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

[Gimme Some Truth]

-1000000 for terrible grammar and logic.

The grammar was bad, yes, but the logic is fine. You're certainly free, however, to bring an actual argument to the table and enlighten me as to where my reasoning fails.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The grammar was bad, yes, but the logic is fine. You're certainly free, however, to bring an actual argument to the table and enlighten me as to where my reasoning fails.

You claimed "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." This is baseless speculation (and anarchists have produced voluminous evidence to the contrary). When you bring an actual argument to the table yourself, I will consider it.

 

[Vessol]

I think it's incredibly important to define two terms.

Anarchism= The rejection of the State.

The State= A coercive monopoly on force within a geographic region.

Therefore, any suggestion that Somalia is somehow a anarchistic society, is a massive jump to conclusions.

Rather, it should be seen as geographic region which holds a multitude of small and tiny "States". The states being the tribes, gangs, and warlords who hold a monopoly upon force within geographical areas.

The size of a State does not matter.

No one denies Andora or the Vatican City of being governments and States and they are only a few square miles in size.

Nor does the non-recognition of a State by other States make it not a State.

Somaliland, Palastine, South Ossetia, and others are either not recognized or recognized by only a few States.

 

[Travlyr]

Anarchists do not have inconsistencies.

Then answer the questions posed by Pericles and me.

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.

I've already looked at my positions and they are consistent with liberty, peace, prosperity and justice for all using the rule of law. Freedom is not free and I find it rather silly to believe otherwise. Somebody has to pay to maintain freedom, and I am of the opinion that it is everyone's job to contribute. I've consistently advocated for taxation without penalty for those who avoid paying them. You call it stealing ... I call it shared responsibility. And I also advocate that government be as small as possible. Complete separation of state and money can accomplish that goal.

The rule of law is the best design for organizing societies ever devised by man for this imperfect world. The U.S. Constitution has its share of flaws, yet there is an amendment process. States divided into counties divided into townships with charters for cities and towns to facilitate property ownership is an orderly way to promote prosperity among the masses. I find that design quite brilliant and do not wish to destroy it.

When the anarchist rulers of our day (the diplomatic immunity crowd) counterfeiting cabal are finally forced to obey the rule of law, then legitimate governments will once again liberate most people and prosperity will be abundant. There have been plenty of atrocities in our history and they continue to this very day. However, the 21st century brings a new understanding through instant world-wide communication for people to come together and improve on the models handed to us by our ancestors.

The U.S. Constitution is to the advantage of the common man for it is the supreme law of the land. It does not protect property and liberty ... it provides a structure of law that individuals can use to demand reparations for those who defend themselves against injustice.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Travlyr: you assume that anarchists propose doing away with law. They don't (except for a few). As a general rule, they simply support private law. This, unlike constitutional law, has a history of success. "The U.S. Constitution is to the advantage of the common man for it is the supreme law of the land. It does not protect property and liberty ... it provides a structure of law that individuals can use to demand reparations for those who defend themselves against injustice." The first part here is correct-the second is not. There are numerous instances in which the government has done injustice itself to citizens and refused them justice.

 

[bwlibertyman]

I went from the first to last page so I don't know if people have talked about this yet.

Somalia does not have a legitimate government outside of the capital. Somalia has shown more economic growth without a state than with the state it had before. There was a recent mises daily article about this. http://mises.org/daily/5418/Anarchy-in-Somalia I would rather live in a place where I am responsible for my safety than being forced to pay for the safety of others. I have no problem with people paying people to protect them but to be forced to pay taxes for that safety I think is wrong.

I totally buy the nap. I haven't heard a compelling argument that people should be able to force me to do something.

 

[Sola_Fide]

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.

Uh. What???

 

[Travlyr]

Travlyr: you assume that anarchists propose doing away with law.

My point is that the constitution is what we have. Overthrowing it is not something I want any part of because with all its flaws it is better than anything else people are offering, imo. The counterfeiting cabal is the cancer of our day. Forcing them to obey the law is the solution. The design of the State is a minor problem compared to the monumental problem of rulers who consider themselves above the law. See - The Magna Carta.

 

[Wesker1982]

Then answer the questions posed by Pericles and me.

Answers that you didn't respond to:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ti-anarchist&p=3370051&viewfull=1#post3370051 and http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ti-anarchist&p=3370166&viewfull=1#post3370166

and http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ti-anarchist&p=3375979&viewfull=1#post3375979

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?

1. 3rd party arbitration
2. It is not good for necessarily anyone (i.e., aggressors) to initiate force, only defensive force is advocated.
3. 3rd party arbitration

Long answers: Anarcho-Capitalism Reference List
FAQ: Threads http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?286163-Help-me-understand-anarcho-capitalism and http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-Debunk-This&p=3247815&viewfull=1#post3247815 and

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.

