There's a fine line between Anarchism and Libertarianism...

[steve005]

troll

 

[tggroo7]

Just tell us how you have your system without the violence?

Um, I don't know...avoid using violence?

Unless you consider arrests as violence or something, in which case I'm just going to ignore this thread as it would be useless to participate.

 

[Verad]

So in your anarchist world, how would society willingly come together in its utopian fashion you desire so much to formulate implied laws?? Do you people honestly fucking believe human beings can be left to their own devices to do the right thing?? Take a look around. There's a lotta dumb, fat, hopeless, and evil people out there. If we had no government, you think the criminals would do anything different? No, they wouldn't. You honestly believe people commit credit card fraud because government exists? So the Government makes us evil because humans aren't inherently evil?? No, we need government there to punish these pricks who jack our identity, enforce contracts, etc. etc. How the hell would your life function if you couldn't take anyone to court?

So by your own logic that coercion is evil, then we should never coerce a murderer into prison? He should just be left a free man to kill again because we have no right to coerce him into a human institution like a prison? Wow...I'm no death penalty guy, but see how illogical anarchists are?? I mean I honestly think you guys believe you're cute and make a lot of sense, but obviously you don't. Coercion is evil...okay...and letting a criminal roam the streets is moral?

To the guy who said I'm clinically retarded, this guy is off the grid.

So you honestly believe the same evils you cite within people in general will not manifest themselves in government. As I said above, men are not angels.

 

[socialize_me]

Name-calling by all parties is what is retarded.

Just tell us how you have your system without the violence?

How would you have anarchy without violence and how would you restrain and prevent the violence?? See, at least my plan for a government would include punishment for murder. Your system says imprisoning people is immoral because government is inherently evil, so by that logic we shouldn't throw anyone into jail because that would be coercive action. How does an anarchist society punish such people?? Shame on you for killing my sister?? Yeah, I'm sure you'd do fine in a lawless society.

The idea that if we had no government that people would be hunky-doory is pure BS to any rational thinker. We've had evil people for a long, long time.

Anarchists: Put your money where your mouth is and move to Somalia. Tell me how it's like to live in a nation where warlords exist which arise under any government-less society.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Uhm...Austrian Economists use their models to promote the Constitution and limited government. Austrian Economics doesn't get too heavy on the mathematical side as I too find it to be ridiculous in economists' efforts to chart human behavior with exotic calculus; however, Austrian Economics derives its logic from understanding history, looking at peoples' interactions, observing trends of Federal Government, and the penalties of public policy. How the hell can you separate Austrian Economics from politics? Unless you're going to dictionary.com my ass, you are the one who is apparently confused. If Austrian Economists focused solely on economics, it wouldn't make any sense. You can't separate economics from politics.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/economics


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/politics

Hmmm, that was pretty easy.

 

[Theocrat]

Anarchy, Shmanarchy

...and I think too many people have crossed it. It's one thing to be pro-free market, civil liberties, limited government, etc., but when I read comments where posters proudly say they're anti-state, then I'm starting to worry about the well being of these radical people. The Government does serve a purpose, and yes, that does include the Federal Government. Many people here support the Articles of Confederation over the US Constitution, which scares me as well...for one, Ron Paul only advocates returning to the US Constitution and not 1786. Also, I don't favor having 50 independent states coming together to respond militarily to an attack without having a commander-in-chief. I suppose many of you fear a President with Congressional approval than 50 state governors running around with their heads on fire trying to fight a war. Have you people even seen some of these state governors?? One of them is Palin..the other 49 aren't improvements..

The days of City-States are over. Face it, besides LA's gangs, no local government in America is either willing or able to do necessary duties granted to the Federal Government under the Constitution like raising an army. Some of you actually believe 50 states could come together in a streamlined fashion and fight a war effectively. You think Iraq has been mishandled?? Think how it'd be with 50 different commanders in chief with their own separate set of advisors. You'd have states like California and New York tucking their tails and running the first sight the War wasn't going well. We'd have half the states leaving their brothers and sisters high and dry fighting a war with only half of the United States' states. Is that complaint what some of you call "collectivism"?? So the Founding Fathers of the Constitution were disciples of Karl Marx? Get fucking real.

Not only that, but having no Federal Government would mean no supreme court. What you would do is kill any interstate trades as fraud would be rampant. California's business laws would be separate from Rhode Island's, and if a conflict arose from an eBay trade gone bad, where the hell is your recourse without Federal Courts?? How would we enforce treaties??

I might be a wrongly misled "statist", but apparently some of you know something Ben Franklin, James Madison, and George Washington didn't. I understand the Federal Government has gone above and beyond the Constitution, but to say we need the Articles of Confederation is just fucking stupid. We'd need to reform it within two years and replace it with something else entirely. You all honestly think we have a collection of even half the reasonable thinkers we had during the Founding Fathers Era to draft a document better than the current one we have??

