Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Sidelines thread to Lilburne and Rettoper's debate, since we can't post in the actual debate thread

rated by 0 users
This post has 194 Replies | 10 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

>> Unfortunately the masses are all too easily brainwashed by statist propaganda.

I think we brainwashed you pretty quick with our propaganda, you are an anarchist now huh? :-p

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 488
Points 8,140
LeeO replied on Sun, Jun 13 2010 5:29 PM

Except that there is nothing practical about it, considering your goal is impossible and thus utopian. It will never be reached and must therefore be discarded - if you want to be practical, that is wink.

I never said it was possible to limit the state. But it is certainly possible to try. Let's say the American government collapses in the near future. Would you rather let it be swallowed into a totalitarian North American Union, or fight to rebuild a sovereign republic? Although all states may end up tyrannical, they are not created equal. There is a big difference in terms of freedom between living in America and living in China. At least we're allowed to surf the internet freely and have more than one kid here.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 488
Points 8,140
LeeO replied on Sun, Jun 13 2010 5:37 PM

I think we brainwashed you pretty quick with our propaganda, you are an anarchist now huh? :-p

I'm just a poor, innocent, impressionable youth - stop taking advantage of me! :)

But in all seriousness, I am quite a gullible person and my mother is worried that I spend too much time at Mises.org. Fortunately she is a Republican so being anti-government isn't the worst thing in the world right now.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

I'm making the point that spreading a message is serious business, and not the same as sitting on ones hands (as some people claim...)

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 488
Points 8,140
LeeO replied on Sun, Jun 13 2010 6:21 PM

I'm making the point that spreading a message is serious business, and not the same as sitting on ones hands (as some people claim...)

I agree.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 488
Points 8,140
LeeO replied on Sun, Jun 13 2010 6:31 PM

Do you believe in critical mass?

I think "critical mass" is a fuzzy term. How do you define it? How do you believe in it? Generally, I am inclined to think that critical masses get things done. A critical mass has power. But I also believe that small groups of people with power get things done despite what the masses want.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Sun, Jun 13 2010 11:35 PM

"But it is certainly possible to try."

It's impossible to square a circle. What in the hell would be the point of trying to do it?

 

"Let's say the American government collapses in the near future. Would you rather let it be swallowed into a totalitarian North American Union, or fight to rebuild a sovereign republic?"

Neither. And that is a legitimate choice, in fact - the only one. Why on earth would you work towards re-establishing your oppressors and rulers? Are you a masochist?

Btw - you failed to comment on the Kinsella article.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 156
Points 3,140

Rettoper wrote, "Before heads explode in the peanut gallery, I acknowledge that factors other than government were the primary drives for this change, nonetheless nothing noteworthy in any human endeavor (save heady and empty rhetoric) has ever emerged from anarchic society."

Who here thinks Rettoper would agree that the State is something "noteworthy" that has "emerged from anarchic society", and by so doing would be contradicting his statement above?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 488
Points 8,140
LeeO replied on Mon, Jun 14 2010 1:00 PM

Here are my comments on the Kinsella article:

The piece provides a good illustration of some of the dangers of relying on utilitarian arguments and being overly focused with "strategy" and tactics. And it demonstrates the importance of relying on principle and carefully distinguishing the pursuit and advocacy of truth and rights from activist concerns.

This pretty much summarizes the article. Kinsella successfully refutes all of Carl Milsted's arguments, and then reiterates what it means to be an anarcho-capitalist:

Rather, as I have pointed out elsewhere, to be an anarcho-capitalist is simply to recognize (a) aggression is unjustified; and (b) even the minarchist state necessarily commits aggression (and is therefore unjustified). It does not mean one predicts such a situation will occur, or "is workable," etc. It only means that the anarchist libertarian opposes all forms of aggression: both private aggression committed by criminals, and institutionalized aggression the state is able to perpetrate only because a large percentage of the population erroneously regards it as legitimate.

In other words, if one is not an anarchist, this means one either holds that states do not commit aggression, or maintains that aggression is (in some cases) justified.

Based on this analysis, I am an anarcho-capitalist. As I have stated in other threads, the only "state" I would support is one that does not commit aggression. But, apparently, this is an impossibility. Therefore, I must be an anarcho-capitalist.