On Somalia: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-Debunk-This&p=3247815&viewfull=1#post3247815

 

[Travlyr]

Answers that you didn't respond to:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ti-anarchist&p=3370051&viewfull=1#post3370051 and http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ti-anarchist&p=3370166&viewfull=1#post3370166

and http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ti-anarchist&p=3375979&viewfull=1#post3375979

Right. There were no questions asked, and I have no interest in a stateless society, so no need to spend my time at it. I like property ownership as established by the current supreme law of the land... the constitution and the subsequent republics. It is much better than what you guys are offering, imo.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

For the record I decided to ignore this thread completely because of the thread title, which basically reads "why are people who are against anarchism so against anarchism?" It'd be cool if we could get some specificity instead of some vague thread where non-anarchists just demand answers in the form of rehashed discussions that have been covered before.

 

[Wesker1982]

There were no questions asked

Questions are not required for a response . You must have at least a little interested in a voluntary society or else you wouldn't be bullying me all the time!

I came across this rereading Bob Murphy's Chaos Theory, and I thought of you

Title Registry

In market anarchy, who would define property rights? If someone hands over the money to purchase a house, what guarantees does he have?

This is a complex issue, and I won’t be able to give specifics, since the actual market solution would depend on the circumstances of the case and would draw on the legal expertise (far greater than mine) of the entire community.23* I can, however, offer some general remarks.

Whatever (if any) the abstract or metaphysical nature of property law, the purpose of public titles is quite utilitarian; they are necessary to allow individuals to effectively plan and coordinate their interactions with each other. Specialized firms (perhaps distinct from arbitration agencies) would keep records on the property titles, either for a specific area or group of individuals. Title registry would probably be accomplished through a complex, hierarchical web of such firms.

The fear of rogue agencies, unilaterally declaring themselves “owner” of everything, is completely unfounded. In market anarchy, the companies publicizing property rights would not be the same as the companies enforcing those rights. More important,competition between firms would provide true “checks and balances.” If one firm began flouting the community norms established and codified on the market, it would go out of business, just as surely as a manufacturer of dictionaries would go broke if its books contained improper definitions.


23*My stance may appear slippery, but imagine that a Cuban economist advises Castro to abolish socialism and allow a free market to develop. Must the economist predict beforehand whether and how many shopping malls will exist under his proposal?

Footnote #23 reminds me that I also thought of you when watching Milton Friedman's Lesson of the Pencil video on youtube (the I, Pencil story). I thought: If pencil production was coercively monopolized and I was advocating the voluntary market organization of pencil producing, how hard would it be to have to elaborate in detail the entire production process? Yet, this is precisely what is happening when people object to voluntaryism on the basis of an inability to have psychic powers.

Why praise the market in every other aspect of organization? If a coercive monopoly is the best at providing courts and defense, why stop there? Any cutoff point is arbitrary.

The crux of the economic difference between market anarchists and market minarchists is that the minarchists -- a priori -- find a market failure in the provision of law and security. Market anarchists do not. Considering that the minarchists embrace market theory in every other area, it seems they have the burden of showing why their own principles don't apply in those excepted areas. (It is significant that the first market anarchist we know of was an economist, Gustave de Molinari.) - Sheldon Richman

Also, FWIW to anyone who might be interested, Bob Murphy's Chaos Theory is a great place to start when exploring voluntaryism. The main text is only 63 pages, yet it manages to be very informative.

 

[Travlyr]

Questions are not required for a response . You must have at least a little interested in a voluntary society or else you wouldn't be bullying me all the time!

I came across this rereading Bob Murphy's Chaos Theory, and I thought of you



Footnote #23 reminds me that I also thought of you when watching Milton Friedman's Lesson of the Pencil video on youtube (the I, Pencil story). I thought: If pencil production was coercively monopolized and I was advocating the voluntary market organization of pencil producing, how hard would it be to have to elaborate in detail the entire production process? Yet, this is precisely what is happening when people object to voluntaryism on the basis of an inability to have psychic powers.

Why praise the market in every other aspect of organization? If a coercive monopoly is the best at providing courts and defense, why stop there? Any cutoff point is arbitrary.



Also, FWIW to anyone who might be interested, Bob Murphy's Chaos Theory is a great place to start when exploring voluntaryism. The main text is only 63 pages, yet it manages to be very informative.

Heh...he.. I found this in RPH's signature and find it applicable to you...

Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence.Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'press on' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.
~ C.Coolidge

I find the U.S. Constitution to be different than described by anarchists. It is flawed and needs amended; however, almost everyone I know believes in its value, so for me it is better to accept it and follow Ron Paul's lead to restricting our leaders to be bound by it than argue for doing away with it. I can win Ron Paul supporters that way, and that is what we need now ... critical mass.

