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

[Travlyr]

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.

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?

 

[brushfire]

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.

IMO - Jeffersons actions didnt always align with some of his words. He played many roles in government throughout his life, and held quite a few offices. His participation as a founding father, his holding of multiple offices, and executive actions that were anything but laissez faire, all somewhat contradict the "Jeffersonian Anarchist" picture that I've seen painted.

To put more precision on my remark about "cleaning house", though. I was not trying to put words in Jefferson's mouth, you actually caught me being lazy in that post... What I was really trying to say is that the structure of our government is such that it would be under the people's control for as long as possible. It is my opinion that we can change rather than abolish. Although, as the governed, either option would be within our right...
I agree with Ron Paul in that we took a wrong turn when we started to deviate from the constitution. I hold the belief that there's still enough for us to salvage, even if that is just the constitution itself.

 

[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.
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.

Crickets? That's all I hear tonight.

 

[Pericles]

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.

I would note that you didn't address the point made in the first essay of Rothbard I linked in how reputation was the key to causing people to honor contracts and keep agreements because of the disincentive of a bad reputation. Point being that is good reputation is valuable to me so that I can function as a member of the society at a lower transaction cost than someone with a bad reputation. Thus a good reputation has economic value, and to -rep as an act to harm a competitor is doing actual harm.

Rothbard can't have it both ways. This then plays into his arbitration and dispute mechanism. A player who is trying to harm a competitor has no reason to agree to any form of dispute resolution. This is ultimately the problem, because efficient competitive markets depend on the lowest possible barriers to entry. A well established supplier of a good or service has every incentive to libel a competitor when there is no penalty for doing so, thereby raising an artificial barrier for a new entrant into the market. Libel operates as some means of restraint on this behavior by making it possible to impose a cost on a market participant who provides untruthful information intentionally.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I would note that you didn't address the point made in the first essay of Rothbard I linked in how reputation was the key to causing people to honor contracts and keep agreements because of the disincentive of a bad reputation. Point being that is good reputation is valuable to me so that I can function as a member of the society at a lower transaction cost than someone with a bad reputation. Thus a good reputation has economic value, and to -rep as an act to harm a competitor is doing actual harm.

Rothbard can't have it both ways. This then plays into his arbitration and dispute mechanism. A player who is trying to harm a competitor has no reason to agree to any form of dispute resolution. This is ultimately the problem, because efficient competitive markets depend on the lowest possible barriers to entry. A well established supplier of a good or service has every incentive to libel a competitor when there is no penalty for doing so, thereby raising an artificial barrier for a new entrant into the market. Libel operates as some means of restraint on this behavior by making it possible to impose a cost on a market participant who provides untruthful information intentionally.

Technically yes. But this disadvantage doesn't negate the other advantages the new market entrant has. Plus, libel is an exercise of free speech. It's not a very civil use of it, but that's not the issue. You seem to be reducing a dynamic, real life situation to a 2-dimensional model. It just doesn't work like this in real life. The new market entrant, if competent, will have anticipated libel and so forth beforehand and prepared his business plan/model accordingly.

 

[Kade]

Irrelevant. Hitler had some pretty snappy quotes too. Doesn't absolve these guys of their basic philosophies i.e. advocate of eugenics; socialism - which is in oppositon to my own.

Stop attacking. It isn't becoming.

Russell's discourse on eugenics is one of the most complicated and convoluted misconceptions in the 20th century, and I'm well aware of the ridiculous sources you are gathering this from...

Your understanding of what socialism is, is so utterly flawed, it may not even be worth discussing it with you. You have no idea what you are talking about, and it would be humbling and honorable if you were to admit as much. I wouldn't even worry though, you join many on here in this level of comprehension.

 

[mtj458]

Haven't read through the whole thread of course, but here's my two cents:

I'm a minarchist and I find anarchy largely impractical. Morally, I agree 100% with anarchists, but I don't hold morals as an absolute important thing. I'm willing to live in a society where the government provides some services, and I think 99% of all people are too. And yes, those services would clearly be provided through force and coercion.

