Why do the non-anarchists seem to be so anti-anarchist?

[Travlyr]

Haha - we *will* get you, Travlyr. Sooner or later...

Your Stockholm Syndrome to the State is slowwwwly dwindling... I can see it

Have you read 'For a new Liberty' by Rothbard yet? That's the one that did it for me. That and Spooner's 'No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority'.

Heh.. heh... don't hold your breath.
My son has already joined your side, and I'm working hard to bring him to his senses... lolz... but he is as stubborn as most of you lost souls.

I've already read 'No Treason' ... that didn't do it. When I finish 'For A New Liberty' I'll let you know. Rothbard is one of my favorite writers.

 

[Wesker1982]

Heh.. heh... don't hold your breath.
My son has already joined your side, and I'm working hard to bring him to his senses... lolz... but he is as stubborn as most of you lost souls.

I've already read 'No Treason' ... that didn't do it. When I finish 'For A New Liberty' I'll let you know. Rothbard is one of my favorite writers.

How old is your son? How old are you? Just wondering

 

[emazur]

Actually, I've found many (certainly not all) anarchists on this board to be the ones who are anti-everyone else. I'm not gonna name names, but there are too many anarchists here who take a big shit on just about every thread they participate in, and drive people away from Ron Paul or these forums. I remember one of my earliest posts here was in a thread about the roads, and I said something like "I think the government can have a positive role in owning or creating roads" and some asshole replied something like "It doesn't matter what you 'think' ". My theory is that there's a vocal minority of rude anarchists out there that do nothing but create blowback for the things they say, and this generates the anti-anarchist resentment you're talking about and creates divisiveness amongst the liberty community. Before making a statement, everyone - anarchist or not, would do well to think "what would Ron Paul say?" (or to be more precise, HOW would Ron Paul say it?). Although I'm minarchist, I don't dislike anarchists, just the constantly rude ones. Hell, if I was President and a bunch of anarchists wanted to buy up some land to form their own anarchist state and secede from the U.S. government's jurisdiction, I'd be happy to help facilitate that.

 

[osan]

Because the people associate anarchy with chaos and disorder. They have been conditioned to think this way by the government which fears the idea of anarchy as a political system

Precisely.

 

[osan]

...Truffle Shuffle my way down Central Avenue.

Phoenix?

 

[Travlyr]

A couple of questions.

1. At what age, or qualifications, would one be able to join society? Would his/her parents be able to bind the children to a society?
2. In a modern day state, a 160 acre farm is 1/4 section bounded by property pins surveyed and recorded by deed in the County Clerk's office. How would an anarchic society improve on that model?

Still hearing crickets tonight ....

Wesker did give it an honest effort, but somehow I think that landowners across America would like a more definitive plan before joining the anarchists.

The question is asked in a centralized framework. A lot of your questions are assuming that everything will be done the same way between the West Coast and the East coast, along with everything in between. An important thing to remember is decentralization. A commune in some forest in Oregon would probably have different ways of dealing with land ownership than a Libertarian city in Nevada.

Anybody else want to give it a go?

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Still hearing crickets tonight ....

Wesker did give it an honest effort, but somehow I think that landowners across America would like a more definitive plan before joining the anarchists.

Anybody else want to give it a go?

We all ready have historical examples of how land was to be cordoned off and published to reduce conflicts of property trespassing.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

Read about Land Associations. Randy Barnett does very well on non-State law as well.

These voluntary, extra-legal associations provided protection and justice without apparent violence and developed rules consistent with the preferences, goals, and endowments of the participants.

 

[eproxy100]

As a non-anarchist I don't dislike or hate the anarchists here. Most seem quite nice. I think many people, including me, dislike anarchy because we believe it's a very temporary system that quickly leads to socialism or tyranny.

There are definitely anarchists who don't actually care about RP's political chances. I saw a youtube video of this anarchist girl talking about RP as if RP was an anarchist. It really turns most regular people off from RP. That girl didn't care to listen to the fact that what she was doing was detrimental to RP.

 

[Theocrat]

Not Me

Because the people associate anarchy with chaos and disorder. They have been conditioned to think this way by the government which fears the idea of anarchy as a political system

I'm sorry, but I never got my understanding of what anarchy is from the government. It is a simple term that is defined in the English language, and it has been historically and culturally understood to mean "chaos and disorder." I think you're painting a broad stroke there.

