the total absence of coercion but only the absence of coercion against noncriminals. Those who invade the rights of others by violence deserve their proper check and punishment by the force of law. - Rothbard

Of course, the difference comes down to definition. Likely Rothbard's biggest mistake was associating anarchy with his point of view since he, himself, opposed traditional anarchy in his early years.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Your thought here echoes those of Mises.

Well then, I'm in the best possible company.

In hindsight Mises' thoughts on it differed a bit from those of Rothbard...

Rothbard was an ancap, but his goal was never anything other than the maximization of human liberty.

He was never a "lifestyle libertarian."

He would have supported (and did support) any form of political organization at all if he thought it would have advanced liberty. It so happens that he was in good faith mistaken with respect to anarcho-capitalism, but as far as I'm concerned this detracts little/nothing from his achievements. He was the finest liberal scholar of the past century after Mises. The people at the LvMI (I continue on a tangent) are epigones, living in the master's shadow, unfortunately stuck on his one great error. They should pay more attention to their namesake.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Well then, I'm in the best possible company.



Rothbard was an ancap, but his goal was never anything other than the maximization of human liberty.

He was never a "lifestyle libertarian."

He would have supported (and did support) any form of political organization at all if he thought it would have advanced liberty. It so happens that he was in good faith mistaken with respect to anarcho-capitalism, but as far as I'm concerned this detracts little/nothing from his achievements. He was the finest liberal scholar of the past century after Mises. The people at the LvMI (I continue on a tangent) are epigones, living in the master's shadow, unfortunately stuck on his one great error. They should pay more attention to their namesake.

Yeah. You beat me to it, I'd went back and edited my post to acknowledge your point with regard to Rothbard. Agreed.

 

[lilymc]

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.

Wait a second... I want to be clear on your position. Are you saying that it always boils down to might makes right because of corrupt people, but in your view might makes right is false? Or do you believe that "might makes right" is the actual reality? To put it another way, do you believe in natural law / divine law?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Yeah. You beat me to it, I'd went back and edited my post to acknowledge your point with regard to Rothbard. Agreed.

Anarcho-capitalism is an extremely appealing idea, you know.

Shoes are better made on a market than by a monopoly.

Beans are better made on a market than by a monopoly.

...etc

It only makes sense that the securing of property would itself also be best accomplished on a market, at first glance.

I don't want to insult our ancap allies too much - and they are allies, despite our disagreements - but it makes sense that a young person who just discovered libertarianism, who just started thinking about economics, about the natural (or God-given, as your perspective may be) beauty of the market economy, about the invisible hand, etc, would want to apply that to everything, and buy into anarcho-capitalism. That's fine. But adherence to abstract principles without regard for their practical consequences is a mistake. Theory without practice is blind; practice without theory is retarded.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Anarcho-capitalism is an extremely appealing idea, you know.

Shoes are better made on a market than by a monopoly.

Beans are better made on a market than by a monopoly.

...etc

It only makes sense that the securing of property would itself also be best accomplished on a market, at first glance.

I don't want to insult our ancap allies too much - and they are allies, despite our disagreements - but it makes sense that a young person who just discovered libertarianism, who just started thinking about economics, about the natural (or God-given, as your perspective may be) beauty of the market economy, about the invisible hand, etc, would want to apply that to everything, and buy into anarcho-capitalism. That's fine. But adherence to abstract principles without regard for their practical consequences is a mistake. Theory without practice is blind; practice without theory is retarded.

Yeah. It does sound appealing to the less wise. Though, I still reject the hyphenation. As I said, they should at least go with what Hoppe was saying and call themselves Propertarians. It makes more sense.

I'm mixed about any cooperation, however. Which I hinted toward in the other thread about the site mission. While we may agree on some basic principles, we do disagree in their application.

The bigger issue is that we can't really use our forum for an educational platform. Not really. Reason being is that we get what is considered one of our own posting a unicorn meme dragging his ass with rainbow feces whenever we try to do so. And that's really all those types offer. So they work against us. They never really offer anything of any substance (though, otherone has made an effort in the last few communications) other than maybe a campaign donation once in a while. Just a meme to discredit anyone who they disagree with without having to actually provide any kind of dialogue as to why. It's self destruction for the site as far as credibility goes. It's comparable to driving some place and having your passenger keep grabbing the wheel and turning the car some place else. And most often toward a crash. It's amateurism mixed with recklessness and no concern at all with synergy to cause.

I've told Bryan before that we'd be better off completely changing the platform to a magazine type of site which allows facebook comments and other social media platform comments. That way there's a separation and we aren't judged as an Indivisible whole by anyone elses carelessness or disregard for cause. It's the only way that responsibility for incompetency and blatant disregard can be associated with an Individual as opposed to an innocent group of Individuals.

But, yes. anarcho-capitalism does look appealing if one hasn't yet learned to reason otherwise.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Yeah. It does sound appealing to the less wise. Though, I still reject the hyphenation. As I said, they should at least go with what Hoppe was saying and call themselves Propertarians. It makes more sense.

I'm mixed about any cooperation, however. Which I hinted toward in the other thread about the site mission. While we may agree on some basic principles, we do disagree in their application.

The bigger issue is that we can't really use our forum for an educational platform. Not really. Reason being is that we get what is considered one of our own posting a unicorn meme dragging his ass with rainbow feces whenever we try to do so. And that's really all those types offer. So they work against us. They never really offer anything of any substance (though, otherone has made an effort in the last few communications) other than maybe a campaign donation once in a while. Just a meme to discredit anyone who they disagree with without having to actually provide any kind of dialogue as to why. It's self destruction for the site as far as credibility goes. It's comparable to driving some place and having your passenger keep grabbing the wheel and turning the car some place else. And most often toward a crash. It's amateurism mixed with recklessness and no concern at all with synergy to cause.

I've told Bryan before that we'd be better off completely changing the platform to a magazine type of site which allows facebook comments and other social media platform comments. That way there's a separation and we aren't judged as an Indivisible whole by anyone elses carelessness or disregard for cause. It's the only way that responsibility for incompetency and blatant disregard can be associated with an Individual as opposed to an innocent group of Individuals.

But, yes. anarcho-capitalism does look appealing if one hasn't yet learned to reason otherwise.

Well, people say (and believe) a lot of really stupid horseshit..

Not that it's up to either of us (...), but if it were up to me, I wouldn't ban any ancaps for being ancaps, ever. But, I would consider, in election season, in relation to one of our own candidates like Rand, suspending those who insist on shitting on efforts to work w/in the electoral system (what should have been done last time *cough*moderation*cough*). I hope we have this problem to deal with in, what, 20 months or so... If there ends up being a contested primary, and Rand runs, that'll be a decisive moment for this forum.