Should Libertarians support anarcho-capitalism?

[Origanalist]

That's just protection money. It's not stealing when the government does it.

 

[Natural Citizen]

They are, but we're not at a point here @ RPF where we need to be defining Anarchism and Capitalism. That's been done. Those terms are understood by pretty much everyone here discussing this topic.

No, it hasn't. If you think it has, then, point me to it.

All anyone in the thread has attmpted is to redefine. Unsuccessfully, I'd add.

What you people are doing is leading astray any young person who is actually interested in learning about real anarchism.

 

[Natural Citizen]

All philosophical arguments are predicated on semantic arguments.

It's not a philosophical argument. Operational definition is in no way semantic.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Are you suggesting that there's no such thing as a completely voluntary agreement?

No. Because what is consensual is necessarily voluntary. The question is whether what is voluntary is necessarily consensual because you asked whether the contract was signed under compulsion. You see?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Well, yes you do. Because one person continually makes it necessary by injecting ridiculous nonsense.

It's only ridiculous nonsense because your group observably hasn't thought your own argument through all the way. You all obervably do not understand the shorcomings in your own arguments.

The dialogue in the thread speaks for itself.

Comparable to the old analogy about playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon, no matter how bad he gets whipped, is going to strut around the board and crap on it like he won.

You guys have basically proven yourself to be pigeons.

 

[Natural Citizen]

On that note, I'm giving you guys back the thread. I'm just bored with it at this point.

Report back whenever you guys turn in your licenses and registrations, opt out of the IRS, and walk into your local police stations to flip them off. Don't talk about it. Be about it.

Until then, none of you can be taken seriously.

 

[undergroundrr]

No. Because what is consensual is necessarily voluntary. The question is whether what is voluntary is necessarily consentual because you asked whether the contract was signed under compulsion. You see?

If one voluntarily enters into an agreement then one consents to the terms of the agreement.

I hope that's what you're looking for. I'm trying my best to help you make your point.

 

[Natural Citizen]

If one voluntarily enters into an agreement then one consents to the terms of the agreement.

I hope that's what you're looking for. I'm trying my best to help you make your point.

Ha. Nope. Because we're still left with the question of whether what is voluntary is also ethical. Which takes us full circle back to the fact that they're merely trading one state for another state.

Again, consider the rule that the ancaps are inserting that presupposes that whoever owns the land can impose any laws on anyone who he contracts to work or live on his land. This is the very definition of a state.

So. Now we get back to natural, God-given, rights. Remember in the thread when I asked if a propertyy owner had the right to knock a man off of his pole who was hanging on for dear life? Well, they claimed that the property owner had the right to murder the guy. WTF?

Ayway. I'm bailing out of this thread, undergroundrr. I do appreciate your contribution to the thread, though. Hopefully you'll rub off on some of these cats. They can't debate it right.

They really are misrepresenting anarchism. And if any young person ever comes here looking to learn about anarchism, I do hope that they don't learn it from these guys.

 

[Natural Citizen]

My final word on it is this. You should be free to get together and be self reliant without asking for anything from anybody. If you've rejected the use of force, I don't have to worry about you. Libertarianism permits for this so long as you've rejected the use of force.

To repeat, though, your biggest problem is a government that does not agree with you. They will come in with guns and they will kill you. So think about that. Unfortunately, I think that most people who tend to talk about it would more likely be inclined to sit at home and watch it play out on television rather than to actually take part in and lead in what they promote that others should do.

Have at it, though. I choose to support electoral politics and the constitution. I choose a Republic if I can keep it. That way someone is actually held accountable for knocking me off a pole and killing me just because they have the idea that they possess the right of ownership of my God-given rights to life and liberty.

 

[undergroundrr]

That way someone is actually held accountable for knocking me off a pole and killing me just because they have the idea that they possess the right of ownership of my right to life and liberty.

What an odd hypothetical. In no way is this strange scenario precluded from happening under the jurisdiction of a state. In fact it has the odor of something dreamed up for a CIA black site. But I guess if you're not doing anything wrong you shouldn't worry about such things.

