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

Government, Anarcho Capitalism, Ron Paul -- just where does the solution lie?

rated by 0 users
This post has 20 Replies | 5 Followers

Not Ranked
Posts 6
Points 165
TimFrost8 Posted: Sat, Oct 1 2011 6:24 AM

Hi Everyone,

This is my first post on this site, and also I've yet to explore the resources and threads contained within. I felt compelled to write here for a few reasons not least because I would like to expand my own understanding of certain issues and also I would liked to be challenged and critiqued by those with overlapping interests.

I would like to give you some context of what I have written below. First off I'm an investor, not particularly old or experienced at the tender age of 29. Secondly I am a strong believer in what Ron Paul is attempting to achieve in mainstream American politics and greatly respect the man for his intellectual rigor, tact and perserverence. My journey began when I wanted greater understanding of economic ideas so I could develop more accurate predictive tools. I found that one of Jim Roger's book resonated with me several years ago, which in turn led me to search out persons with similar track records and ways of analysis (usually centered around monetary policy). Individuals like Marc Faber and Peter Schiff stood out for me with their track records and suddenly this common term 'Austrian Economics' started turning up. Of course this eventually brought Ron Paul to my attention and  re-ignited my interest in political theory. While I don't claim to be an academic or have a deep understanding of various schools of thought and thinkers, my opinions are starting to become quite defined and I wish to see if I'm making conclusions too hastily. Anyway I was commenting on Politico the other day after a story ran titled ' Super PACs And Secret Money: The Unregulated Shadow Campaign'. I preceded to have a ongoing conversation with a supporter of the Democrats. We had a very pleasant exchange and both agreed that Crony Capitalism was a serious problem after each posting many examples. Of course his support of a mainstream party, and mine for Ron Paul, meant that philosophically we were oceans apart. I started writing my final post to make this point however it went on and one and on, and it became more of intellectual exercise of where my true philosophical, economic, and political positions presently stood. It became apparent that it really was too long and possibly  innapropriate for Politico. What I hope is that this knowledgeable audience would kindly read through my flow of consciousness below. I would really appreciate any comments on any topics whatsoever as I've packed a few in:

@Exhale, 

Thanks for your response. Yes I believe we are very close in our recognition of the nasty symptoms we see in the economy because of Government collusion with private businesses. Where I think we differ just slightly is possibly the surface causes of these harmful activities. However where I know we differ hugely is in our underlying philosophic views and the overall remedies we would prescribe. I am very much a believer that a free market capitalist system is the most efficient distributor of goods and services (there is little doubt about this in my opinion). Certainly Government intervention causes imbalances to this system that can be very damaging however I am not an extreme ideologue so I will not totally dismiss a partially mixed economy at this present time.  I am also, like the founding fathers of our nation, concerned with individual liberty (not the ‘freedom’ currently exported by our government, which is poorly conceptualized and framed within strict Authoritarian parameters) and the rights of the individual. I do not feel that Big Government can solve these problems because it is in its nature to cause them, hence why I am not an advocate of either the Republican or Democrat parties or their narrow policy solutions. Centralization of power often leads to a ‘might is right’ situation where coercion is exercised and the inalienable rights of the individual are subordinated. I see to current two-party political system as coercion to a great extent particularly as laws and institutions which an individual is subjugate to, and which clearly infringe upon his personal liberties, could be in effect because of the ill-advised and Unconstitutional decisions of Government representatives of the distant past, such as Woodrow Wilson greatly increasing the Authoritarianism of the State during a 5 year period almost 100 years ago.

