Should Libertarians support anarcho-capitalism?

[Origanalist]

License, you mean? I dunno. But, like the rest of us, he knows that anarchy and capitalism are oxymorons. lol.

Define "us". Do you have a bunch of people in your head?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Define "us". Do you have a bunch of people in your head?

Us means 'not you.'

You've proven yourself to be a poor contributor to the discussion. And in most discussions, to be frankly honest.

You should grab yourself another couple of milwaukee's best and go back to the picture thread, O. I believe you own 2/3 of the contributions there. That's more up your alley. If we need a unicorn meme, we'll whistle for you. Okay?

Leave this discussion to the adults.

Pst...

 

[Origanalist]

Us means 'not you.'

You've proven yourself to be a poor contributor to the discussion. And in most discussions, to be frankly honest.

You should grab yourself another couple of milwaukee's best and go back to the picture thread, O. I believe you own 2/3 of the contributions there. That's more up your alley. If we need a unicorn meme, we'll whistle for you. Okay?

Leave this discussion to the adults.

Pst...

You mean the grown ups like the guy with the gay Achilles avatar? Lol, no.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Hey, does anarcho-capitalism allow me to manufacture and sell chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons to whomever I want?

So. Can I? What's to stop me? Hm? What?

 

[Swordsmyth]

So. Can I? What's to stop me? Hm? What?

Don't forget inviting foreign armies to set up a base on your land.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Hey r3v... Nice ass.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

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

It troubles you because your guiding principle seems to be 'order'. Perhaps not, but this statement makes it seem so.

You argue that practically we cannot have a stateless society because some subset of humanity will organize themselves into a State and destroy or enslave the stateless society. Fine. That's not a philosophical argument against the stateless society, it's a practical argument against it. Can you give me a philosophical argument for the State which aligns with the nature of Man?

Also, I do honestly understand the practical argument for the State. But I have to wonder why you folks like to point out that there has never been a successful stateless society (even tho' that's not really accurate, and additionally that the kind of stateless society we advocate here hasn't ever really been tried) yet can't acknowledge that the very order of society YOU advocate HAS in fact been tried and has in fact FAILED SPECTACULARLY.

 

[LibertyEagle]

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

No "us" for you. You are for world government. The rest of "us" are not.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

No "us" for you. You are for world government. The rest of "us" are not.

Says the Trumpet.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Says the Trumpet.

Wow, that was deep. When do you graduate 6th grade?

 

[The Rebel Poet]

No "us" for you. You are for world government. The rest of "us" are not.

You lost the ability to be an "us" here when you tried to derail an activist thread. When is [MENTION=2]Bryan[/MENTION] going to ban Eagle? Why don't we all work to help Gunny and save these arguments for another time? http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?515690-Glen-Bradley-Announces-for-NC-House-7!

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Liberty occurs only when individuals advocate for it for themselves. You are advocating for world government. It is you that are condescending to people. If people don't want it, who are you or I to tell them otherwise?

There it is again, that troubling attitude...

The goal should be the maximization of human liberty.

If a given political system doesn't do that, we shouldn't be advocating for it.

That a political system could work if people were different than they are doesn't improve the case for that system.

It's like your insisting that we all put water in our gas tanks, because water should run an internal combustion engine.

It troubles you because your guiding principle seems to be 'order'. Perhaps not, but this statement makes it seem so.

My guiding principle is maximizing human liberty.

You argue that practically we cannot have a stateless society because some subset of humanity will organize themselves into a State and destroy or enslave the stateless society.

Right

That's not a philosophical argument against the stateless society, it's a practical argument against it.

Yes, the argument against anarchism is a practical one.

Can you give me a philosophical argument for the State which aligns with the nature of Man?

I'm not sure what you mean..

Also, I do honestly understand the practical argument for the State. But I have to wonder why you folks like to point out that there has never been a successful stateless society (even tho' that's not really accurate, and additionally that the kind of stateless society we advocate here hasn't ever really been tried) yet can't acknowledge that the very order of society YOU advocate HAS in fact been tried and has in fact FAILED SPECTACULARLY.

Failed how, and in comparison to what?

 

[Pericles]

In short, no.

A free market in security (anarcho-capitalism) would be superior to a security monopoly (a state).

