Should Libertarians support anarcho-capitalism?

[lilymc]

/thread Anarchist have much in common with communists. There is a temptation to rewrite history...

That's pretty much what I've been saying. Some of the anarchists' comments here remind me of communists who always say, "but Communism just hasn't been tried the right way yet!" Earlier on this thread I said that I'm all for trying it, because it sounds good in theory… but the more I learn about it and think about it, the more I can see that like communism, it'll never work.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

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.

These are excellent arguments against the state, of course.

And in the case of the "minarchist" State, we have documented evidence that it does not work; in fact, we have evidence that what the minarchist State becomes is a ravaging beast which destroys everything including and in particular human liberty.

So, could you please explain how you - as a minarchist - have as a goal the maximization of human liberty, please?

I'm not sure what you mean..

I mean, what is the foundational principle upon which you advocate for your preferred order of society?

For instance, the Founders at the point of secession stated that they hold certain unalienable truths to be self-evident... then they built from there. Unfortunately, they engaged in a logical inconsistency, when they stated that they hold that all men are created equal (observably so), yet inaugurated a State, an institution which manifestly overturns that objective fact.

However, they did seek to establish a State that was respectful of that fact. But that was then. We can see today that it is not possible to establish a state which is respectful of human liberty.

Failed how, and in comparison to what?

Surely you're not preparing to make a case that the American State is somehow respectful of human liberty?

It has quite CLEARLY failed at securing human liberty; in fact it is in direct and open conflict with the concept of human liberty.

Please don't ask me to bear that out. Seriously...

/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.

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

Incorrect. The principle from which communists operate is that "all men ARE EQUAL", full stop. This is observably false. We can easily prove that all men (mankind) are not equal. Thus, communism fails philosophically.

That men are created equal is observable, and true. If there were some objective instrument by which we could determine which men amongst us who are capable of ruling over other men, then we would have an argument in favor of the State. If there were some objective instrument by which we could determine that all men are in all things equal, then we would have an argument in favor of communism. We have neither of these instruments.

What we can observe and know is that one man is in no way superior to another in any provable manner. Thus there is no basis for one man to rule over another. Thus there is no basis for the existence of the State.

So, you're wrong. Communism does not work very well, neither in practice nor philosophically.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

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.



My guiding principle is maximizing human liberty.



Right



Yes, the argument against anarchism is a practical one.



I'm not sure what you mean..



Failed how, and in comparison to what?

/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.

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

That's pretty much what I've been saying. Some of the anarchists' comments here remind me of communists who always say, "but Communism just hasn't been tried the right way yet!" Earlier on this thread I said that I'm all for trying it, because it sounds good in theory… but the more I learn about it and think about it, the more I can see that like communism, it'll never work.

NNNnope... please see above.

 

[Natural Citizen]

NNNnope... please see above.

Hey, yo. Have you turned in you drivers license and your plates and registration yet? Have you sent your tax bill back to the IRS with a big FU scribbled across it yet? Have you walked into your local police station and flipped em off yet?

Come on, man. I wanna see how this stuff pans out. The suspense is killing me. Show us the way, Dear Leader.

 

[undergroundrr]

That's pretty much what I've been saying. Some of the anarchists' comments here remind me of communists who always say, "but Communism just hasn't been tried the right way yet!" Earlier on this thread I said that I'm all for trying it, because it sounds good in theory… but the more I learn about it and think about it, the more I can see that like communism, it'll never work.

The only thing that "works" is a mixed economy with a disfunctional welfare state and foreign adventurism. That's because most people don't want freedom, whether because of laziness, indoctrination, Jungian archetypes or whatever.

Minarchy is terribly impractical. A maxarchy isn't likely to turn into a minarchy by any means. If it did, it wouldn't stay min- for long. All evidence supports this.

Anarchy maybe impossible. It's certainly not feasible for large, congested urban environments. An anarchist USA is indeed an oxymoron and ain't happening.

But if the concepts of self-ownership and self-determination are your standards (this applies to a very few people), absence of institutionalized compulsion (anarchy) is the only framework in which those concepts are more than a comforting illusion.

I consider myself an anarchist, but I don't see it as achievable in an environment of extremely restricted resources and high population density. In one sense, widespread anarchy can never be achieved - if it's imposed on somebody else, it ceases to be anarchy.

But for everyone here, the dream is to stake out your own personal anarchy and find freedom in an unfree world. To establish a private domain where you can act as you please without interference. Whether that's a 2-room apartment or a 500-acre ranch, we all see it as the ideal.