 

I would like to point out that despite ascribing to the thinking of the Austrian School of Economics I draw a line with regards to some of its full philosophical and political extensions. Some of the intellectuals in this field advocate Anarcho-Capitalism as a workable and preferable system. Personally I am highly skeptical of this because of its incompatibility with my views on liberty, in fact I believe without any Government whatsoever we would soon revert back to large groups, in their many forms, which almost always aggrandize power and look to expand whilst at the same time subordinating the individual. These conditions again would naturally infringe on personal sovereignty, barring a mystical universal enlightenment suddenly permeating all mankind thus morally informing the types of groups formed and magically altering all traditional collective behavior dynamics. Also typical of much human dogma there are a few absolutist assumptions made; Authoritarians also always have a cynical view of human nature, while Anarchists optimistically see humans as inherently peaceful and rational. The truth lies somewhere in between and is reliably more transient. Anarchists also tend to ignore the very important behavioral characteristics of groups. For instance it is certainly within the realm of possibility, and precedence, that five thousand relatively peaceful and rational individuals could by alliance to a Group alter their individual nature to a dramatically different collectivist value system. I would like to point out that I feel Austrian Economists and advocates of Free Market Capitalism are totally correct in their instincts about Government and are right to reject it on the grounds that it coercively enforces rule against subjects (Democracy is simply a better and more palatable collectivist system than others). Importantly however these same philosophers whilst excellent at providing worthwhile and perceptive critiques of the current systems of Government become very lazy and ‘pie-in-the-sky’ when presenting their own political ideals. Certainly this seems true of the Austrian Economist Murray Rothbard who termed the concept Anarcho-Capitalism.

 

The truth is no system will be perfect but the one proposed by the founding fathers of very Limited Government, bound by a social contract called the Constitution, is I believe the most pragmatic compromise and one that strikes a fine balance between prosperity, security and individual liberty. Ron Paul has deep idealistic philosophies but he is certainly also a pragmatist well aware of the direction he is going and the practical steps necessary to get there, not to mention the final outcome (including its potential problems). I feel his key goal has always been the development of independent thought which is something largely subverted in the current collectivist culture. Ron Paul also understands that this intellectual autonomy is the best tonic for real and lasting transition to what he feels would be a far healthier society. Importantly he is also not some naïve idealist that would immediately remove all apparatus of government if given the chance, and then expect individual liberties and happiness to flourish from Capitalism alone. That’s why he advocates in America a shared social context with a common culture stemming from the Christian values of the Ten Commandments (noble ones indeed) combined with a rejection of tyranny, that serve to inform the documented approvals enshrined within the Constitution (further guiding all further approvals in the form of laws) that limits the power of Government. This model of Limited Government would be an Agency of Liberty in a fairly workable sense. And why is liberty considered above all other rights? Well individual sovereignty is quite possibly the only thing that all individuals hold of very high and near equal value.

The key for me is the maintenance of these values. Most likely this would have to take place through education (private) of citizens, and hopefully lead to the venerating of those individuals that fully understand and adhere to these philosophic and intellectual principles. The further hope is the identification of the best custodians (Men like Ron Paul) to safeguard against the continual threat of the Government Group trying to expand and thereby subjugate. This expansion happens most often in times of crisis, and even with what I think is a vastly more stable model than what we have today, these moments of crisis will no doubt come again. How can this be averted? Some would say that as a species we would eventually revert to the corruption of collectivism especially as a Constitutional Republic still retains the structural trappings of Patriarchal Government – and our own history perhaps suggests as much. In my view this does not mean we should passively accept the fate of increasing Authoritarianism (which often self-destructs from one form into slightly different manifestations), but aim for as much freedom from tyranny as can be attained and considers how these ideas and philosophic and political principles can be better entrenched whilst at the same time avoiding any coercive activities to do so. This is the challenge I’m interested in addressing.