 

[Travlyr]

My only argument with the anarchists here is I consider many to dogmatically adhere to concepts that can only be defended by appeal to authority in the form of go read (rothbard, Mises, et. al.) instead of answering to the point being made.

......


There are limitations and contradictions such as above in the dogma that need to get reconciled in order for the concepts to be of anything other than academic interest.

We all ready have historical examples of how land was to be cordoned off and published to reduce conflicts of property trespassing.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

Read about Land Associations. Randy Barnett does very well on non-State law as well.

Thanks for the reading assignment, but it's not what I was asking. What plan do YOU think would be better than surveying property boundaries and keeping land deeds publicly recorded at the county clerk's office?

For example, tomorrow morning you show up at my door with an offer to eliminate the State and I ask, "What about land deeds?"
What do you offer me?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm sorry, but I never got my understanding of what anarchy is from the government. It is a simple term that is defined in the English language, and it has been historically and culturally understood to mean "chaos and disorder." I think you're painting a broad stroke there.

Like many words, anarchy has layers of meaning. It can also mean "without a ruler". (the prefix an- meaning "without", the root word "archy" meaning "a system of rulership") Ben Franklin himself used the word this way on occasion. You are unfortunately underestimating the complex nuances of the English language. This same principle applies to languages related to English, such as Russian (which features a few dozen prefixes that alter the root word, such as без-).

 

[Wesker1982]

What plan do YOU think would be better than surveying property boundaries and keeping land deeds publicly recorded at the county clerk's office?

I don't know exactly how it works, but with the way you explained it, there is no reason to assume it wouldn't be done in virtually the same way (except it would be voluntarily funded). The service would just be provided by a private business instead of a county clerk. Something like a reputable "Land Deed Data Base" company.

For example, tomorrow morning you show up at my door with an offer to eliminate the State and I ask, "What about land deeds?"
What do you offer me?

If the people (i.e. consumers) want a particular service to function a certain way, taking away the State won't change their preferences and customs. The market is the best way to find out the most efficient method to satisfying consumer demands. The market result would just be a reflection of what people wanted their county government to do, except the market would do it more efficiently.

Again, the way you are framing your question is ignoring this:

If the State were abolished because we first had a successful education campaign which resulted in a true minarchy then to pure statelessness, then this would mean enough people were educated to understand the free market on at least some level and respect property rights, so I don't think there would be much trouble with land rights. If we ever get to a minarchy, people won't have a problem with the answer "let the market find out".

Customs, preferences, and respect for land boundaries would already be practically universally accepted in a state of minarchy (this is proven by the fact that minarchy was achieved in the first place). At this point, especially given the fact that the maximum efficiency of the market has been illustrated, consumers would demand the private production of this service.

And if we got to the point of minarchy, property boundary services would probably already be provided by the market. So the question should be equally directed at minarchists.

 

[Travlyr]

I don't know exactly how it works, but with the way you explained it, there is no reason to assume it wouldn't be done in virtually the same way (except it would be voluntarily funded). The service would just be provided by a private business instead of a county clerk. Something like a reputable "Land Deed Data Base" company.



If the people (i.e. consumers) want a particular service to function a certain way, taking away the State won't change their preferences and customs. The market is the best way to find out the most efficient method to satisfying consumer demands. The market result would just be a reflection of what people wanted their county government to do, except the market would do it more efficiently.

Again, the way you are framing your question is ignoring this:



Customs, preferences, and respect for land boundaries would already be practically universally accepted in a state of minarchy (this is proven by the fact that minarchy was achieved in the first place). At this point, especially given the fact that the maximum efficiency of the market has been illustrated, consumers would demand the private production of this service.

And if we got to the point of minarchy, property boundary services would probably already be provided by the market. So the question should be equally directed at minarchists.

In other words,

There are limitations and contradictions such as above in the dogma that need to get reconciled in order for the concepts to be of anything other than academic interest.

 

[Wesker1982]

Would you like to elaborate?

i.e., respond to what I said

 

[Travlyr]

Would you like to elaborate?

