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

[Deborah K]

100% agree - as someone who is more in the "anarchist" and "atheist" camps, I see a ton of bashing coming from fundamentalists of the other stripes (I wouldn't use either term to describe myself, but for convenience).

If there are 2000 members on RPFs, there are 4000 sets of opinions on the contentious issues, just remember that it is only those who are mad enough to post that do, and those who passively agree might hand out some +rep. Live with love, despite differences in opinion, and these threads and bashing posts won't be so upsetting.

It is for tactical reasons that I am concerned about the bashing of Ron's values, i.e. his presidential run. Other than that, I agree with you.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Where did anyone say you should be ashamed of using the word 'anarchist'? Wow! The sensitivity level is beyond the scope of reason today folks. And btw, this isn't about you. It's about electing the only hope we have right now. No one is asking anyone to table their philosophies, just to have an understanding that as a member of RPFs, and a supporter of Ron, that in a sense, you are an ambassador and it behooves us all to stop with the bashing of the values he holds near and dear. It's NOT about your views, it's about the bashing of Ron's values. I see it as extreme (oh no's - that awful word again) to be touting an opposing view while degrading another. That's it.

Are you not saying that any post arguing on behalf of anarchism here could possibly potentially be damaging to Ron's campaign? Have I not stated that I am actively supporting Ron's campaign? Therefore, should I not understand your position that my espousal on an internet forum of an anarchist philosophy runs contrary to my wish to see Ron elected? What are you expecting me to feel, if not shame?

I don't feel shame, because I don't for a second buy this notion that I'm doing damage to Ron's campaign with what I discuss on this forum. That, to me, is a bunch of overly dramatic hyperventilating by some folks who seem to be imbued with an inflated sense of importance, when one takes a look at the overall picture of the campaign, not to mention who Ron freely and proudly associates with.

 

[Deborah K]

Are you not saying that any post arguing on behalf of anarchism here could possibly potentially be damaging to Ron's campaign?

No, I am not saying that. Show me where I said that. Do you have trouble with comprehension? Geez o Pete!

 

[A Son of Liberty]

No, I am not saying that. Show me where I said that. Do you have trouble with comprehension? Geez o Pete!

It's been a long and fast-developing thread, so if I've misunderstood your point, or misconstrued it with others, I apologize; but I've taken your position to be that those here who espouse principles that are outside of Ron's open view points jeopardize the success of the campaign.

 

[Deborah K]

It's been a long and fast-developing thread, so if I've misunderstood your point, or misconstrued it with others, I apologize; but I've taken your position to be that those here who espouse principles that are outside of Ron's open view points jeopardize the success of the campaign.

You've taken it wrong then. I respect civil discourse on the subjects of anarchy and atheism, and even have friends in here from both viewpoints. I appreciate the apology. You have my respect.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

You've taken it wrong then. I respect civil discourse on the subjects of anarchy and atheism, and even have friends in here from both viewpoints. I appreciate the apology. You have my respect.

Cheers. I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong.

But my comments stand to those with whom I've misconstrued your position!

 

[playboymommy]

wish I could give you rep for this

YAY! I can give rep again...thanks admins!!!!!!!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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.

Well, if you ask more experienced anarchists, you'll get better answers (try mises.org). I can relate though-I get crickets (or non-answers or insults and dismissal) from minarchists when I press them on the numerous flaws in minarchist/constitutionalist theory.

 

[brushfire]

I dont believe in anarchy, I'm not an anarchist, although anyone who is for "free market" capitalism is ok by me. In other words, I find my self agreeing more with anarchists much more than I do with communists.

I'd consider myself a minimalist as well...

My ideal minimalist government would serve as to:
1. Protecting God (sub creator/humanity) given rights through law (i.e. Bill of Rights, including unenumerated rights)
2. Providing civil/criminal courts
3. Providing a police force to enforce the laws
4. Providing for a defense - protecting our sovereignty (not to be confused with world police force)

I think that very small governments are best, where their inefficiencies can be managed, and their injustices can be corrected by a few individuals (i.e. my township officials are quite concerned about my views - obama and dick durbin are not)

Granted, there are no perfect solutions. With any government will come the flaws of "man" - hence Jefferson's quote about "The Tree of Liberty". Government has a useful lifespan, but at some point we have to "reboot the server". Not necessarily throw it away, but clean house. We were given many provisions to do just that, hopefully people wake up and take advantage.

 

[Deborah K]

Cheers. I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong.

But my comments stand to those with whom I've misconstrued your position!

I don't understand the second sentence. Are you just qualifying your stance by siding with those who oppose my view on this? If so, I'm cool widdat.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I dont believe in anarchy, I'm not an anarchist, although anyone who is for "free market" capitalism is ok by me. In other words, I find my self agreeing more with anarchists much more than I do with communists.

I'd consider myself a minimalist as well...