I don't think we'll see the idea of human's living in proximity with each other with no governmental authority over them until we start, say, settling the asteroid belt. But that doesn't mean one can't ethically and fully endorse the path toward anarchy and adhere literally to the principle "the less government the better."

Most of all, I hate to see the word anarchy being heard as distasteful, destructive, immoral, uncapitalistic, etc. Admittedly, it's perhaps the most un-PC word ever invented. But at its essence (sorry NC) it means comprehensive self-determination and should be heard in a positive light by anyone who adores liberty.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Hey, yo. Have you turned in you drivers license yet? Have you sent your tax bill back to the IRS with a big FU scribbled across it yet? Have you walked into your local police station and flipped em off yet?

Come on, man. I wanna see how this stuff pans out. The suspense is killing me. Show us the way, Dear Leader.

This isn't a response to anything. It's cute, I'm sure, and it's nothing more than a tacit "might makes right" argument, which is wholly in line with your worldview.

And your use of the phrase "Dear Leader" is MAGNIFICENTLY ironic, considering that YOU advocate such a political paradigm.

But of course, you don't know that, or maybe you do and you're just playing games. Either way, intelligent people who understand logically ordered arguments aren't in the least compelled by your quips.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

The only thing that "works" is a mixed economy with a disfunctional welfare state and foreign adventurism. That's because most people don't want freedom, whether because of laziness, indoctrination, Jungian archetypes or whatever.

Minarchy is terribly impractical. A maxarchy isn't likely to turn into a minarchy by any means. If it did, it wouldn't stay min- for long. All evidence supports this.

Anarchy maybe impossible. It's certainly not feasible for large, congested urban environments. An anarchist USA is indeed an oxymoron and ain't happening.

But if the concepts of self-ownership and self-determination are your standards (this applies to a very few people), absence of institutionalized compulsion (anarchy) is the only framework in which those concepts are more than a comforting illusion.

I consider myself an anarchist, but I don't see it as achievable in an environment of extremely restricted resources and high population density. In one sense, widespread anarchy can never be achieved - if it's imposed on somebody else, it ceases to be anarchy.

But for everyone here, the dream is to stake out your own personal anarchy and find freedom in an unfree world. To establish a private domain where you can act as you please without interference. Whether that's a 2-room apartment or a 500-acre ranch, we all see it as the ideal.

I don't think we'll see the idea of human's living in proximity with each other with no governmental authority over them until we start, say, settling the asteroid belt. But that doesn't mean one can't ethically and fully endorse the path toward anarchy and adhere literally to the principle "the less government the better."

Most of all, I hate to see the word anarchy being heard as distasteful, destructive, immoral, uncapitalistic, etc. Admittedly, it's perhaps the most un-PC word ever invented. But at its essence (sorry NC) it means comprehensive self-determination and should be heard in a positive light by anyone who adores liberty.

:thumbs:

Tho' I would challenge this assertion: "An anarchist USA is indeed an oxymoron and ain't happening."

I would suggest that there were people who said the same thing about abolitionism in the early 19th century, yet they've been proven wrong by the march of history.

I've held for quite some time now that the State will die when a majority of people hold it in the same regard as they hold human chattel slavery. That time may or may not come some time soon, but it is of the same distinction.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Most of all, I hate to see the word anarchy being heard as distasteful, destructive, immoral, uncapitalistic, etc. Admittedly, it's perhaps the most un-PC word ever invented. But at its essence (sorry NC) it means comprehensive self-determination and should be heard in a positive light by anyone who adores liberty.

My main disagreement is that I contend that Anarchy and Capitalism are oxymorons in application. Again, comparable to Democracy vs A Democracy.

As I was telling Rev, Rothbard's worst mistake was attaching the term Anarcho to his worldview. He, himself, rejected Anarchy very early on in his life.

Hoppe defines it better in saying Propertarian.

It comes down to operating definition.

Other than that, I'm all for anyone getting together and being self-reliant. Libertarianism permits for it. As I said, though, your biggest problem is a government that does not agree with you. Regardless of whether anyone wants to accept that problem as a legitimate problem, it's patently true that this is the biggest problem.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

My main disagreement is that I contend that Anarchy and Capitalism are oxymorons in application. Again, comparable to Democracy vs A Democracy.

As I was telling Rev, Rothbard's worst mistake was attaching the term Anarcho to his worldview. He, himself, rejected Anarchy very early on in his life.
Hoppe defines it better in saying Propertarian.

It comes down to operating definition.

Other than that, I'm all for anyone getting together and being self-reliant. Libertarianism permits for it. As I said, though, your biggest problem is a government that does not agree with you. Regardless of whether anyone wants to accept that problem as a legitimate problem, it's patently true that this is the biggest problem.