I always argue for laissez-faire free-market capitalism which can be achieved while respecting the supreme laws of the land. That philosophy is damn close to anarcho-capitalism, so we're really not far apart on that.

As for this?

The crux of the economic difference between market anarchists and market minarchists is that the minarchists -- a priori -- find a market failure in the provision of law and security. Market anarchists do not. Considering that the minarchists embrace market theory in every other area, it seems they have the burden of showing why their own principles don't apply in those excepted areas. (It is significant that the first market anarchist we know of was an economist, Gustave de Molinari.) - Sheldon Richman

Law and enforcement of law is an issue that is for the collective good. We don't need many laws ... maybe nine, or so. But legitimate laws are fairly universal and using the election process at the local level to enforce laws (county sheriff and district attorney) is a model that makes sense to me for a civilized free society.

But more importantly, it is what we have. The burden of changing it is on those who want it changed. ... ie. Offer something better and sell it. So far, I'm not buying what you're selling.


Hint: shy completely away from the word "anarchy" it's a tough sell.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

But more importantly, it is what we have. The burden of changing it is on those who want it changed. ... ie. Offer something better and sell it. So far, I'm not buying what you're selling.


Hint: shy completely away from the word "anarchy" it's a tough sell.

The burden is on the one making the positive claim (you and other Constitutionalists).

 

[Travlyr]

The burden is on the one making the positive claim (you and other Constitutionalists).

Ha.. ha.. okay, if that's the case, then I say, "Let it be."

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Ha.. ha.. okay, if that's the case, then I say, "Let it be."

That's your proof? No wonder you fail.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Ever since I've adopted the anarchist philosophy, I've found my discussions with statists - from minarchists to socialists - to be very... curious. Maybe some of you guys here can help me...

I see it like this - it's kind of like Molyneux's, "How to Win Political Arguments":



By the way, cameo appearance by Adam Kokesh at around 1:05:00.

"Am I allowed to disagree with you?" To me, this is the essence of the anti-state position (it's another way of stating the NAP). I'm advocating a society in which the legitimacy of this socially-sanctioned violence is rejected. Of course, the degree to which the state may impose it's values, edicts, opinions, etc., slides up and down the scale depending upon it's size and reach, so naturally I find common ground with minarchists over socialists, abolitionists over interventionists, etc.

But where I find difficulty is that these statists - including minarchists - at best do not recognize that they advocate the implementation of violence, or, at worst, believe that I as a consquence of my advocacy of a stateless society actually aggress against others (you can imagine the justifications... in another forum I was told that I just wanted to "let them [the old/sick/poor] die").

I guess I'm asking of the anarchists what I'm doing wrong, and of the minarchists what in the world you're talking about!? I'm not sure why I can't get over this mental hump...

 

[Seraphim]

It boggles my mind that people still believe that NO STRUCTURE even exists. Anarchism= fallacious fantasy that cannot exist in the real world.

It's a stupid word that defies all logic and reason.

A Stateless society based on voluntary transaction is the ANTITHESIS to anarchy. Don't tell that to a staunch Statist though...

I do understand minarchy arguments and generally agree with minarchists about 95% (if not more) of the time.

But at some point, we as a society need to start being consistent with the applications of our morals. Sadly, most do not realize the violence they rationalize through our State serving democratic process.

Thou Shalt Not Steal. Uhhh...unless of course it's for ze greta good and order!

Democracy is best left within the marketplace.

 

[Carson]

The anarchist that used to show up at the anti illegal immigration rallies had other friends show up. For one was the communist. The other was the government.

Those of us that showed up in support of law and order were on our own.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Heh...he.. I found this in RPH's signature and find it applicable to you...


I find the U.S. Constitution to be different than described by anarchists. It is flawed and needs amended; however, almost everyone I know believes in its value, so for me it is better to accept it and follow Ron Paul's lead to restricting our leaders to be bound by it than argue for doing away with it. I can win Ron Paul supporters that way, and that is what we need now ... critical mass.

I always argue for laissez-faire free-market capitalism which can be achieved while respecting the supreme laws of the land. That philosophy is damn close to anarcho-capitalism, so we're really not far apart on that.

As for this?

Law and enforcement of law is an issue that is for the collective good. We don't need many laws ... maybe nine, or so. But legitimate laws are fairly universal and using the election process at the local level to enforce laws (county sheriff and district attorney) is a model that makes sense to me for a civilized free society.

But more importantly, it is what we have. The burden of changing it is on those who want it changed. ... ie. Offer something better and sell it. So far, I'm not buying what you're selling.


Hint: shy completely away from the word "anarchy" it's a tough sell.

The Constitution is not anywhere near close to An-Cap. Perhaps you should open the Anti-Federalist papers and start reading. The Constitution was a massive centralization of power and no one respecting libertarian or minimal statist, etc. should place as their end goal.