Should Libertarians support anarcho-capitalism?

[Origanalist]

*Sigh* This post is chock full of strawmen. I'm not even sure I want to go through it point by point, at least not right now.




The world may be changing, but human nature has not changed. There are still a number of powerful people who have an agenda, and that agenda is a nightmare. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on what's going to happen in the future. As I said, that's getting into a whole other topic...that should probably go on its own thread.

Oh, I wish you would.

 

[lilymc]

Well no, it's not a whole other topic. Respectfully, not at all. What is the state, in any conceivable configuration, going to do about these powerful people with a agenda?

I was talking about the future...not the near future, necessarily, but what I believe is ultimately going to happen. Maybe you didn't catch what I said a few posts back, but I said that we're heading toward the opposite of what all of us here want. And as I said, I highly doubt that we're going to be able to overthrow what is coming, on our own. But ultimately it will be overthrown, by the true power of this world. You know that I'm a believer, so I assumed you knew what I was talking about. At that point there's not going to be a "State."

I know most of you on this thread don't believe any of this… So that's why I said I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on what's going to happen in the future.

 

[Origanalist]

I was talking about the future...not the near future, necessarily, but what I believe is ultimately going to happen. Maybe you didn't catch what I said a few posts back, but I said that we're heading toward the opposite of what all of us here want. And as I said, I highly doubt that we're going to be able to overthrow what is coming, on our own. But ultimately it will be overthrown, by the true power of this world. You know that I'm a believer, so I assumed you knew what I was talking about. At that point there's not going to be a "State."

I know most of you on this thread don't believe any of this… So that's why I said I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on what's going to happen in the future.

I don't discount this happening at any point. We don't have the wherewithal to predict when it will come. Despite centuries of people claiming otherwise. That doesn't mean people can't oppose evil in the meantime.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

There you go. (The part I bolded). And that's just part of it. Regardless of what you call it, you're going to end up with some sort of authority/coercion Why, because there are always going to be people who want to take advantage of others, harm others, or rule over others.

I think that the type of anarchy you guys want will only work on a very small scale. But if you can find a group of people with good intentions, who are all basically on the same page, then it could work out wonderfully. I say go for it. But it's not going to work on a large scale… it just isn't. And as I said earlier on the thread, it's not going to happen anyway. Unfortunately, the world is heading in the opposite direction. We can fight against it, but I believe that it's probably not going to be overthrown by us. I believe it will be eventually though, by the true power of this world. But that's a topic for a whole other thread.

Depends on what this empty language means. Murica was envisioned by people in the 1800s as only "working" in a little 13 state region that had only a relatively heterogenous culture. It's a much larger country now-also way more crowded and diverse in ethnicity, race, religion, etc. That's just a few of the reasons the model doesn't “work” on a “large scale”.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Know how you avoid all of that? Oppose the State.

You've set yourself upon the path to totalitarianism, the Total State.

I can't believe that you can't see that.

You've set the State upon the world, AND you've stated your opposition to it's overthrow.

You're Frankenstein, sir, and you want your monster to be immortal.

First, I've not caused the state to be inevitable; I've just recognized that it is.

Second, I'm not opposed to the overthrow of a bad state; I'm only opposed to replacing a bad state with a worse one.

...which ought to be a fairly non-controversial proposition.

Agreed. :thumbsup:

And of course it isn't just about the fact that shoes and beans are made better by the market but also why they are made better by the market-- competition and free will-- things that not only benefit the shoes and beans industry but all industries. The state is a rule enforcer not a property securer. Its innovation and theorization will go towards enforcing rules and not securing property. It does not share the same priorities as the property owner. The property owner wants security. The market is respondent to demand. Innovation and theorization would go towards securing property and not enforcing rules.

I think you may have missed my point P3te, unless you were being sarcastic.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

I think you may have missed my point P3te, unless you were being sarcastic.

The latter. But in good faith.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

First, I've not caused the state to be inevitable; I've just recognized that it is.

You and Sisyphus. Poor guy.

Second, I'm not opposed to the overthrow of a bad state; I'm only opposed to replacing a bad state with a worse one.

...which ought to be a fairly non-controversial proposition.

You, the all-knowing. We bow before you and your vice-like grip upon the unknowable.

What things you must be able to tell us about the future! Please TELL US!

We await your wisdom...

...
...
...
...

We're waiting...

 

[Jingles]

I read nothing of this thread. I haven't been here in a bit. But I will just spout off regardless.

When I first found the philosophy of Anarcho-capitalistism I found it more of our final goal which probably will never been reached in our lifetime (probably in any lifetime). I believe we should hold the ideas dear and principles firm.... BUT... I think that being too strict will stifle any progress. Support any and all reduction of state/government power. Also preach less government. Most people won't jump down our logical rabbit hole of philosophical journey... Sadly, most people don't desire intellectual challenge or principle, but just desire to have a roof and food.

In this current era, I think our goal at the moment should simply to oppose the left. The democrats/progressives/socialists/liberals/sjws/etc... pose such a great threat to everything we believe in that i'd rather buddy up with a conservative I disagree with on some things than try to make sense of these illogical groupthink leftists that exist nowadays. Their logic leads to the opposite of their goals. "WE HATE FASCISM SO THUS WE NEED TO BE FASCIST AND USE FORCE AGAINST THOSE WE DISAGREE WITH EVEN IF THE PEOPLE WE OPPOSE AIN'T. ALSO IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME YOU ARE NAZI!"