 

[Natural Citizen]

In no way is this strange scenario precluded from happening under the jurisdiction of a state.

Yes, I know. But what makes your state any different? In neither state is the scenario precluded from happening. This was my point.

Alright, undergroundrr. I'm out. I owe ya a rep.

 

[Origanalist]

My final word on it is this.

If I had a nickle for every time I've read that I could take the ol' lady on a trip to Ancapistan.

 

[otherone]

If I had a nickle for every time I've read that I could take the ol' lady on a trip to Ancapistan.

The chess board is very alluring to the pigeon who thinks he's winning.

 

[Origanalist]

The chess board is very alluring to the pigeon who thinks he's winning.

Indeed.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

No, it hasn't. If you think it has, then, point me to it.

All anyone in the thread has attmpted is to redefine. Unsuccessfully, I'd add.

What you people are doing is leading astray any young person who is actually interested in learning about real anarchism.

I've been a member on this forum for over 7 YEARS. There have been COUNTLESS threads laying out the anti-statist philosophy. Furthermore, it ain't like a couple of us here just made it up over beers one night. Anti-statism is a very well established and long-standing philosophy. There are many writers with far greater reputations than anyone, myself included to be sure, posting in this thread.

So it's not as if people here don't know what libertarian anti-statists are, or what they believe in. It's not as if the term anarcho-capitalism is just an internet phenomenon, with no scholarly legwork behind it. ESPECIALLY here @ RPF's, pretending that we need to have this debate about what anti-statism is (call it what you will) is a farce. It's a joke, and those of us who've been around for even the briefest period of time can agree on that, if we're going to being honest. Which seems to be a problem for you. Which is why we're still having this "discussion".

And Ron Paul himself is to "blame" for this circumstance, by the way - he actively and vigorously associated himself with modern luminaries of the anti-statist philosophical/academic movement. You know their names, of course. I am an anti-statist BECAUSE RON PAUL LED ME TO THOSE WRITERS AND ACADEMICS. And that was no coincidence, of course. I came here as a muddled, some-what lost political moderate, and after a very short amount of time reading the very names Dr. Paul directed me to, I became an anti-statist.

So let's not pretend that you've managed to punch a hole in an entire school of thought, or that you can debate the meaning of particular words and that have a meaningful impact on a very sound, logically consistent political (if you will) philosophy. You have an axe to grind, and you're grinding it. Good for you. I get it. Quit acting like you've discovered something. You haven't.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

To repeat, though, your biggest problem is a government that does not agree with you. They will come in with guns and they will kill you. So think about that.

Jeezus... is this your "big objection" to anti-statism? Well noshitsherlock... Guess what? THAT'S EVERYONE'S BIGGEST PROBLEM!

Someday, someone might come along and kill you. Aw gee, welcome to life on planet Earth.

One can live in fear of that moment and seek to protect himself from it at ALL COSTS (literally), and still end up dead in the end, by the way.

...choose to support electoral politics and the constitution.

Oh good... kill yourself before someone else can do it for you. BRILLIANT.

Guess what? Electoral politics and the constitution are no protection from some big bully coming along some day and killing you.

Or maybe it is... I mean, I suppose you can corrupt the currency enough, and tax the people enough, while undermining the economies of every other country on the planet until you secure the biggest, baddest military the world has ever seen... THEN you'll be safe, right!?

Because safety is what you want, NC. Not freedom.

Freedom means you might die some day.

That's kind of a feature of being alive, though, isn't it?

But by all means, erect a State which will rob not only your freedom, but your life, liberty and property... just so no one comes along and kills you some day. :lol: Just make sure that you erect a State so big and powerful that no one (besides your State, of course) can come along and kill you.

Because that's why we can't be free in your mind, right? We can't be free because someday, a State that a bunch of people erected will come along and kill us.

