I'm not going to waste my time with your little intrinsic specifics. And please don't be niave enough to consider that as I can't...
Experienced this plenty enough before.. both on abc.net.au forums, socialists coming up with there little theoretical situations about smoking laws etc... and you smack it down with property rights & reality, but they just go on make another one up.. and another... here, the teen08 is more than a fine example.
Please take the time to listen to:
(Link far below - For a New Liberty)
Or actually READ something on the issue... then I'll answer your questions if you still have any... you won't do it though, will you? It's not hard, download the entire audiobook from the mises.org section, For A New Liberty... put it on your ipod, listen to it while you work, run, transit... then get back to me, eh?
Until then...
Edit: see the below is all in the link [Anarcho-Capitalist FAQ]... but you haven't bothered to read it... you already think you're right... as if Rothbard or any of the other intellectual thinkers have never thought of your criticism or rebuttals.. you're some genius, and know they couldn't possible have an answer to your conclusions / thoughts..
Since it's not my duty to educate you, I'm going to take the easy option of continuing to quote this site; it's up to you to alleviate your ignorance. Not me. I've shown you the direction, I'm here for guidance. Your problem, not mine.
6. What justifications are there for anarcho-capitalism?
The most general justification was given above in part 2: no man should be ruled by another man. Individual sovereignty, moral autonomy, dignity, soul, whatever you wish to call it, demands that a person refuse to be ruled. What about the "capitalist" part? There are several justifications given by various anarcho-capitalists
Moral justifications:
* The life of man qua man, man as a rational being, morally necessitates a laissez-faire economic system. (Ayn Rand and objectivists)
* Man must be free and uncoerced so that the man, especially his moral faculty, is allowed to evolve. (Herbert Spencer)
* There is an overriding moral principle in civilized society: that no one should violate the (general moral) rights of others, i.e. initiate force or threat of force. This is called the NAP - Non-Aggression Principle. (Spencer, Rand, Rothbard)
* Capitalism is contractual; it is what rational people implicitly agree to do when they enter society. (Narveson)
Other justifications:
* Libertarianism capitalism is simply what society will do more or less in many or most places in the absense of a State. (David Friedman) This is a a utilitarian or "value-free" economic approach.
* One cannot argue against anarcho-capitalism without implicitly agreeing to its basic assumptions. (Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argumention ethic.)
17, Have there been any anarcho-capitalist societies?
Yes, more or less. Since both anarchism and capitalism are theoretical models, it's hard to claim that any real situation is 100% stateless and 100% free market capitalist. But there are various societies that were, for all intents and purposes, stateless, and societies that implemented anarcho-capitalist "programs" such as private law. Here is a short list:
* Celtic Ireland (650-1650)
In Celtic Irish society, the courts and the law were largely libertarian, and operated within a purely state-less manner. This society persisted in this libertarian path for roughly a thousand years until its brutal conquest by England in the seventeenth century. And, in contrast to many similarly functioning primitive tribes (such as the Ibos in West Africa, and many European tribes), preconquest Ireland was not in any sense a "primitive" society: it was a highly complex society that was, for centuries, the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe. A leading authority on ancient Irish law wrote, "There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justice... There was no trace of State-administered justice."
* Icelandic Commonwealth (930 to 1262)
David Friedman has studied the legal system of this culture, and observes:
The legal and political institutions of Iceland from the tenth to the thirteenth centuries ... are of interest for two reasons. First, they are relatively well documented; the sagas were written by people who had lived under that set of institutions and provide a detailed inside view of their workings. Legal conflicts were of great interest to the medieval Icelanders: Njal, the eponymous hero of the most famous of the sagas, is not a warrior but a lawyer--"so skilled in law that no one was considered his equal." In the action of the sagas, law cases play as central a role as battles.