The problem is that a free market in security cannot actually exist.

Market analysis begins with the assumption that property rights are respected: e.g. statements like "to profit, one must sell something that people want" is true only if theft isn't a viable alternative. Anarcho-capitalists just assume that the absence of the state means the presence of a free market for security: i.e. that there would be no opportunities to profit by criminal means (or that people would voluntarily abstain from exploiting those opportunities out of respect for libertarian ideals). This is wishful thinking.

The reality is that, if the state were abolished, the people with the guns would not form private defense agencies and peacefully compete for willing customers. Rather, they would use their guns to steal what they wanted, because that's more profitable. Then they would war with one another over who gets to steal from which area, and ultimately coalesce into new states (as has occurred throughout history upon the collapse of a state).

Anarcho-capitalists might object that a small minority of violent people could not successfully rule the peaceful majority, but they would be arguing against the overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary. In the end, anarcho-capitalism has much in common with utopian communism, in that it too requires a New Man to make the scheme plausible.

Libertarians should abandon anarchism, accept the inevitability of the state, and focus on creating a more liberal state.



It wasn't designed to do so, but that's often its effect, yes.

/thread Anarchist have much in common with communists. There is a temptation to rewrite history to ignore that this is in fact the history of mankind.

Along with the idea that if everybody was a voluntaryist, the concept would work perfectly.

 

[Pericles]

It troubles you because your guiding principle seems to be 'order'. Perhaps not, but this statement makes it seem so.

You argue that practically we cannot have a stateless society because some subset of humanity will organize themselves into a State and destroy or enslave the stateless society. Fine. That's not a philosophical argument against the stateless society, it's a practical argument against it. Can you give me a philosophical argument for the State which aligns with the nature of Man?

Also, I do honestly understand the practical argument for the State. But I have to wonder why you folks like to point out that there has never been a successful stateless society (even tho' that's not really accurate, and additionally that the kind of stateless society we advocate here hasn't ever really been tried) yet can't acknowledge that the very order of society YOU advocate HAS in fact been tried and has in fact FAILED SPECTACULARLY.

Philosophically, communism works very well. The test of any theory is reality.

 

[Pericles]

How's their scorecard?

About as good as private security services that returned escaped slaves to their owners.

 

[LibertyEagle]

You lost the ability to be an "us" here when you tried to derail an activist thread. When is [MENTION=2]Bryan[/MENTION] going to ban Eagle? Why don't we all work to help Gunny and save these arguments for another time? http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?515690-Glen-Bradley-Announces-for-NC-House-7!

Actually, I was "us" years before you bothered to show up. Back when people actually got off their ass and did something, besides flap their gums. It was amazing back then.

Are you upset that your threads bitching about both Bryan and me were shut down over in Orignalist's little forum? Are you still sending out tweets to members here, trying to pull them over there?

 

[Pericles]

I believe that violence, except in defense of natural rights, is always wrong. If my neighbor extorts 20k from me with the threat of violence, it is a crime. If my neighbors band together to do so, it is not justified simply because they've all agreed to do it.

The issue as you correctly point out is the same - protection of your property rights. Effective organization for the purpose of violating your rights is the problem, whether that organization is called the police, ACME security Service, the Sinaloa Cartel, or no name gang incorporated. Depriving an organization from obtaining a charter to operate does not solve that problem.

 

[Madison320]

+rep, sir.

I'm surprised to see a member whom I recognize to be somewhat of a regular here to make such a foolish statement.

I'm staggered that such a woeful misunderstanding of our view of statelessness/voluntarism persists here, after literally YEARS of debate on the topic.

The only thing worse than being rude is being wrong and rude.

"Varnell City Council votes 3-1 to disband the agency, putting Whitfield County Sheriff's Office in charge of law enforcement."

Thank you Swordsmyth.

 

[Madison320]

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

Although the idea that "anarchy" can even give results is misleading. My argument is basically that the state of anarchy is impossible as long as force exists. An anarchy is an unsealed vacuum waiting for air to rush in.

 

[Madison320]

[h=2]Varnell City Council votes 3-1 to disband the agency, putting Whitfield County Sheriff's Office in charge of law enforcement[/h]

LOL!

I wonder if they'll apologize for call me "foolish".