The left so dangerous at this point and time in the US.

 

[undergroundrr]

I read nothing of this thread. I haven't been here in a bit. But I will just spout off regardless.

When I first found the philosophy of Anarcho-capitalistism I found it more of our final goal which probably will never been reached in our lifetime (probably in any lifetime). I believe we should hold the ideas dear and principles firm.... BUT... I think that being too strict will stifle any progress. Support any and all reduction of state/government power. Also preach less government. Most people won't jump down our logical rabbit hole of philosophical journey... Sadly, most people don't desire intellectual challenge or principle, but just desire to have a roof and food.

In this current era, I think our goal at the moment should simply to oppose the left. The democrats/progressives/socialists/liberals/sjws/etc... pose such a great threat to everything we believe in that i'd rather buddy up with a conservative I disagree with on some things than try to make sense of these illogical groupthink leftists that exist nowadays. Their logic leads to the opposite of their goals. "WE HATE FASCISM SO THUS WE NEED TO BE FASCIST AND USE FORCE AGAINST THOSE WE DISAGREE WITH EVEN IF THE PEOPLE WE OPPOSE AIN'T. ALSO IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME YOU ARE NAZI!"

The left so dangerous at this point and time in the US.

I mostly agree. I would say that right vs. left isn't so cut-and-dried, especially if one is equating right with Republicans and left with Democrats.

I look at it like this - if one candidate/party wants to spend $300,000,000,000,000 on social programs, and the other candidate/party wants to spend $300,000,000,000,001 on militarism and border walls, I'd prefer the candidate with the social programs won. In fact I'd prefer it 1/300,000,000,000,000 more than otherwise. And vice versa. Of course, in the end there's not really any discernible difference between the two (except that one party's government will be more well-armed than the other.) They're both redistributing my wealth in counter-productive, life-destroying ways. One candidate/party's rhetoric may rub me more wrong than the other. But my life's goal is going to minimize the effect of both teams on my ability to control my own property and determine my own actions.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

You, the all-knowing. We bow before you and your vice-like grip upon the unknowable.

What things you must be able to tell us about the future! Please TELL US!

We await your wisdom...

...
...
...
...

We're waiting...

I'm not seeing a counterargument, except perhaps "the future is unpredictable, no one knows, all guesses are equal, etc." If that's what you're saying, well, you've just tossed out all economics, all history - the social sciences altogether - and therefore also any possible basis for any argument in favor of anarcho-capitalism, or for or against any social order/policy.

...again I'm reminded of the communists, who, upon learning that their theory was irrational, rejected reason.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I'm not seeing a counterargument, except perhaps "the future is unpredictable, no one knows, all guesses are equal, etc." If that's what you're saying, well, you've just tossed out all economics, all history - the social sciences altogether - and therefore also any possible basis for any argument in favor of anarcho-capitalism, or for or against any social order/policy.

...again I'm reminded of the communists, who, upon learning that their theory was irrational, rejected reason.

Anarchist: "the state should be abolished and a free market in security should replace it"

Minarchist: "that would be nice, but it isn't actually possible, hence the goal should be to keep the state as small as possible, not abolish it."

Hmph? How about that? By your very own words you define statelessness by making a declarative statement, and your definition of "minarchism" (the time we could spend on that term...) comes out the gate claiming that statelessness is impossible.

That's interesting. Because above you stated that it isn't possible to make an argument without predicting the future. Yet even you define the anti-statist as making a declarative (and not a predictive) statement.

It's almost like you're full of shit, isn't it?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Hmph? How about that? By your very own words you define statelessness by making a declarative statement, and your definition of "minarchism" (the time we could spend on that term...) comes out the gate claiming that statelessness is impossible.

That's interesting. Because above you stated that it isn't possible to make an argument without predicting the future. Yet even you define the anti-statist as making a declarative (and not a predictive) statement.

It's almost like you're full of shit, isn't it?

It's almost like you're quoting what I said without having understood it.

I really don't know what you're arguing.

...what do you think I said, and what is your counterargument?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

It's almost like you're quoting what I said without having understood it.

I really don't know what you're arguing.

...what do you think I said, and what is your counterargument?

You said that arguments cannot be made without making certain predictions about the future.

Then you defined statelessness with a declarative statement, full stop (""the state should be abolished and a free market in security should replace it"). Note, there is no prediction in that statement - it is, quite precisely, a philosophical statement without presumption of future consequences. Just a statement about how human society should be organized. I agree with it, in fact - it is simple, yet eloquent, and makes the case rather precisely.

Again - you've stated that arguments cannot be made without making predictive statements. That all of economics, history and political science would be upended if we didn't make presumptions about the future. Which justifies your adherence to "minarchism", since you "know" that stateless will not succeed.

As an aside, We're fortunate, as human beings, that you weren't around when human beings were considering whether or not civilization would persist without the institution of slavery.

Your definition of "minarchism" (again, just a lol term) jives with your ability to see the future... Which is nice and all. It's just that you can't actually know what humans will accept and refute in the future. Just as you couldn't have known that slavery would eventually been rejected if you'd been peddling your nonsense on message boards in the 1800's.

So, to recap, arguments do not necessarily need to be predictive; and your prescience is only as valuable as your ability to convince others of it.