But where I disagree with anarchists would not be where the OP says- I support complete free trade, and open borders as an extension of my free trade stance. I just don't see an anarchist economy dealing with public goods problems efficiently. I think private law would work better than most people think, but I think it would be far less efficient than what I have now in America. I disagree that an anarchist society would provide solid infrastructure such as roads. Again, it would be better than the average person thinks it would be under anarchy, but I think the government would provide it better.

And finally my main complaint- I'm nearly certain an anarchist society would be overrun by another government. You can give me 100 reasons why I'm wrong in theory, but if I was actually wrong, wouldn't we live in an anarchist society right now? The world wasn't created with governments. Originally we had anarchy and governments arose. I can't see why that wouldn't happen again over time. Just think of our own country's foreign policy- governments don't need a well thought out reason to invade another land.

Still, I mostly agree with anarchists and I definitely don't have a problem with them. I've learned a lot about economics and philosophy from them. I think associating with anarchists is probably not a good way to gain support for a minarchist society though.

 

[Kade]

Haven't read through the whole thread of course, but here's my two cents:

I'm a minarchist and I find anarchy largely impractical. Morally, I agree 100% with anarchists, but I don't hold morals as an absolute important thing. I'm willing to live in a society where the government provides some services, and I think 99% of all people are too. And yes, those services would clearly be provided through force and coercion.

So beautiful. I love that such a small majority, who are often responsible for the largest philosophical reductionism in liberty, happen to believe that their worldview should be imposed on the rest of us... Anarchists represents the world's only known case of Individualist tyranny over the collective.

I wish they were better arguing for individual rights, but alas, the waiter at IHOP the other day did a better job of defending why he shouldn't be taxed on his tips.

I do love this country.

 

[mtj458]

So beautiful. I love that such a small majority, who are often responsible for the largest philosophical reductionism in liberty, happen to believe that their worldview should be imposed on the rest of us... Anarchists represents the world's only known case of Individualist tyranny over the collective.

I wish they were better arguing for individual rights, but alas, the waiter at IHOP the other day did a better job of defending why he shouldn't be taxed on his tips.

I do love this country.

But isn't your view that a much smaller minority should impose their worldview on the rest of us? Keep thinking that everyone who's not an anarchist must be pure evil, I'm sure that will win the naysayers over eventually.

And by the way, I don't think tipsshould be taxed. I'd bet there a lot of people are not anarchists that don't think tips should be taxed

 

[Kade]

But isn't your view that a much smaller minority should impose their worldview on the rest of us? Keep thinking that everyone who's not an anarchist must be pure evil, I'm sure that will win the naysayers over eventually.

And by the way, I don't think tipsshould be taxed. I'd bet there a lot of people are not anarchists that don't think tips should be taxed

Not my view at all. I am only arguing that people are not very good at defending their rights, rationally. Just yesterday I got in a minor debate with someone here who squarely thought Freedom of Speech was only that in regards to the Constitution and how that speech affects government. I can defend Freedom of Thought from any group, organization, authority, etc.

In case you didn't read my post, I was agreeing with you.

 

[Kade]

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.

This annoys the living hell out of me... especially because I then go and read the links, to give them proper respect, and I'm disappointed greatly. People cannot make their own arguments in these debates, and really that is all I'm asking.

People need to think for themselves more.

 

[mtj458]

Not my view at all. I am only arguing that people are not very good at defending their rights, rationally. Just yesterday I got in a minor debate with someone here who squarely thought Freedom of Speech was only that in regards to the Constitution and how that speech affects government. I can defend Freedom of Thought from any group, organization, authority, etc.

In case you didn't read my post, I was agreeing with you.

My fault, I thought you were being sarcastic

 

[Deborah K]

Russell's discourse on eugenics is one of the most complicated and convoluted misconceptions in the 20th century, and I'm well aware of the ridiculous sources you are gathering this from...

Your understanding of what socialism is, is so utterly flawed, it may not even be worth discussing it with you. You have no idea what you are talking about, and it would be humbling and honorable if you were to admit as much. I wouldn't even worry though, you join many on here in this level of comprehension.

Then I am in good company because most on this forum reject the idea of eugenics and socialism. Your need to belittle and insult is a reflection of your inability to argue an issue with fact. If you are a socialist or an apologist for it, say it outright and explain your position with civility instead of hiding behind vitriol.