Second, medieval Icelandic institutions have several peculiar and interesting characteristics; they might almost have been invented by a mad economist to test the lengths to which market systems could supplant government in its most fundamental functions. Killing was a civil offense resulting in a fine paid to the survivors of the victim. Laws were made by a "parliament," seats in which were a marketable commodity. Enforcement of law was entirely a private affair. And yet these extraordinary institutions survived for over three hundred years, and the society in which they survived appears to have been in many ways an attractive one . Its citizens were, by medieval standards, free; differences in status based on rank or sex were relatively small; and its literary, output in relation to its size has been compared, with some justice, to that of Athens. - David Friedman, Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: A Historical Case
* Rhode Island (1636-1648)
Religious dissenter Roger Williams, after being run out of theocratic puritan Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636, founded Providence, Rhode Island. Unlike the brutal Puritans, he scrupulously purchased land from local indians for his settlement. In political beliefs, Williams was close to the Levellers of England. He describes Rhode Island local "government" as follows: "The masters of families have ordinarily met once a fortnight and consulted about our common peace, watch and plenty; and mutual consent have finished all matters of speed and pace." While Roger Williams was not explicitly anarchist, another Rhode Islander was: Anne Hutchinson. Anne and her followers emigrated to Rhode Island in 1638. They bought Aquidneck Island from the Indians, and founded the town of Pocasset (now Portsmouth.) Another "Rogue Island" libertarian was Samuell Gorton. He and his followers were accused of being an "anarchists." Governor Winthrop of Massachusetts Bay called Gorton a "man not fit to live upon the face of the earth," Gorton and his followers were forced in late 1642 to found an entirely new settlement of their own: Shawomet (later Warwick). In the words of Gorton, for over five years the settlement "lived peaceably together, desiring and endeavoring to do wrong to no man, neither English nor Indian, ending all our differences in a neighborly and loving way of arbitration, mutually chosen amongst us."Pf
* Albemarle (1640's-1663)
The coastal area north of Albemarle Sound in what is now northeastern North Carolina had a quasi-anarchistic society in the mid-17th century. Officially a part of the Virginia colony, in fact it was independent. It was a haven for political and religious refugees, such as Quakers and dissident Presbyterians. The libertarian society ended in 1663, when the King of England granted Carolina to eight feudal proprietors backed by military.Pf
* Holy Experiment (Quaker) Pennsylvania (1681-1690)
When William Penn left his Quaker colony in Pennsylvania, the people stopped paying quitrent, and any semblance of formal government evaporated. The Quakers treated Indians with respect, bought land from them voluntarily, and had even representation of Indians and Whites on juries. According to Voltaire, the Shackamaxon treaty was "the only treaty between Indians and Christians that was never sworn to and that was never broken." The Quakers refused to provide any assistance to New England's Indian wars. Penn's attempt to impose government by appointing John Blackwell, a non-Quaker military man, as governor failed miserably.Pf
* The American "Not so Wild" West - various locations
Most law for settlements in the American West was established long before US government agents arrived. Property law was generally defined by local custom and/or agreement among the settlers. Mining associations established orderly mining claims, cattlemen's associations handled property rights on the plains, local "regulators" and private citizens provided enforcement. Yet most movie-watching people are surprised to learn that crime rates were lower in the West than the "civilized" East. Cf: The American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not so Wild, Wild, West
* Laissez Faire City
A more recent unsuccessful attempt to start a new country, LFC attempted to lease a hundred square miles of land from a third-world State in order to start an anarcho-capitalist society, taking Hong Kong as a guide. When that fell through, some members moved to Costa Rica, where the State is relatively weak, there is no standing army, and what little State interference there can usually be "bought off." There remain small libertarian communities in the central valley (Curridabat) and on the Pacific coast (Nosara).
13. Is anarcho-capitalism the same thing as libertarianism?
I thought this rather applicable because of your name... you act as if the position I hold is out of this world physical implausible, and even if it was obtainly you wouldn't want it you compared anarcho-capitalism to communism... Really, come on... you're kidding right? Minarchists have more in common with communism, than anarcho-capitalists do!
"No, but it's close. Just as anarcho-capitalism is a subtype of anarchism, it is also a subtype of libertarianism. Libertarianism is the belief that liberty is the primary political virtue, conjoined with the belief in capitalism. But libertarians don't necessarily deny the legitimacy of the State as an institution - most believe that a minimal State is necessary to provide defense services. This minimal State, sometimes called "the nightwatchman State," is a government that provides only three things: police, courts, and defense against foreign invasion. This means that no government redistribution of wealth or regulation of the market is allowed. Anarcho-capitalists, therefore, hold the same values as minarchist libertarians, but take it to the logical conclusion: even a minimal State is too authoritarian. If government monopoly is bad for all other services, how can it suddenly be okay for the provision of defense? In short, an anarcho-capitalist is a radical libertarian. He rejects minarchism for anarchism."
For a New Liberty -
12: The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts
14: War and Foreign Policy
@ the bold. Ahh, thanks for agreeing with us?
The ULTIMATE regulation? The Federal Reserve / Central bank.... 5th plank of the communist manifesto.