 

I feel that eastern traditions of mindfulness meditation (currently gaining popularity in North America) will help in reducing actions fuelled by negative emotional states (anger, greed, jealousy, revenge, hatred) which most often lead to very negative and hastily contrived outcomes. Also contemporary economic schools of thought could perhaps consider Value Creation, no doubt important in a world of finite resources, as a far more central principle of economic activities instead of Output, Consumption and Growth; I know a couple of impressive contemporary thinkers who make this very compelling case from a marketing, sustainable business and behavioral psychology standpoint. So clearly I accept that not all proposals for liberty and prosperity came unequivocally from a small group of men over 200 years ago though unabashedly I would say it remains one of the greatest documents devised by human intelligence and it should be honored as it was meant to be.  I would like to be honest and say that I don’t know with certainty all of the missing pieces for this pragmatic Utopia but I’m optimistic they can be found provided a common goal can be set for all the participants: that liberty be utmost in all considerations and power remains primarily with the people, not the government.

 

Ron Paul describes himself as a ‘Volunteerist’ and some take this to be a synonym for Anarcho-Capitalist. I don’t believe this to be true whatsoever as the man himself usually calls a spade a spade (despite how unpopular what he says may be), and I think his choice of language was very deliberate. By Voluteerism he obviously insinuates that all persons have the full and complete free choice of participation as opposed to coercion from a federal power backed with the threat of punishment. Obviously the most practival way to deliver this at present is through the devolved power of government to a local level, these local jurisdictions would be the states. This competition of ideas would mean movement of population to the state they most agree with and the results of this experimentation will be evident to all. If an individual wants to sign up for redistribution of his/her wealth and welfarism then they simply move to a state with taxes and entitlement programs (perhaps with a sound currency it would be a tolerable and efficient form of Social Democracy). Its very unlikely however that many job creating individuals would remain in these jurisdictions, and no doubt the lower income persons so fond of this forcible redistribution of wealth will become less enamored with the prospect, thus exposing the true fallacy of Socialist ideas (most less wealthy individuals accept the idea that they are entitled to the property of others especially those with greater wealth, however the reverse is rarely true). Other states with more laissez-faire business environments could flourish in comparison thus leading to the migration of people and capital, hopefully setting an example to others.

This competition between states would also provide an obvious testing ground for issues such as drug legalization, which I feel would be the only current road of compromise. Many Americans still feel that the success stories of Portugal or Holland are not compelling reasons at all, and this is also in spite of the views of the present US drugs Czar. What answers have I received for this skepticism? ‘America is different’ and ‘what works there won’t work here’. Obviously rational debate does not lead the agenda on such matters of perceived morality, which are also again permeated by the collectivist thinking of ‘these laws are not for me, because I wouldn’t take these horrible drugs even if they were legal, but we need them to protect others from themselves’.

 

Overall though, is this the roadmap to success that we should look for? Anything that elevates liberty would appear to be a worthwhile experiment. How we prevent its gradual erosion from ever expanding Groups even at a state level is another matter all together……….. But I believe we should never accept absolute short-term stability at the expense of freedom no matter the risks.

 

Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 853
Points 17,830

Welcome to the forum.  You're on the right track.  As Ron Paul says, you can spend a lifetime learning from this site.

It might help if you explain what you see as the difference between Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism and Paul's voluntarist ideal.  Your description of voluntarism - "all persons have the full and complete free choice of participation as opposed to coercion from a federal power backed with the threat of punishment" - also describes anarcho-capitalism, doesn't it?

"the most practival way to deliver this at present is through the devolved power of government to a local level, these local jurisdictions would be the states. This competition of ideas would mean movement of population to the state they most agree with and the results of this experimentation will be evident to all."

What is the logical conclusion of this line of thinking?  Why stop at the state level?  Why not have independent counties and independent cities as well?  Why not allow any community that wants to secede and try a new system the freedom to do so?  Even more competition, right?  Is there such a thing as "too local"?  Who decides?

I can offer you some reading suggestions if you'd like.  What have you read so far?  How did you conclude that Rothbard's political ideals were lazy and pie-in-the-sky?

 

 

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 6
Points 165

Thanks for you response Graham.