However, I disagree with Kinsella that in general there is a "danger" of being "overly-focused with 'strategy' and tactics." (Why does he put strategy in quotes, as if it is a misused word?) I would argue that when it comes to libertarianism, the danger is perhaps the opposite - there is too much focus on principles, and not enough thought dedicated to strategy. For example, Marxism has been successful because the members of the movement dedicated themselves to strategy and figured out how to achieve power. Vladimir Lenin was a master tactician, and his strategies have helped collectivists all over the world achieve and maintain power.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 366
Points 5,635
yessir replied on Mon, Jun 14 2010 6:56 PM

Rettoper seems to confuse people being pissed at him for people hating classic liberals.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,129
Points 16,635
Giant_Joe replied on Tue, Jun 15 2010 2:37 PM

It seems (to me, at least) like Grayson has won the debate. I think Rettoper is missing some understanding of the "theory and history" stuff.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Tue, Jun 15 2010 3:11 PM

Maybe there will be a twist? Like in the movies.

"Dude... Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!" - Evilsceptic

(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 488
Points 8,140
LeeO replied on Tue, Jun 15 2010 4:29 PM

Rettoper: do you agree  with the assertion by anarchists that a small measure of government would lead to absolutism over time?

Lilburne: No.  It depends on the circumstances.  A small measure of government that in practice enforces property rights would be less likely to lead to absolutism than a completely anarchic society populated by people who don't believe in the efficacy of capitalism and property rights.  However a completely anarchic society populated by people who DID believe in the efficacy of capitalism and property rights would be far less likely to lead to absolutism than either of the other two systems.

This is why anarchy may not be the next model of freedom. It will not work until enough people "believe in the efficacy of capitalism and property rights." I would be interested to know how long Lilburne and other ancaps think it will take for the majority of society to become educated enough for anarchy to be feasible. I think it will take many generations. In the short run, perhaps the most free society we can hope for is one with a limited state that enforces property rights. If this is the case, it is up to minority who believe in capitalism and property rights now to work to establish this sort of state.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 156
Points 3,140

@LeeO, define majority. Majority of a city? a State? the Nation? Isn't New Hampshire working on this?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 2,966
Points 53,250
DD5 replied on Tue, Jun 15 2010 4:56 PM

LeeO:

I would be interested to know how long Lilburne and other ancaps think it will take for the majority of society to become educated enough for anarchy to be feasible.

 

You don't need the majority of society to be educated.  I don't know what Liburne meant.  But what about a small city state seceding from it's mother State?  And then smaller factions of the city State seceding down further?  You don't need to educate all of society.  Freedom can start small and then spread

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

>>Rettoper>>Paradoxically, it seems that the more affluent a society becomes the more likely it will lurch back toward statism.

The ghost of Schumpeter walks amongst us

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,260
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

Sorry to break my rule about responding in here, but it is not to debate, only to clarify.  Yes, DD5, assuming secession is possible and the seceded community is large and wealthy enough to defend itself against outside aggressors, a small community need only have a sufficiently large proportion of its own members believe in the benefits of maximal capitalism for anarcho-capitalism to be sustainable.

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 212
Points 4,330
Aquila replied on Wed, Jun 16 2010 2:59 PM

Retopper brought up a similar point, and I don't quite get it. I don't see why anarchists somehow hurt the battle for limiting the state just because we believe things would be best if the state was done away with all together, or why arguing for a stateless society comes at the expense of arguing for reining back the state. It's not as if the populous will one day be given a ballot in which they may choose 1) the status quo, 2) a minimal state or 3) no state, and those arguing for no state take away votes from the minimal state option. A free market anarchist scholar also does not somehow take away from the minarchist argument; that one studies how law can be formed voluntarily and without the state, instead of studying how something like roads or education could be provided privately under a minimal state, does not hurt the minarchist struggle.

This is a wonderful point. Both minarchists and anarchists are working in the same direction. I see the debate between the two positions as an onion (representing a state). Both sides agree that almost all of the layers should be stripped away, it's just one or two layers at the absolute center that present us with a problem. Since there are dozens of layers on top of that, let's work together at repealing those rather than fighting over what to do once we reach the core. We are so far from it that it would be absurd to divide ourselves now.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,945
Points 36,550

Aquila:
We are so far from it that it would be absurd to divide ourselves now.