Again, you're peddling nonsense. We're talking about Big Ideas here, and you're arguing semantics.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I was just poking a stick at you. There's other people in the thread now so let's give them a turn to debate it for a while.

This isn't a response to anything. It's cute, I'm sure, and it's nothing more than a tacit "might makes right" argument, which is wholly in line with your worldview.

And your use of the phrase "Dear Leader" is MAGNIFICENTLY ironic, considering that YOU advocate such a political paradigm.

But of course, you don't know that, or maybe you do and you're just playing games. Either way, intelligent people who understand logically ordered arguments aren't in the least compelled by your quips.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Again, you're peddling nonsense. We're talking about Big Ideas here, and you're arguing semantics.

Nope. If you're going to make an ideal applicable rather than letting said ideal remain merely an ideal, then, you must have an operating definition. For instance. One may easily blurt out yay Democracy. But do they mean Democracy or do they mean A Democracy? Know what I mean, jelly bean?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Anyway, I'm bailing out of this one for a while. Let the others debate it for a while, SOL.

 

[Krugminator2]

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

I don't agree that communism is sound philosophically and definitely not theoretically. But I do very much agree with the second sentence. If an idea isn't robust where where it works in a variety of circumstances, it isn't worth pursuing.

Anarchist have much in common with communists

The predictable end result of communism and anarchism will be rule by the strong where individuals don't have their rights protected.

 

[Krugminator2]

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.

I don't understand the purpose of the article at all. A very small town in rural Georgia with five officers voted eliminate a government service they deemed inefficient in favor of using county officers. Is that supposed to be viewed as a vote for anarchy or something.?

 

[lilymc]

Again, you're peddling nonsense. We're talking about Big Ideas here, and you're arguing semantics.

You rarely address anything that is said by those who disagree with you. Instead of tired ad hominems, why not refute his point that Anarchy and Capitalism are oxymorons in application? Definitions are important, or else all this debating is a waste of time. In fact, sometimes people who are arguing actually agree with each other… but the problem is they're on two different pages regarding definitions.

 

[Swordsmyth]

I don't understand the purpose of the article at all. A very small town in rural Georgia with five officers voted eliminate a government service they deemed inefficient in favor of using county officers. Is that supposed to be viewed as a vote for anarchy or something.?

That is what it was implied to be by the post in which the link was included.

 

[lilymc]

But for everyone here, the dream is to stake out your own personal anarchy and find freedom in an unfree world. To establish a private domain where you can act as you please without interference. Whether that's a 2-room apartment or a 500-acre ranch, we all see it as the ideal.

Is this your definition of freedom?

 

[Natural Citizen]

You rarely address anything that is said by those who disagree with you. Instead of tired ad hominems, why not refute his point that Anarchy and Capitalism are oxymorons in application? Definitions are important, or else all this debating is a waste of time. In fact, sometimes people who are arguing actually agree with each other… but the problem is they're on two different pages regarding definitions.

Wait! There's More! Hehe. I always wanted to say that.

Beyond definition of said Ideal, one must naturally ask if the libertarian should be for anarcho-capitalism (stateless society, with government services) or minarchy (a society with a minimal state, restricted only to the enforcement of property rights)?

The question that must naturally follow is... Do minarchist libertarians, such as Ron Paul and Ludwig von Mises, have as much right to the term ''libertarian'' as the anarcho-capitalist such as Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe?

And the only way to do that is to associate the differences between a state and government in application. Process.

Anyway you didn't answer your phone. I'm going to work. I'll shoot you a text once I get settled and get everybody started

 

[The Rebel Poet]

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?

I have never tweeted (or used any other media) to anyone about that site, you really enjoy changing the subject don't you?
I tell you what, if you promise to stop derailing activism threads and lying about Gunny, I promise to never mention you again either here or anywhere else.

 

[otherone]

You rarely address anything that is said by those who disagree with you. Instead of tired ad hominems, why not refute his point that Anarchy and Capitalism are oxymorons in application? Definitions are important, or else all this debating is a waste of time. In fact, sometimes people who are arguing actually agree with each other… but the problem is they're on two different pages regarding definitions.

This is an excellent idea as it would help in reducing fallacious arguments. The difficulty is in perspicacity, however, as a consensus IRT definitions will be difficult.
I believe it is best to abandon labels all together, and focus on principles alone.
As a start:

1) I own me.
2) You own you.
3) I own my stuff
4) You own your stuff
5) Anyone who violates 1-4 has committed a crime.