I think the main difference is that whilst Paul trusts the efficiency of the Free Market, he also venerates the idea of individual liberty and sovereignty and does not just accept the notion that these would be naturally protected in the absence of a strong Limited Government. Furthermore everyone probably benefits from a moral compass guiding how they organize and educate, and this is particularly important is a society which would almost fully trust the decisions of private individuals. Paul advocates individual Volunteerism within this practical framework. Just removing the state apparatus and expecting individual sovereignty to be elevated and protected without an explicit social contract for a particular jurisdiction (America in this case) is what I consider ‘pie-in-the-sky'. Almost every individual if you ask them would advocate their own individual sovereignty but this all changes when groups are formed and just expecting 'natural law' and Capitalism to somehow overcome the issues of group tyranny and subjugation does not seem realistic to me. I feel that without meaning to Anarcho-Capitalism lazily advocates the replacement the current form of government tyranny with other forms of group tyranny

Again I state that Ron Paul and I trust the efficiency of the free market but do not trust in it from a libertarian standpoint when taken to its logical political extreme. For instance what is to say that in absence of state we would not reorganize into similar collectivist systems to those we have today? I would find that more likely than not. This is why I find it lazy to presume that free-market capitalism would automatically inform everything and everyone with its principles becoming instinct once the state has been abolished. I have no doubt that groups will arise, as they do today and consistently throughout history, that would reject the notion of free-market capitalism (an economic philosophy not fully understood or accepted even now) and again try to subjugate individuals by force. Remember this concept of the private ownership of the means of production is not a universally accepted idea, especially historically. The mere fact that is an idea and not a clearly observable reality, such as men see using their eyes, makes a lot of ideas to do with Anarcho Capitalism assumptive by nature. Therefore I think it is also a false notion that governments alone are the problem and its removal (however that would take place) would offer a simple panacea. I don't believe that the state, in all the forms that we currently have, are the only barriers preventing the majority and everything in society from acting in rational, logical and moral ways. I know humans not always to be rational, I know humans often form collectives, I know collectives can have vastly differing belief systems, and I know that collectives can sometimes be very irrational and destructive. What safeguards would there be against this? Who is to say that Monarchy or Government would not logically arise because of the unabated growth of group power? Rothbard’s belief in the intrinsic nature of Nonagression and automatic adherence to individual contracts seems hugely assumptive, whereas Minarchism at least does not.

This is why I believe Ron Paul advocates strong Limited Government, not as a transitional phase but an end in itself, for a group is realistically needed to protect individuals from other groups. With these individual liberties and rights protected they can now freely volunteer to participate without threat of force.

 

‘What is the logical conclusion of this line of thinking?  Why stop at the state level?  Why not have independent counties and independent cities as well?  Why not allow any community that wants to secede and try a new system the freedom to do so?  Even more competition, right?  Is there such a thing as "too local"?  Who decides?’

I totally agree, and this should happen. However again I think that a social contract protected by Limited Government would be needed for this right to exist…….. Groups mostly get bigger not smaller irrespective of what is more efficient or creates greater competition.

 

And please suggest any reading materials that you have enjoyed. I would welcome everything and anything.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 461
Points 8,685

Lazy and pie in the sky? Hmph.

(By the way, Paul has a picture of Rothbard in his congressional office).

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 645
Points 9,865
James replied on Sun, Oct 2 2011 4:57 AM

I think it's incredibly naive for minarchists to imagine that this disgusting, irrational cult called the state is somehow going to tranform itself into a benign institution after thousands years of oppression, tears and tyranny.  Do you think you're finally going to discover the magic words that it wants to hear from you?

You are bleeding from the ears, mouth and nose, and yet you still want to smash your head against the wall of  "democracy" one more time to try to produce a different result.  I think a concussion may have set in quite some time ago.

There is no difference between anarcho-capitalism and voluntaryism.

Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 554
Points 9,130

I somehow doubt that a minarchist nation would be a democracy. If it was, it would have very severe constitutional restrictions on executive powers (like modern Germany) and would probably be ideologically polygenous in name only (look at Singapore, or Taiwan, where one ideology effectively dominates the political scene).