My ideal minimalist government would serve as to:
1. Protecting God (sub creator/humanity) given rights through law (i.e. Bill of Rights, including unenumerated rights)
2. Providing civil/criminal courts
3. Providing a police force to enforce the laws
4. Providing for a defense - protecting our sovereignty (not to be confused with world police force)

I think that very small governments are best, where their inefficiencies can be managed, and their injustices can be corrected by a few individuals (i.e. my township officials are quite concerned about my views - obama and dick durbin are not)

Granted, there are no perfect solutions. With any government will come the flaws of "man" - hence Jefferson's quote about "The Tree of Liberty". Government has a useful lifespan, but at some point we have to "reboot the server". Not necessarily throw it away, but clean house. We were given many provisions to do just that, hopefully people wake up and take advantage.

Interesting. Jefferson believed that "throwing it away" was well within reason when government became tyrannical. "..We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed-that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I don't understand the second sentence. Are you just qualifying your stance by siding with those who oppose my view on this? If so, I'm cool widdat.

What I'm saying is that I stand by my comments (that I'm not doing damage to the campaign) by taking an anarchist position on this forum. And :raspberries: to those who think I am.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Interesting. Jefferson believed that "throwing it away" was well within reason when government became tyrannical. "..We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed-that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

Jefferson elucidated a fundamental, eternal truth with the statement, "these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". It is at the completion of that sentence where minarchists and anarchists part ways. Minarchists believe that government is necessary to secure those unalienable, God- (or natural) given rights. Anarchists believe that government is detrimental to those rights. Government is by definition, then, an unnatural or man-made creation; and thus my opposition to it. God/nature did not create government to secure the rights with which He/it endowed us - man did, out of fear and collectivism.

 

[ProIndividual]

Hit a nerve, did I? How about you just get back to your argument and quit taking offense where it isn't aimed. Good grief.

Is this you asking me? Or the liberals asking the TEA party or Ron Paul supporters?

I can't tell, BECAUSE IT"S THE SAME THING...childish name calling to avoid the issues being debated.

 

[cjm]

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

From what I've read, I think Murray's point about "no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual" does not include intangibles like reputation, only physical property or your physical body. If so, he's consistent, but does not allow for libel or slander cases in his theory as you would like.

One has no control over one's own reputation. Since your reputation is really the idea that someone else has about you, it's not your property, it's theirs. And they can come up with a poor reputation (idea) about you even in the absence of slander or libel. I don't know if Rothbard goes into this, but some anarchists say that ideas can't be property at all, since adopting an idea does not deprive the original idea holder from continuing to have that same idea. In other words, if nothing's been taken from you, you have no claim of aggression. I'm probably butchering that line of reasoning, but hopefully you can get the gist.

Now with regard to libel or slander, that's the action of someone else which affects your reputation, but as described above, your reputation isn't your property. And the lies do not harm your body or physical property.

I'm sure this is a major oversimplification of the theory, but since you were curious and all you got were crickets I thought I'd take a stab at explaining my (limited) understanding of those statements.

That being said, some libertarian theorists consider both force and fraud to be aggressions. If damages due to fraud (lies) can be established (a lost sale?), a free market court may allow for libel/slander claims.

I know this is not a perfect summary of Rothbard, but that's how I took those statements. I hope that helps your understanding or interpretation.

 

[ProIndividual]

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

I'm not Rothbardian...although in economics we agree a lot. I also don't refer to myself as anarcho-capitalist, although I am a free market anarchist. I'm also not strictly an Austrian, although I do agree largely on business cycle, among other things.

The question of intellectual property has long been debated by anarchists. Tucker was against it, Spooner for it. I think it's both...

I take a somewhat nuanced approach advocated by one free market economist who blogs at econtalk.com (I believe, been a while). Anyway, he explains why the market calls for intellectual property naturally in some ways (a book being printed w/o authors permission), and how the market actually deems it theft in another way (if you invented the log cabin, you cannot keep another pioneer from building one by just looking at yours and reverse engineering (per se), in an attempt to monopolize this habiatation innovation). So, intellectual property needs to be protected strongly in some ways, and absolutely deemed theft in other ways, in order for the market to function efficiently. The determination is largely done organically, as I just described. Almost no one would think printing off a book you just bought at the book store and selling it for half price (bootlegging) would be considered a legitimate way to do business....and almost no one would see building a log cabin as theft.

Again, social norms dictate behavior, not laws. And all the bootlegging you think rules prevent, are happening right now even with the State being here. The laws and rules don't prevent crime, they respond to it after the fact (making pre-emptive regulation basically inept).

So, like you said, Rothbard can't go there. He would be saying your reputation isn't owned by you. But I can, and so did Lysander Spooner in the 1800s.