Sure. This is fun stuff to discuss ... and the discussions should continue.
Yet, before it can be seriously considered as a viable option for society, advocates must first solve the inconsistencies. And there are many.

My only argument with the anarchists here is I consider many to dogmatically adhere to concepts that can only be defended by appeal to authority in the form of go read (rothbard, Mises, et. al.) instead of answering to the point being made. For example, we have this work by Rothbard on the self enforcing nature of contracts http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html where we are presented with some basic concepts "[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]For, in the first place, judges, like arbitrators, will prosper on the market in proportion to their reputation for efficiency and impartiality." and this concept "[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual."

This has one very important principle - the importance of reputation, if I am thought to be a person on business with a bad reputation, fewer people will want to deal with me - this is the economic incentive to do what I say I will do. Thus, anyone who harms my reputation, does me harm. But Rothbard can't go there because if he did, he would have to allow that I have an economic interest or an ownership interest in my reputation, and my economic competitors have an interest in destroying my reputation, as I have an interest in destroying theirs. In the current legal framework, the concept of libel, keeps this in check.

However, Rothbard can't allow to have the concept of libel in his anarchist society - http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/sixteen.asp
"[/FONT]Smith has a property right to the ideas or opinions in his own head; he also has a property right to print anything he wants and disseminate it. He has a property right to say that Jones is a “thief” even if he knows it to be false, and to print and sell that statement." Rothbard then goes farther to state that because he knows this is the case, nobody in an anarchist society will pay any attention to reputation at all.

So when I ask the anarchists - Which is it Murray? - I get crickets

There are limitations and contradictions such as above in the dogma that need to get reconciled in order for the concepts to be of anything other than academic interest.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Sure. This is fun stuff to discuss ... and the discussions should continue.
Yet, before it can be seriously considered as a viable option for society, advocates must first solve the inconsistencies. And there are many.

For implementation on a wide scale, yes. But anarchists can try the option on a local level with few to no problems.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Sure. This is fun stuff to discuss ... and the discussions should continue.
Yet, before it can be seriously considered as a viable option for society, advocates must first solve the inconsistencies. And there are many.

Anarchists do not have inconsistencies. Perhaps you should look at yourself first and ask how an expropriating property entity can at the same time steal from you and claim to protect your property and your liberty. It doesn't compute. Get back to me when you solve that one.

 

[AceNZ]

Here's my version of minarchy. I support a government that performs only the following functions:

-- Courts (to resolve contractual disputes and to determine whether someone has committed a crime)
-- Police (a monopoly on the use of force, but only as a response to the initiation of force, not as an initiator themselves)
-- Military (protection from actual violence and credible threats of violence from outside the country)

Forcible restraint of men is really the only underlying service that government should offer. Government is a gun.

I do not support a governmental entity that makes new laws. The base laws should be something like a refined version of English Common Law (which itself has been refined over more than a thousand years). All government services should be paid voluntarily or by user fees; no taxation.

So, with regard to anarchy, a few questions:

1. What would happen if there was an honest disagreement between two people (with no prior contract in place)?
2. Why is it a good thing for anyone to be able to initiate force against others? Doesn't that naturally lead to a gang-oriented society?
3. In AnCap, what happens if one person is a customer of agency A, and another of agency B, and the two agencies disagree on some fundamental point?

 

[Gimme Some Truth]

Because the closest example of true anarchy currently exists in the geographic region known as Somalia, and the people of Somalia aren't exactly thriving despite a completely free market in currency and trade, no taxes, and no regulations.

Anarchy works in theory but not in practice.

That being said, I'm very sympathetic to anarchism it is indeed the most principled and consistent, and because I do agree the State does more harm than any other entity in the world; but if peace and prosperity can be attained with a minimal invasion of personal liberty in the presence of a State, which is exactly what a Constitutional Republic achieves, anarchy is no longer needed nor desired.

Bad argument.

A collapsed State(Somalia) is an Anarchist society like cutting spending by 90% and shutting down the Fed within an hour is a Libertarian State. Such a Libertarian State would be completely disastrous.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Bad argument.

A collapsed State(Somalia) is an Anarchist society like cutting spending by 90% and shutting down the Fed within an hour is a Libertarian State. Such a Libertarian State would be completely disastrous.

-1000000 for terrible grammar and logic.