Amazing... You're a heck of a progressive, NC. Did you know that? If not, you should look into a bunch of other programs they have, besides the big military thing... they've got healthcare for everyone, to keep them from dying. They've got welfare for everyone, to keep them from being poor. They've got unemployment insurance, to keep them from being poor for a little while. They've got social security, to keep them from being poor when they're old. It's great over there! You'll love it! :lol:

What an idiot!

I choose a Republic if I can keep it.

Letting you in on a little historical lesson, here: ya can't. "You" (and by "you" I mean a bunch of people unassociated with you who happened to live in roughly the same physical area as you some years ago) have proven that you cannot keep it. "You" (please see previous definition, above) managed to squander the smallest government ever, with the authority given to the broadest subset of humanity, ever. How it worked out is the biggest, most obtrusive State mankind has ever conceived, and a current population who wants NOTHING MORE than to use the power of that State to take more and more stuff from some folks until they're fat'n'happy, and their hosts are utterly drained. And it's on a course to be far worse than even the most corrupt communist states, because people in this country believe that they're a government of the people, by the people and for the people... :LOLOLOLOLOL:

And really, at the end of the day, they're right. And they'll cannibalize every last strand of meat from the bone until there's nothing left, and then we'll see just where we end up.

That way someone is actually held accountable for knocking me off a pole and killing me just because they have the idea that they possess the right of ownership of my God-given rights to life and liberty.

Grow up. There are far worse things to worry about than you falling off a building and grasping to a flag pole, then some libertarian knocking you off without repercussion. What a stupid concern. What a stupid reason to support the State.

I'll tell you what, if we ever live in a world without a State, and you happen to find yourself in a situation where you're about to fall out a window yet be lucky enough to grab a hold of a flag pole as you're descending, give me a quick call - I PROMISE I'll deal with the imaginary dickhead who's going to unpluck your fingers from his pole because it's his property.

Seriously, the crap we have to answer around here. :lol:

 

[undergroundrr]

Yes, I know. But what makes your state any different? In neither state is the scenario precluded from happening. This was my point.

Alright, undergroundrr. I'm out. I owe ya a rep.

Outta rep for you too.

Anyhow, sorry, but a guy murdering another guy is not a state. It's a nice metaphor for the state though.

 

[Madison320]

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.?

The anarchists post so much stupid stuff like this, that I sometimes I think they're just messing with us.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

The anarchists post so much stupid stuff like this, that I sometimes I think they're just messing with us.

I don't think an anarchist posted this article originally... but who knows, and who cares... I'm sure the likes of you, with all your logical consistency wouldn't miss such a detail. :lol:

 

[Madison320]

I don't think an anarchist posted this article originally... but who knows, and who cares... I'm sure the likes of you, with all your logical consistency wouldn't miss such a detail. :lol:

Heavenlyboy34 posted it and you agreed with it. You have a short memory.

Here's the posts:

I partly disagree because anarchists assume it doesn't matter which part of the state you reduce. For example suppose the 2 choices for the US were to eliminate everything but the military or everything but social security. Since both are about the same size anarchists would say it doesn't matter which gets eliminated. But we'd be far better off with just a military compared to just social security. Unless our new masters that conquer us were nicer than the current ones. But I don't really want to take that chance and I don't want to go thru the "getting conquered" part.

Anyway I think in reality anarchists probably are allies to libertarians because I don't think they believe their own crap. How many anarchists would support eliminating the police and courts in their hometown? None in reality.

You are mistaken. (You probably also haven't read the history of police and law in Murica, chronicled in various posts and threads by AF and I)

The town that eliminated the police-
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/l...depart/437834/

+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.

So let's review.

I posted that I doubt anarchists in reality would even want to eliminate the police and courts.

Heavenlyboy34, an anarchist, replied that I don't know what I'm talking about and posted a link to an article to a small town that replaced a few local police with county police, which obviously does not refute my statement. And it makes him look pretty silly.

Then you agreed with him and called me foolish.

And now instead of apologizing you're doubling down on your own mistakes and insults.