Great post. I, too, have become somewhat disturbed by how naive many anarchists are on these forums. I feel their assumptions about the moral nature of mankind is fundamentally flawed, and consequently, that is the root of their error and efforts toward anarchy. Anarchy is simply the road to chaos, and once there, anarchy defeats itself into utter ruin and misery upon all.

 

[Mini-Me]

So in your anarchist world, how would society willingly come together in its utopian fashion you desire so much to formulate implied laws?? Do you people honestly fucking believe human beings can be left to their own devices to do the right thing?? Take a look around. There's a lotta dumb, fat, hopeless, and evil people out there. If we had no government, you think the criminals would do anything different? No, they wouldn't. You honestly believe people commit credit card fraud because government exists? So the Government makes us evil because humans aren't inherently evil?? No, we need government there to punish these pricks who jack our identity, enforce contracts, etc. etc. How the hell would your life function if you couldn't take anyone to court?

So by your own logic that coercion is evil, then we should never coerce a murderer into prison? He should just be left a free man to kill again because we have no right to coerce him into a human institution like a prison? Wow...I'm no death penalty guy, but see how illogical anarchists are?? I mean I honestly think you guys believe you're cute and make a lot of sense, but obviously you don't. Coercion is evil...okay...and letting a criminal roam the streets is moral?

To the guy who said I'm clinically retarded, this guy is off the grid.

While I'm NOT an anarchist and I personally believe there are some flaws in Rothbard's arguments (which I won't get into here), it's very clear that you have never read anything significant about how anarcho-capitalism is "supposed" to work, and you're making some very incorrect and entirely unfair assumptions about what the anarchists here believe. I'd suggest browsing through Rothbard's For A New Liberty just to get an idea of what these guys actually stand for.

 

[socialize_me]

So you honestly believe the same evils you cite within people in general will not manifest themselves in government. As I said above, men are not angels.

I never said that. I never said Government can't be evil--have you read anything I wrote? Apparently not. I'm pro-Constitution, not anarchy. For some reason you think pro-state people have similar utopian fantasies you attribute to anarchy; we don't.

Since you've said people are inherently evil, how the hell do you restrain that without a court system? So answer me this (without more bullshit please...it'll save everyone else time reading this), what do you think is more immoral? Throwing someone in jail for murder, or not having a jail system to begin with because its coercive? What the hell exactly would an anarchist do to a murderer which wasn't coercive??

 

[tggroo7]

So you honestly believe the same evils you cite within people in general will not manifest themselves in government. As I said above, men are not angels.

At the very least, the evils would not manifest in government for decades. The evils in an anarchy would come out instantly and would not be suppressed. Plus, you can reform government...you can't do a damn thing about evils in anarchy.

 

[socialize_me]

While I'm NOT an anarchist and I personally believe there are some flaws in Rothbard's arguments (which I won't get into here), it's very clear that you have never read anything significant about how anarcho-capitalism is "supposed" to work, you're making some very incorrect and unfair assumptions about what the anarchists here believe. I'd suggest browsing through Rothbard's For A New Liberty just to get an idea of what these guys actually stand for.

What does anarcho-capitalism have to do with throwing people into prison for murder? Nothing. You obviously didn't read what I wrote; go back and do it. You're trying to debate someone who is anti-government involvement in most facets of the economy. Thanks for the link, I won't visit it...that wasn't arrogant at all by the way suggesting I don't have a clue. Clearly you can't read what I wrote yet you're trying to teach me a philosophy?

 

[Mini-Me]

Um, I don't know...avoid using violence?

Unless you consider arrests as violence or something, in which case I'm just going to ignore this thread as it would be useless to participate.

I believe he was referring to taxation as violence (from the viewpoint that it's theft at the point of a gun). Even anarcho-capitalists (of which I am not) believe in arresting crime suspects, having trials, etc. Using force in such a way is not aggression (because it's in response to aggression).

 

[socialize_me]

At the very least, the evils would not manifest in government for decades. The evils in an anarchy would come out instantly and would not be suppressed. Plus, you can reform government...you can't do a damn thing about evils in anarchy.

THANK YOU!! These guys are clueless...they're so confused and scared about what liberty actually is that they assume it means everything that exists government-free, and that includes society. They have honestly convinced themselves, while simultaneously trying to brainwash me into believing their flawed logic, that any sort of coercion is evil. So again, they view putting a murderer in jail for murder is evil because no human should coerce another into doing something they don't want to. What's to keep him from killing again is my next question, but I'll keep it simple for now.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

OP is clinically retarded...



Anarcho Capitalists > Anarchists...

You ignorant smuck

Anarcho-Capitalism FAQ

Wow dude, chill out with the insults... Lets not take everything personal.

 

[Verad]

Do you people honestly fucking believe human beings can be left to their own devices to do the right thing?? Take a look around. There's a lotta dumb, fat, hopeless, and evil people out there.