 

[mczerone]

I would note that you didn't address the point made in the first essay of Rothbard I linked in how reputation was the key to causing people to honor contracts and keep agreements because of the disincentive of a bad reputation. Point being that is good reputation is valuable to me so that I can function as a member of the society at a lower transaction cost than someone with a bad reputation. Thus a good reputation has economic value, and to -rep as an act to harm a competitor is doing actual harm.

Rothbard can't have it both ways. This then plays into his arbitration and dispute mechanism. A player who is trying to harm a competitor has no reason to agree to any form of dispute resolution. This is ultimately the problem, because efficient competitive markets depend on the lowest possible barriers to entry. A well established supplier of a good or service has every incentive to libel a competitor when there is no penalty for doing so, thereby raising an artificial barrier for a new entrant into the market. Libel operates as some means of restraint on this behavior by making it possible to impose a cost on a market participant who provides untruthful information intentionally.

I did address this. Your reputation (an opinion about you in other people's heads) is highly valuable to you, and you will work to improve it by any means possible, such as honoring your promises and contracts, and being generous and jovial. But you don't own your reputation.

And further, I said that private law may indeed allow some form of libel that is determined by market factors and other law firms ensuring justice for non-members.

I really don't understand what it is that you don't understand.

 

[mczerone]

Crickets? That's all I hear tonight.

Umm... two other lengthy posts had already responded to the "crickets" thing. Are we on your ignore list or are you just not paying attention?

 

[Travlyr]

Umm... two other lengthy posts had already responded to the "crickets" thing. Are we on your ignore list or are you just not paying attention?

No, I don't have anybody on ignore.
I was hoping for a response to these two questions in part because landowners across America will want to know how anarchists plan to handle property rights before they join the philosophy.

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?

What say you?

 

[mczerone]

Not my view at all. I am only arguing that people are not very good at defending their rights, rationally. Just yesterday I got in a minor debate with someone here who squarely thought Freedom of Speech was only that in regards to the Constitution and how that speech affects government. I can defend Freedom of Thought from any group, organization, authority, etc.

In case you didn't read my post, I was agreeing with you.

If your oil changes aren't provided by the govt, you'll have to change your own oil in your car!!!!11!!!

Just because there isn't a single monopoly "rights defender" doesn't mean that each poor soul who doesn't know anything about comparative ethics is left defending their own rights in the face of slick rights-abusers. A division of labor and structure of production will develop so that (1) people will have some rational basis to actually have some idea of what rights are - because then they aren't just taken for granted, and (2) those firms which best protect rights will become the standard provider of protection.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

So beautiful. I love that such a small majority, who are often responsible for the largest philosophical reductionism in liberty, happen to believe that their worldview should be imposed on the rest of us... Anarchists represents the world's only known case of Individualist tyranny over the collective.

I wish they were better arguing for individual rights, but alas, the waiter at IHOP the other day did a better job of defending why he shouldn't be taxed on his tips.

I do love this country.

Uh, what? Anarchists would impose their world view on society?

That's some funny stuff, right there.

 

[Kade]

Uh, what? Anarchists would impose their world view on society?

That's some funny stuff, right there.

It is... because it is so blatantly antithetical to their goals.

 

[Kade]

Then I am in good company because most on this forum reject the idea of eugenics and socialism. Your need to belittle and insult is a reflection of your inability to argue an issue with fact. If you are a socialist or an apologist for it, say it outright and explain your position with civility instead of hiding behind vitriol.

I don't hide my positions. I have to defend myself constantly from the YOU ARE A SOCIALIST!!! DIE DIE DIE type of comments. My positions have always, ALWAYS been misconstrued, even though they remain in writing for all to read.

You did it again, btw.

Then I am in good company because most on this forum reject the idea of eugenics and socialism

is entirely irrelevant to what I said.... namely, that you don't understand socialism, and have no right throw it out as an insult to anyone until you do, and that Russell's views on eugenics are misinterpreted. Your sentence still does not acknowledge that you understand those points. All you are saying is: "This is what I heard, and I disagree with that."

An equivalent argument: "You think Hitler was good for Germany, obviously you are wrong. I win"

Not fun.