I attempted to argue that point from the stance of allying with the anarcho-left towards our common goals on this thread.  Went over like a lead balloon.

"DISSENT WIL NOT BE TOLERATED!!!"

"What Stirner says is a word, a thought, a concept; what he means is no word, no thought, no concept. What he says is not what is meant, and what he means is unsayable." - Max Stirner, Stirner's Critics
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,649
Points 28,420

zero anarchic successes based  on tens of thousands of years of human history is not "ad hoc"  ---- it is significant.   

What is "debating" this type of person going to accomplish? Here is he is blatantly ignoring the history we've provided as evidence months ago. Talk about garbage on the front page.

Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

His arguments from history surely could only amount to mixed democracy with sizeable government being the 'sustainable peak' that he can point to. his pushing a minarchy position is open to all the criticisms he makes of anarchy given the way he argues.

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

<< I have repeatedly challenged you on how the anarchic society would deal with the ambitious, charismatic, and skilled meglomaniac who eventually will control a critical mass of the defense industry.  

how exactly would a minarchy handle that?  an ambitious, charismatic and skilled meglomaniac who will control all of the only defence industry.....

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,649
Points 28,420

<< I have repeatedly challenged you on how the anarchic society would deal with the ambitious, charismatic, and skilled meglomaniac who eventually will control a critical mass of the defense industry.  

how exactly would a minarchy handle that?  an ambitious, charismatic and skilled meglomaniac who will control all of the only defence industry.....

I just came in here to say LOL @ this quote. How does a state handle these megalomaniacs? It worships them.

Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,592
Points 63,685
Sieben replied on Wed, Jun 16 2010 5:04 PM

^NO cus you can write it into the constitution that government will be good!

Banned
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

Sustainable is just another word for perpetual motion.  Whether anything lasts for ever or any given length of time is of no concern.  Anarchy has never existed because it can't exist.  What can exist is stateless markets.  Unlike unicorns, there is no reason to exclude this possibility.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

>>Anarchy has never existed because it can't exist.  What can exist is stateless markets.  

I don't understand your distinction

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

If two people want two different things, someone has to win/lose more or less.  That is effectively hierarchy even if it is not "sustainable".  Maybe statists are so obsessed with sustainability because a state is sustained hierarchical structure.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

yet you've said nothing about anarchy....which is the absence of states; and anarcho-capitalism is synonymous with 'stateless free markets'

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

Anarchy is no rule, not the absence of states.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

I don't understand your distinction

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Female
Posts 635
Points 13,150

Isn't New Hampshire working on this?

New Hampshire's normal population growth swamps the Fail-Staters. This project is about as plausible as Seasteading.

“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini
"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,090
Moderator

Liberte:

New Hampshire's normal population growth swamps the Fail-Staters. This project is about as plausible as Seasteading.


To give them credit, at least they're on land.  There's also the off chance that the Free-Staters become an economically stable enough community to start having babies in sizeable numbers.

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

or educating their neighbours in sizeable numbers

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,090
Moderator

Color me cynical, but that doesn't seem to work very well beyond one person at a time.  To each their own, I guess.  

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Female
Posts 635
Points 13,150

or educating their neighbours in sizeable numbers

lol@educating the masses.

“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini
"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

now you are just being silly

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

This project is about as plausible as Seasteading.

Are you able to articulate what the goals and methodology of SSI are?

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,124
Points 37,405
Angurse replied on Wed, Jun 16 2010 6:53 PM

Strategic fertility is the way to go.

"I am an aristocrat. I love liberty, I hate equality."
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,090
Moderator

Angurse:

Strategic fertility is the way to go.


Yes, quite.  +1  


 

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Female
Posts 635
Points 13,150

now you are just being silly

I'm not the one who thinks the masses are anything but intellectually inert two-legged cattle. You know the reason bad ideas are so massively predominate throughout history: people like them.

“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini
"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre

  • | Post Points: 35
Page 2 of 5 (195 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > | RSS