I was trying to address these two statements in particular by my last response, but if having a court system meant also that we had to have a government that would eventually drop atom bombs on cities for "the greater good," or use a doctrine of preemptive war, then no, I don't see it as a moral alternative to no court system at all. However, I do not believe that communities would not come up with their own court systems in the absence of formal government organization. Don't forget that virtually all political theorists refer to a right of self defense, and the said idea is even in the Old Testament (or Torah, whichever you prefer).

Government always causes more violence than it prevents.

 

[socialize_me]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/economics


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/politics

Hmmm, that was pretty easy.

LOL I knew you'd dictionary.com me. Pretty sad when you're predictable. So you're learning about the world through a dictionary?? That's worse than how mainstream economists think..they assume everything is defined and fixed. I didn't say economics and politics were the same thing, I said they're inseparable. Read, please.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Great post. I, too, have become somewhat disturbed by how naive many anarchists are on these forums. I feel their assumptions about the moral nature of mankind is fundamentally flawed, and consequently, that is the root of their error and efforts toward anarchy. Anarchy is simply the road to chaos, and once there, anarchy defeats itself into utter ruin and misery upon all.

If God is Lord and KING of the universe, why aren't you a monarchist?

 

[socialize_me]

I was trying to address these two statements in particular by my last response, but if having a court system meant also that we had to have a government that would eventually drop atom bombs on cities for "the greater good," or use a doctrine of preemptive war, then no, I don't see it as a moral alternative to no court system at all. However, I do not believe that communities would not come up with their own court systems in the absence of formal government organization. Don't forget that virtually all political theorists refer to a right of self defense, and the said idea is even in the Old Testament (or Torah, whichever you prefer).

Government always causes more violence than it prevents.

LOL so you're comparing nuking a country to imprisoning a mass murderer?? Yes, I agree, if a government nukes another country, it should be reformed. See, you seem to think I'm pro-current government; I'M NOT! Apparently you aren't anarchist as you clearly implied you'd support a government that had a court system which punished criminals but didn't drop atomic bombs.

Seriously, are there any rational thinkers out there? Why do you have to go off the grid on points?? So because I'm in favor of a government to punish criminals means I'm pro-nukes...wow...

 

[Mini-Me]

What does anarcho-capitalism have to do with throwing people into prison for murder? Nothing. You obviously didn't read what I wrote; go back and do it. You're trying to debate someone who is anti-government involvement in most facets of the economy. Thanks for the link, I won't visit it...that wasn't arrogant at all by the way suggesting I don't have a clue. Clearly you can't read what I wrote yet you're trying to teach me a philosophy?

Excuse me? I read exactly what you wrote, and you're sitting here in this thread insulting anarcho-capitalists without having a damn clue what they actually believe. Anarcho-capitalism is not just an economic theory; it's an expression of anarchy in which functions of law are carried out by the market. I personally don't believe in it, but all you're doing in this thread is blindly insulting the anarcho-capitalists here for things you stupidly ASSUME they believe (which they actually don't - or at least most don't), and on top of that, you're lashing out and insulting me for gently trying to let you know you're making an ass of yourself without saying it in so many words. I wasn't trying to be arrogant by suggesting you didn't have a clue - I was trying to be gentle, because I felt it was nicer than telling you in huge flashing neon letters that you really don't have a clue. Now, if you want to go around ranting and raving and using straw man arguments to demand that people account for ridiculous beliefs they don't actually have, go ahead...I won't stop you. If you want to actually find out what these guys believe in before insulting their beliefs, I'd suggest going to the link I provided. Chapter 12, "The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts," has to do with throwing people into prison for murder, etc.

 

[Truth Warrior]

LOL I knew you'd dictionary.com me. Pretty sad when you're predictable. So you're learning about the world through a dictionary?? That's worse than how mainstream economists think..they assume everything is defined and fixed. I didn't say economics and politics were the same thing, I said they're inseparable. Read, please.

And I separated them very easily.

Actually I prefer the description of "consistent" over "predictable", but have it your own way.

No, I'd say you are learning the world, through ONLY a dictionary. I seem to have to dumb it all WAAAAY down a whole bunch for folks like you.

 

[socialize_me]

And I separated them very easily.

Actually I prefer the description of "consistent" over "predictable", but have it your own way.

No, I'd say you are learning the world, through ONLY a dictionary. I seem to have to dumb it all WAAAAY down a whole bunch for folks like you.

Really?? With the same assumption you support Ron Paul because you're on these forums, go back and watch Ron Paul's debates. He said you cannot separate economics from war, and that his policies are thought of in terms of economics. If you believe in the saying that all warfare has been fought for wealth, then how the hell isn't economics everywhere? How doesn't it affect politics? You couldn't have politics without economics. You clearly haven't studied economics as it's more than just supply/demand and the Federal Reserve. You make economic decisions anytime you decide to do or not to do something; it's called trade-offs. Whether it involves money or not, it's an economic decision. It's your opportunity costs. Like I said, public policy and politics cannot exist without economics. Your 2 lined dictionary.com definition hardly goes deep enough to raise those points; but then again I suppose you're also a talking points poster. Rather than doing critical thinking, you'll use talking points to think for you.