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Sun, Oct 2 2011 7:06 AM

it's not that minarchists believe that state can change, they believe it is neccessary for a state to exist in order to protect private property and enforce laws. They don't see it as evil organization at all, because if they saw it that way, they wouldn't advocate "limited" statism.

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

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

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 6
Points 165

RothbardsDisciple

I am also a supporter of Murray Rothbard's ideas however my admiration focuses on his understanding of economic theory and libertarianism.

When he steps into the realm of political science I instantly feel he becomes far more assumptive and absolutist in his positions. He advocates total rejection of the state without a particularly full understanding of these collectivist groups and whether they might be able to perform some sort of beneficial purpose beyond just economic matters. I mean why do you think that Ron Paul advocates a Constitutional Republic? Do you think he is secretly an Anarcho-Capitalist who is lying and playing the part of the politician just to get elected? Just because from a free market economics standpoint state intervention is not preferable does not mean one should believe that all notions of state should be rejected. And just because free market economics is the most efficient distributor of good and services and economic freedoms similarly does not mean it should be extended into a fully encompassing political science .  

 

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 6
Points 165

Praetyre, that is a very good response.

Democracy is quite clearly a palatable form of Authoritarianism which again subjugates the libertarian ideal in favor of Mob Rule. 

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 6
Points 165

Hi Maiku, I think you've come to something important.

When considering Minarchism my key question is how to maintain the limitations on the state because of its natural predispositions?

1. Pehaps the Constitution would have to be absolutist and impermeable to ammendmants and misinterpretation.

2. Perhaps a Constitutional Protection Angency would be the highest authority in the land, who duty it is to educate and enforce the limitations of the Consitution (Persons such as Ron Paul would be perfect for this role). However this again starts to assume the charateristics of Platonic 'Philosopher Kings' and might be might be perceived as idealistic Authoritarianism vunerable to tyranny. However once the concepts of limited government, free market capitalism, and individual liberty are enshrined and bind the power of the CPA then you hope that it could morally and intellectually be trusted.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 645
Points 9,865
James replied on Sun, Oct 2 2011 7:54 AM

it's not that minarchists believe that state can change, they believe it is neccessary for a state to exist in order to protect private property and enforce laws. They don't see it as evil organization at all, because if they saw it that way, they wouldn't advocate "limited" statism.

 
 
They see it as evil, and they see themselves and their elected representatives as the messiahs that are going to transform it into something good.
 
An anarcho-capitalist believes that an entrepreneur works to make money by serving the consumer.  A minarchist believes that politicians work like Jesus.
 
Just because from a free market economics standpoint state intervention is not preferable does not mean one should believe that all notions of state should be rejected. And just because free market economics is the most efficient distributor of good and services and economic freedoms similarly does not mean it should be extended into a fully encompassing political science .  
 
But law and security and everything the state claims a monopoly on are goods and services.  Why don't you want them to be distributed efficiently?
Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Sun, Oct 2 2011 8:56 AM

TimFrost8:

1. Pehaps the Constitution would have to be absolutist and impermeable to ammendmants and misinterpretation.

2. Perhaps a Constitutional Protection Angency would be the highest authority in the land, who duty it is to educate and enforce the limitations of the Consitution (Persons such as Ron Paul would be perfect for this role). However this again starts to assume the charateristics of Platonic 'Philosopher Kings' and might be might be perceived as idealistic Authoritarianism vunerable to tyranny. However once the concepts of limited government, free market capitalism, and individual liberty are enshrined and bind the power of the CPA then you hope that it could morally and intellectually be trusted.

 

No matter what you write on paper, it is just words.. People are interpreters of the words (laws, statutes, regulations etc.) and as long as some of them have a monopoly on interpreting this paper (excluding ordinary people), government can never be trusted. I highly doubt one can be so naive to believe, that words on paper can absolutely and always limit people's actions. Yes, same applies even to contracts, but contracts are never monopolistic in their nature. Constitution, however, is. That's why limited government is a pipe dream. Bad people will always want to get power to interpret this paper called Constitution. There are no magical words that hasn't been used before. Even Bible or 10 commandments haven't stopped christians from killing each other.

