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

[heavenlyboy34]

basically it's this: you want a monopoly on justice and anarchists want the free market and competition in justice

I'm a libertarian (small l), and I want free market competition in justice. Does this make me a freak of nature?

 

[The_Orlonater]

I don't always trust my fellow man enough to live in a society without rules.

I don't want it to be a combat game.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't always trust my fellow man enough to live in a society without rules.

I don't want it to be a combat game.

You already do. Except at the moment, the government is at war with you-and they have the big guns and laws on their side.

 

[The_Orlonater]

You already do. Except at the moment, the government is at war with you-and they have the big guns and laws on their side.

We don't like the current government. We ignore the stupid piece of paper.
But anarchist love to argue at how our Republic failed.


We should run naked and jack off outside.

 

[JohnMeridith]

Nothing really to post in this thread. I would debate the OP's thoughts but they are irrational and baseless for the most part. Using a violence scenario to argue against liberty/anarchism destroys all chance of a rational debate.

 

[Conza88]

We don't like the current government. We ignore the stupid piece of paper.
But anarchist love to argue at how our Republic failed.


We should run naked and jack off outside.

No, they love reality (Anarcho-capitalists)

How the ---- can you argue Constitutionally limited government did NOT fail?

Look around you, blind much?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

no, they love reality (anarcho-capitalists)

how the ---- can you argue constitutionally limited government did not fail?

look around you, blind much?

+1776

 

[Conza88]

+1776

Hehe kind of ironical that... (+1776)

The way I see it... the state is a weed.

You can stunt it's growth for a short period of time; but eventually it becomes immune to the poison (the Constitution)..

Once immune as we now so evidently see, the 'limiting' factor has no effect what so ever.

Instead of trying to find a new poision or actually continue to apply the same poision forever... Anarcho-Capitalists... take the pragmatic and pro-active approach...

Why don't we pull the weed up at the roots? Kill it.

 

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

How can you NOT support the splintering of our military? If the commander in chief had no control over a federal military, and it was instead up to governor's to offer their respective armies, we probably wouldn't be dealing with the mess in the middle east.

Now, if Cuba invaded Florida, no doubt Montana would probably offer support. But having the option of saying NO to DC is paramount.

 

[danberkeley]

From: "Do You Consider Yourself a Libertaian"
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=165299&highlight=rockwell+interview

Johnsson: Some say you're an anarchist; is that true?

Rockwell: The term anarchist is mostly used to mean someone who believes that if the state and law are gotten rid of, all property would become collectively owned. It was the great insight of Murray Rothbard that this is not the case: private ownership and the law that support it are natural, while the state is artificial. So he was an anarchist in this sense but to avoid confusion he used the term anarcho-capitalist. This doesn't mean that he favored somehow establishing a capitalist system in place of the state. What he said is that capitalism is the de facto result in a civilized society without a state. Has this position made advances? Yes, but not so many that we can use the term anarchism without causing confusion. If the purpose of words is to communicate, I'm not sure that the term does that well.

As to my own views, I do believe that society thrives best without a state. But I'm with Rothbard, Nock, Molinari, Chodorov, and others who believe in law and private government, such as we find in corporations, housing subdivisions, and church hierarchies. So if by anarchism we mean a society without law, I'm completely against that idea.

 

[nickcoons]

First you said this:

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.

(which is not what anarchists believe, none of them here have made that claim, you made it for them.. about four times by my count), and then you said this:

My God, this is the problem with debating people I mean they make arguments that don't exist or create scenarios I never agreed with.

So first you make arguments that don't exist (by setting up strawmen), and then you appear frustrated because you accuse others of doing it. But we'll let that bit of irony slide by for now.

Libertarians and Anarchists (or more accurately, Anarcho-Capitalists) agree that the initiation of force is immoral. But there is nothing wrong with retaliatory force. This is why it's wrong to murder someone, but there is nothing wrong with putting a murderer in prison (the latter is retaliatory force).

If the initiation of force is wrong, then that means you can't steal, enslave, murder, or infringe on someone else's property. All other acts are allowed. This should be a fairly straight-forward and simple concept to grasp, and it is what libertarianism is based upon.

So now we take this to its logical conclusion. If an individual cannot steal, then a group of individuals cannot steal, because a group does not have any rights that the members of that group do not have. Therefore, government cannot impose taxes, because taxes are theft, because taxes are the taking of one's property without their consent; and libertarians and anarchists agree that theft is wrong and should not be institutionalized.

Given that government funds itself by the initiation of force, it stands to reason that government would not exist if the initiation of force were not allowed as per libertarian philosophy. Government in some small form may exist if it were to acquire their funding by voluntary measures (either by providing a service, through donations, or perhaps even with a lottery of some sort).

I'm an anarcho-capitalist because I don't believe government needs to exist in order for a peaceful society to exist. In fact, I believe there's a higher probability of a peaceful society in the absence of government. Like you, I abhor the state in its current form. However, if a voluntarily-funded government were to spring up and it had the same restrictions as all other individuals (that it no legal authority to initiate force), then I would have no quarrels with it.