The question of monopolies on courts and judges (or what we often refer to as arbitors)...well I personally think courts are the oldest function of government, predating even the State, legislators, and executives (or monarch, w/e). So, courts, in order to not be monopolized, must have a backstop and competition. The backstop is jury nullification, and the competition can be private agencies competing for a contract from a nation, or private freelance arbitars competing for the slots in the system (essentially how it was designed), but not where these people are necessarily elected, or undismissable on a moments notice. If you're anarchocapitalist the former, if you're more of a Free Constitutionalist like me, you'll choose the latter. In effect, both of us are theorizing, and will just go with what has the best results in the market.

If I didn't address what you meant, please redirect me, and I will try to do better next time.

 

[ProIndividual]

stop with the bashing of the values he holds near and dear.

We aren't bashing anything in this thread, so maybe you mean elsewhere. To question these ideas is not to bash them. Groupthink will do us no good. If you mean elsewhere that I am not privy to (remember, I'm fairly new) then I will defer to your experience.

 

[ProIndividual]

Originally Posted by brushfire

I dont believe in anarchy, I'm not an anarchist, although anyone who is for "free market" capitalism is ok by me. In other words, I find my self agreeing more with anarchists much more than I do with communists.

I'd consider myself a minimalist as well...

My ideal minimalist government would serve as to:
1. Protecting God (sub creator/humanity) given rights through law (i.e. Bill of Rights, including unenumerated rights)
2. Providing civil/criminal courts
3. Providing a police force to enforce the laws
4. Providing for a defense - protecting our sovereignty (not to be confused with world police force)

I think that very small governments are best, where their inefficiencies can be managed, and their injustices can be corrected by a few individuals (i.e. my township officials are quite concerned about my views - obama and dick durbin are not)

Granted, there are no perfect solutions. With any government will come the flaws of "man" - hence Jefferson's quote about "The Tree of Liberty". Government has a useful lifespan, but at some point we have to "reboot the server". Not necessarily throw it away, but clean house. We were given many provisions to do just that, hopefully people wake up and take advantage.
Interesting. Jefferson believed that "throwing it away" was well within reason when government became tyrannical. "..We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed-that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

Benjamin Tucker called individualist anarchists (like me) "unterrified Jeffersonians", because we hold dear the belief "that the best government is the government which governs least, and the government that governs least doesn't govern at all". I'd simply point out he is refering to the State when he says "government"...words anarchists use interchangably but don't necessarily mean the exact same thing.

He also said (in the quote in my signature) that "The State is said by some to be a necessary evil; it must be made unncecessary."

In that, he sums it up for me...I wouldn't advocate taking away government where it is necessary, I say it MUST be made unnecessary through human innovation. But then again, government isn't the State monopoly either...

 

[ProIndividual]

Minarchists believe that government is necessary to secure those unalienable, God- (or natural) given rights. Anarchists believe that government is detrimental to those rights. Government is by definition, then, an unnatural or man-made creation; and thus my opposition to it. God/nature did not create government to secure the rights with which He/it endowed us - man did, out of fear and collectivism.

A collective to stop collectivism...that's about right...errr, wrong too.

 

[mczerone]

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.

Firstly, I must admit that I disagree with Rothbard and Block and Hoppe on some things. If you look through my post history you'll find that I never blindly direct people to read these authors, and will argue the philosophical, political, legal, or pragmatic issues with my own thoughts and deductions.

Second, there is no contradiction in Rothbard here: he very clearly states that no one owns their reputation, but that a "reputation" is an opinion that someone else owns about you. You can certainly try to improve your reputation and defend it from attacks, but when he says that there is no legal basis for libel he means that person A's spreading of information about B is either true and should rightly be disseminated, or it is false and person B can demonstrate it's falsity, or person A will quickly erode their own reputation for honesty. Especially today when information is cheap and widely disseminated there would be little risk of libel permanently effecting one's earning potential. And even if it could, why should a business owner expect a communally supported legal system to defend his from these charges? Couldn't "Libel Insurance" develop to protect income streams and work to counteract untrue attacks?

This brings me to my third and central point, that in a anarchic or volutaryist or ancap system you'd be free to join a legal association/govt that forbids their members from disseminating libel, and seeks to justly recover from those non-members who libel the members. They would only be restricted by what the body of non-members found to be unjust - and they would quickly reach an equilibrium that represented the point at which the quality and cost of protection against libel truly reflected what their members were willing to pay for, and at which non-members were satisfied that the rules were being applied justly.

Rothbard fleetingly wrote what he thought the "perfect libertarian law" should be. He had some good insights, and some things that I don't think are right. But that shouldn't stop you from embracing your own reasoned version of a political philosophy (and if you've followed discussions on mises.org, or here, or elsewhere, you'd know that Rothbard is venerated, but only a few people take what he wrote as infallible dogmatic gospel). I wouldn't let Hillary Clinton's musing about the role of a state dissuade me from considering other arguments in favor of a state, so I ask that you don't say "You see, this one guy wasn't perfect, therefore you're all wrong."

I hope that didn't just sound like crickets to you.