So again, maybe only minority of naive minarchists believe in limitation, but most of them have a problem with a bigger issue - a state, as a necessity for a society. They believe that only monopolistic state can protect private property and create laws. So destroy this myth, and they will stop believing in limiting the government, because... why limit something if you can live peacfully without it at all?

"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 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Not Ranked
Posts 6
Points 165
TimFrost8 replied on Sun, Oct 2 2011 11:35 AM

MaikU,

Point taken and aknowledged. I am a believer in holding the ideal of liberty in mind and moving towards this goal. Minarchism may be flawed from a libertarian and anarcho-capitalist perspective however it certainly moves closer to the ideal of liberty than the present versions of Government.

What I have been perplexed about is both the transition from the current system to anarcho-capitalism, and also whether within the vacuum of non-government other forms of collective control will not just emerge thus again subjugating individual sovereignty (perhaps in even less desirable ways). I mean do anarcho-capitalists think collectivist ideologies would just disappear overnight? Wouldn’t even private organizations be hierarchical in nature? Chomsky believes anarchy would always lead to types of socialism and I can find no rational reason to disagree with him……..

You also say why ‘limit something if you can live peacfully without it at all?’ From what do you derive your conclusion that without government things would be peaceful? The fluke of where you were born means no system is every truly voluntary, and this idealist principle of human nonaggression is just denial of the fact that humans throughout history have used violence as a tool.

I’ll quote a comment I found on a blog as it resonates very strongly for me:

What if a person born into an anarchist society wants to live in a society with a strong government? Will you refuse to let this person create a strong government? Will you kill or imprison him if he tries to create a government in the society he was born into? Who gets to define non-aggression? Those with power? How will anarchism be defended without aggression? Who gets to choose when to use aggression and against who?

The problem with anarchism is that it’s logically impossible. Anarchism is self-defeating. I like the ideals of anarchism, but I also am practically realistic enough to know that idealism often leads to even worse societies.”

I personally feel that the combination of Confucian Virtuous Leadership, Limited Government, a Libertarian Social Contract, free market capitalism and the voluntaryist concept of change through education is a far more logically realistic way to uphold the notion of liberty, and create prosperity, than anarcho-capitalism. True change comes from education and what helps people choose what they should teach and be taught should in my opinion be as explicit as possible, without resorting to state coercion.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Sun, Oct 2 2011 12:29 PM

TimFrost8:

What if a person born into an anarchist society wants to live in a society with a strong government? Will you refuse to let this person create a strong government? Will you kill or imprison him if he tries to create a government in the society he was born into? Who gets to define non-aggression? Those with power? How will anarchism be defended without aggression? Who gets to choose when to use aggression and against who?

The problem with anarchism is that it’s logically impossible. Anarchism is self-defeating. I like the ideals of anarchism, but I also am practically realistic enough to know that idealism often leads to even worse societies.”

I hardly can imagine a black person wanting to live in a society that accepts slavery (for example, in 1750). However, it is possible, and quite likely, that similar situations can happen that you described, but then the question is, does he want to rule over other people or want to be ruled by some one? Why does he want to at all? I suppose he had bad childhood experiences, but that's another topic. Anarchist  society will surely refuse such person to coerce other people into accepting and pursuing his ideas with violence (doesn't matter it is strong government, authoritarianism, genocide etc.) It's not about one's wishes, but actions.

The author claims anarchism is logically impossible but doesn't try to prove it in any way. It's just an assertion. I even wouldn't claim statism is logically impossible, because it is actually possible, and we see it everyday. Same with anarchism, we see it everyday, in the internet, i.e. Ebay, in the bazaar, in the shop mall, in families (people do not hold guns against the heads of their spouses) etc. etc. So the author clearly confused about anarchism and its definition and basic tenets so to speak.