Like most minarchists who are vaguely familiar with the ideas of anarcho-capitalism, your main objection is that society would fall into chaos without some minimal form of government. This used to be my view, and to be able to accept anarcho-capitalism on an intellectual basis I had to be satisfied that that would not be the case. Originally, I thought that I needed all of the answers to my questions, like how would X work, or how would Y work? As I started to notice that such answers were readily available, it became clear that my original premise, "government must exist", simply wasn't true.

You've used the example of Somalia, which I think actually helps to prove the anarcho-capitalism point, not diminish it. If you look at the progress that Somalia has made since the fall of it's ruler, and since its neighboring countries and the US have laid off trying to impose artificial order, it's come along way in the last decade. In fact, it appears that it shows more promise than this country. Telecom companies (both wired and wireless services), banks, airlines, electrical companies, etc., are all thriving in the absence of government. This is especially impressive considering that the chaos that was experienced pre-1991 was far worse than the stateless conditions of Somalia today.

From the linked article:

"It takes just three days for a landline to be installed, compared with waiting times of many years in neighbouring Kenya, where a stable democratic government has been in place for half a century."

Ha! It takes me 1-2 weeks to get a landline installed in Phoenix . You suggested that us anarchists move to Somalia. That's starting to look appealing.

 

[Conza88]

From: "Do You Consider Yourself a Libertaian"
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=165299&highlight=rockwell+interview

:o Thanks for that excerpt! He says it so well..

 

[sailor]

Why would you not want to pay a small federal falt tax. No one knows your income, it's not $9000 a year(just joking around, but that's pricey. I don't know what everybody pays), and it gives money to the states and helps the very few people who have been on government help for years.

Also maybe some local taxes for workers in the sewer system(don't even argue with me that companies can work on this), a public train, you can't build tracks everywhere.

Answer that, monsiuer.

I`d be happy to pay good money if I felt it was going to good use and was spent efficently.

So why doesn`t the state give me the option not to if I see that it is not?

Anwser me that.

I don't always trust my fellow man enough to live in a society without rules.

I don't want it to be a combat game.

Anarchy is not a society without rules. It is a society where the rules are not set by a mafia.

You can not argue our position so you play at willful ignorance and argue what is not our position after misrepresenting it. Did you pick that up from a text book of a neocon propagandist? You make me sick.

How can you NOT support the splintering of our military? If the commander in chief had no control over a federal military, and it was instead up to governor's to offer their respective armies, we probably wouldn't be dealing with the mess in the middle east.

Absolutley. Much less chance of imperialist adventures that way.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Yep, there is a fine line, it's called the NON AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE or AXIOM. It's the same fine line that's between the libertarians and the statists and other various and assorted miscellaneous sundry barbarians.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Yep, there is a fine line, it's called the NON AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE or AXIOM. It's the same fine line that's between the libertarians and the statists and other various and assorted miscellaneous sundry barbarians.

Is that kinda like those who lay down and "submit" vs. those who actively work to get the system overturned?


Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition
Main Entry: submit
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: comply, endure
Synonyms: abide, accede, acknowledge, acquiesce, agree, appease, bend, be submissive, bow, buckle, capitulate, cave, cede, concede, defer, eat crow*, fold, give away, give ground, give in, give way, go with the flow, grin and bear it, humor, indulge, knuckle, knuckle under*, kowtow*, lay down arms, obey, put up with, quit, relent, relinquish, resign oneself, say uncle, stoop, succumb, surrender, throw in the towel, toe the line*, tolerate, truckle, withstand, yield
Antonyms: disobey, fight, resist
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/submit&

 

[Conza88]

Yep, there is a fine line, it's called the NON AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE or AXIOM. It's the same fine line that's between the libertarians and the statists and other various and assorted miscellaneous sundry barbarians.

Yep & extending that... the non aggression axiom + property rights is held as libertarianisms foundations.

Except anarcho-capitalists take the logical conclusion of those principles & actually stick by them...

 

[chwisch87]

The only thing that Anarchist have never been able to solve is the issue of protection of basic human rights. Which most objectivist find is the roll of government. You need a system of the rule of law not rule by the mob that would inevitably be the case.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Is that kinda like those who lay down and "submit" vs. those who actively work to get the system overturned?


Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition
Main Entry: submit
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: comply, endure
Synonyms: abide, accede, acknowledge, acquiesce, agree, appease, bend, be submissive, bow, buckle, capitulate, cave, cede, concede, defer, eat crow*, fold, give away, give ground, give in, give way, go with the flow, grin and bear it, humor, indulge, knuckle, knuckle under*, kowtow*, lay down arms, obey, put up with, quit, relent, relinquish, resign oneself, say uncle, stoop, succumb, surrender, throw in the towel, toe the line*, tolerate, truckle, withstand, yield
Antonyms: disobey, fight, resist
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/submit&

Hey, whenever YOU are ready to DO ANYTHING relevant, significant and EFFECTIVE about YOUR governments, please be sure and let me know. Until then, it's ALL just BS.

 

[sailor]

The only thing that Anarchist have never been able to solve is the issue of protection of basic human rights. Which most objectivist find is the roll of government. You need a system of the rule of law not rule by the mob that would inevitably be the case.

Oh noes. Not another Randroid.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Yep & extending that... the non aggression axiom + property rights is held as libertarianisms foundations.

Except anarcho-capitalists take the logical conclusion of those principles & actually stick by them...

I think that the NAP covers that too.