Sympathizing With Anarchists/"Voluntaryists"

[sailor]

Those at the alamo were statists. You dont get to steal our heros. It doesnt work in your picture.

I`m sorry. I thought the folks at Alamo were insurgents. Rising up against a legal incumbent government. Guess I was wrong.

 

[tremendoustie]

Wow, this deteriorated fast. From a legitimate discussion to a flame war in less than a half a dozen posts.

 

[CCTelander]

Wow, this deteriorated fast. From a legitimate discussion to a flame war in less than a half a dozen posts.

Isn't the internet wonderful?

 

[sailor]

Wow, this deteriorated fast. From a legitimate discussion to a flame war in less than a half a dozen posts.

It went to hell when Minarchy4Sale walked in and started to spout his mouth off purposedly making it clear he had nothing but contempt for our stated viewpoints.

 

[Minarchy4Sale]

Is your position so tenuous that any real criticism is 'flame'?

Yes. It is.

 

[sailor]

Do not insult our intelligence further. Nothing you wrote constituted criticism. Your posts consisted of nothing but attempts at disparging.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

I'm sure there's a more courteous & persuasive way of discussing this topic... We're all on the same side here, we just differ over minutia. Let's get to the minutia 1st, then strive for the truly voluntary society. I don't see any other way.

 

[Minarchy4Sale]

I'm sure there's a more courteous & persuasive way of discussing this topic... We're all on the same side here, we just differ over minutia. Let's get to the minutia 1st, then strive for the truly voluntary society. I don't see any other way.

I readily admit that once a constitutional minarchistic government is achieved, if you seek to undermine it, I will send in the hounds.

Of course I'm not sure what you'd have to complain about, since you would have more liberty and prosperity than any nation even in the history of man... but with rothtards, there is always something to complain about.

 

[sailor]

I readily admit that once a constitutional minarchistic government is achieved, if you seek to undermine it, I will send in the hounds.

Of course I'm not sure what you'd have to complain about, since you would have more liberty and prosperity than any nation even in the history of man... but with rothtards, there is always something to complain about.

Hahaha!

 

[FSP-Rebel]

I readily admit that once a constitutional minarchistic government is achieved, if you seek to undermine it, I will send in the hounds.

Of course I'm not sure what you'd have to complain about, since you would have more liberty and prosperity than any nation even in the history of man... but with rothtards, there is always something to complain about.

I don't know, dude. We agree that the free market accomplishes quite a bit. Why do you think that it can't take care of defense?

But, you're right, I doubt I would complain about much.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I readily admit that once a constitutional minarchistic government is achieved, if you seek to undermine it, I will send in the hounds.

Of course I'm not sure what you'd have to complain about, since you would have more liberty and prosperity than any nation even in the history of man... but with rothtards, there is always something to complain about.

Your pathetic ad hominems add so much to your argument.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The entire human universe is a statist paradigm. I swear you guys are living in a John Lennon song...

Imagine if this, imagine if that...

Communism was sold on the same premise.

Human nature is that people are greedy, both for money and power. You and I can live satisfied with what we produce and what what we can trade for. Most cant.

Like capitalism harnesses the power of greed, we need a system for harnessing the power of lust for power.

Without one, we are doomed to a choice between victim and victimizer.

False. I see you've conveniently ignored all my posts about justice in Stateless society. No wonder you are so incoherent! I see. Your goal is to make up a bunch of nonsense that has no basis in anarchist philosophy and call it "anarchism". You are a true sophist if I ever met one, sir! Congratulations!

 

[Theocrat]

How Can There Be Justice in a Stateless Society?

False. I see you've conveniently ignored all my posts about justice in Stateless society. No wonder you are so incoherent! I see. Your goal is to make up a bunch of nonsense that has no basis in anarchist philosophy and call it "anarchism". You are a true sophist if I ever met one, sir! Congratulations!

Where does justice come from in a Stateless society? That's one of my biggest problems in accepting the anarchist/"voluntaryist" view of society. Does justice come from whatever the market decides is just? Is the market always correct about what is right and wrong, or does the market just tell us what sells well? There is a difference between those two things, you know.

 

[tremendoustie]

Where does justice come from in a Stateless society? That's one of my biggest problems in accepting the anarchist/"voluntaryist" view of society. Does justice come from whatever the market decides is just? Is the market always correct about what is right and wrong, or does the market just tell us what sells well? There is a difference between those two things, you know.

What is right and wrong is determined by God (or nature). It is not determined by the market in voluntarism, or by popular opinion in a democratic republic.

I think it's a common misconception that what is legal determines what is moral. You may disagree with me here, but I actually consider it a form of idolatry. The state is not God -- it has done and continues to do many highly immoral things, throughout history. It creates laws prohibiting moral acts, and creates laws mandating immoral ones.

The question is firstly, can a coercive government exist without violating the moral law itself? I think the answer is no, if it is funded by taxes. In fact, I would say the source of most immorality in a country is often the government itself, in many of the ways we have discussed.

The second question is, if government could morally exist, and did not commit immorality itself, would it be more or less likely to promote injustice in the application of the law, than a less centralized approach? I think the answer is that it is more likely to promote injustice. Firstly, there is no motivation for the creation of victim less crimes in a market based approach, because no protection agency is going to be motivated to pursue legal action if they have no plaintiff. Secondly, in a free system, punishment is more likely to be based on restitution, which benefits the victim (and incidentally is more Biblial), rather than fines or prison, which benefit the state. Thirdly, it makes it more likely to be possible to escape injustice, by moving to a different area -- there is no one size fits all solution. Fourthly, the legal system is more likely to be responsive in general, because it is market based, and arbitration courts would be subject to competition.

 

[Conza88]

Here's the dilemma. What do you do about those individuals who have read the books and articles, attended the seminars and conventions, watched the videos, listened to the audio CDs, and interviewed/questioned the advocates of anarchy/"voluntaryism" but still conclude that it is a bad philosophy and system of civil living?

The first thing I do is call bs... Since clearly you haven't from the question you last asked & I am going to respond to. I would then ask, what books have you read from this list? Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography by Hans-Hermann Hoppe ... Asking for intellectual honesty.

On the offbeat chance, they have some kind of pathological disorder and wish to use a gang of thieves to take my property. To steal from me. To redistribute wealth. Then I call them evil, immoral, a tyrant and oppressor - I tell it like it is & resist. If there is already a state of anarchy / voluntary society, there are PDA's that would do it.

They would naturally resist other firms or anyone else trying to establish a monopoly.

"The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community." – David D. Boaz

The difference between anarcho-capitalists and statist's is that anarcho-capitalist's will not tolerate the existence of a violation of the non aggression axiom (principle) and property rights, but statists will tolerate a violation of the non aggression axiom (principle) and the theft of property rights.

What if those people will not change their viewpoint that some civil government is necessary to a free society (as the Founding Fathers believed)? I know you won't try to "force it down their throats," but it seems the last resort is to simply leave them alone and allow them to continue supporting the form of government which you disagree with and/or hate. After all, you can't change human hearts.

Viewpoint is different from action. Correct? I don't care what your views are. Nor does intent matter in a libertarian society, only actions.

Are you going to take actions to establish your government? Of course you will have too! Never in history has there ever been a state erected out of a social contract. Never. You must use violence to obtain / maintain a monopoly of violence over a given territorial area.

The state makes the laws. If you want to support (actions) an institution that enslaves others, steals from others, then you are no better than the scum currently running the place.

That will do nothing to make anarchy/"voluntaryism" a civil reality, which is ideally what you're working towards. It seems you then have two options:

1. Give up on society as a whole and live by their standards (with contempt), or
2. Move to another location where your ideas will be more readily accepted and hope for the best.

So, what happens when it's all said and done?

Continue to point out what the state actually is. A gang of thieves writ large. A criminal mafia, who are parasites. Read Etienne De le Boetie. Strategies for liberty etc. Or:

On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

It will be a long generational process, but worth it for my children's children. Succession is an option. All there really needs is one country, state, county to step up and be the next beacon of Liberty. There are also those doing David Friedman type things.

Where does justice come from in a Stateless society? That's one of my biggest problems in accepting the anarchist/"voluntaryist" view of society. Does justice come from whatever the market decides is just? Is the market always correct about what is right and wrong, or does the market just tell us what sells well? There is a difference between those two things, you know.

For a New Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard (pdf)
(text) (audiobook)

Market for Liberty by Linda and Morris Tannehil (pdf) (audiobook)

Myth of National Defense by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (pdf)

The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman (pdf)

Read. Listen. Learn.​

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is contempt prior to investigation." ~ Herbert Spencer

Are just some starters... and if you look, there are specific chapters addressing your concerns, so you can zoom to them.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The first thing I do is call bs... Since clearly you haven't from the question you last asked & I am going to respond to. I would then ask, what books have you read from this list? Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography by Hans-Hermann Hoppe ... Asking for intellectual honesty.

On the offbeat chance, they have some kind of pathological disorder and wish to use a gang of thieves to take my property. To steal from me. To redistribute wealth. Then I call them evil, immoral, a tyrant and oppressor - I tell it like it is & resist. If there is already a state of anarchy / voluntary society, there are PDA's that would do it.

They would naturally resist other firms or anyone else trying to establish a monopoly.

"The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community." – David D. Boaz

The difference between anarcho-capitalists and statist's is that anarcho-capitalist's will not tolerate the existence of a violation of the non aggression axiom (principle) and property rights, but statists will tolerate a violation of the non aggression axiom (principle) and the theft of property rights.



Viewpoint is different from action. Correct? I don't care what your views are. Nor does intent matter in a libertarian society, only actions.

Are you going to take actions to establish your government? Of course you will have too! Never in history has there ever been a state erected out of a social contract. Never. You must use violence to obtain / maintain a monopoly of violence over a given territorial area.

The state makes the laws. If you want to support (actions) an institution that enslaves others, steals from others, then you are no better than the scum currently running the place.



Continue to point out what the state actually is. A gang of thieves writ large. A criminal mafia, who are parasites. Read Etienne De le Boetie. Strategies for liberty etc. Or:

On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

It will be a long generational process, but worth it for my children's children. Succession is an option. All there really needs is one country, state, county to step up and be the next beacon of Liberty. There are also those doing David Friedman type things.


Are just some starters... and if you look, there are specific chapters addressing your concerns, so you can zoom to them.

Thank you, Conza. The literature you posted addresses the question Theo put to me about justice in Stateless society well, IMHO. I suggest to Theo that he read the above literature.

 

[Conza88]

Answer the questions Theo...

I'm waiting. Go through, and everywhere you see a sentence that ends with a "?" I expect an answer.