Going back to our guy, wanting to create strong government. How will anarchism be defended without aggression? This questions clearly shows the ignorance of the author. Anarchist are not against agression, we are not pacifist, we are against illegitimate agression, or initiation of force. The one reason so many minarchists bash anarchism is because they confuse agression with initation of force. They imagine anarchism as some peaceful utopia without violence, laws, or regulations (yes, even in anarchy there would be regulations). It's a long story how to achieve that and I am not going to repeat it what has been said in many other threads hundreds of times. I only can write a list of few books.

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

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

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 645
Points 9,865
James replied on Sun, Oct 2 2011 1:34 PM

What if a person born into an anarchist society wants to live in a society with a strong government? Will you refuse to let this person create a strong government? Will you kill or imprison him if he tries to create a government in the society he was born into?


They can come and live with me in exchange for giving me half of their productivity in taxes.  I'll hire guards to keep them safe, and make sure they pay and don't get lazy. :)   I promise I'll only kill or imprison them if they resist or try to abolish me.

I personally feel that the combination of Confucian Virtuous Leadership

"Only fools seek power, and only the greatest fools seek it through force." - Lao Tsu

Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 461
Points 8,685

TimFrost8:
He advocates total rejection of the state without a particularly full understanding of these collectivist groups and whether they might be able to perform some sort of beneficial purpose beyond just economic matters.

1). Collectives do not actually exist. Only the individual can act; to say that a government acts is merely a metaphor for the various members considered its individuals. Rothbard proves this on pages 1-3 of Man, Economy, and State.

2). Have you ever heard of Enforcement Agencies? Just because I am against the State does not mean I reject all of its functions (i.e., police and militia and courts). Anarcho-Capitalists merely want these functions to be provided without coercion. Keep in mind I am against the State as defined by A) a coercive monopoly on Force and B) an entity which can tax (steal).

TimFrost8:
Do you think he is secretly an Anarcho-Capitalist who is lying and playing the part of the politician just to get elected?

There is some good evidence suggesting Ron Paul might be an Anarcho-Capitalist. Does that, perforce, mean he would be lying? Not really. He would just be using the Constitution as a tool for Liberty. (That is how I see it).

But I like Ron Paul even if he is at heart a minarchist. Why? I regard minarchists as allies. I myself used to be one. I used to believe in Monarchic-Minarchism, in fact.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Sun, Oct 2 2011 3:31 PM

I can assure you, RP is not a principled anarchist. He may be sympathetic to anarchism, but he is not "one of us" so to speak (don't quote me on that, please, hehe). To me he will be statist as long as he will seek power through state. On the other hand, I don't care about RP and the election anyway, so you can ignore my rambling here..

"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 461
Points 8,685

MaikU- Rothbard himself endorsed Paul. Why would you shun that which he advocated? (Just out of curiosity).

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745

I promise I'll only kill or imprison them if they resist or try to abolish me.

My new favorite description of the state.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745

From what do you derive your conclusion that without government things would be peaceful

Well, we know the alternative is for sure not peaceful (see IRS).

The fluke of where you were born means no system is every truly voluntary

Voluntary only means voluntary in regards to the actions of others. Nature can do whatever the heck it wants to you and the system is still voluntary.

this idealist principle of human nonaggression is just denial of the fact that humans throughout history have used violence as a tool

Ah, so because in history we have never realized we've been wrong, now that we do, we should still act in the wrong ways. Got it. Lemme go tel Copernicus that the Sun still revolves around the Earth.

What if a person born into an anarchist society wants to live in a society with a strong government? Will you refuse to let this person create a strong government? Will you kill or imprison him if he tries to create a government in the society he was born into

He can do whatever he wants lest he involuntarily agresses against others.

idealism often leads to even worse societie

Oh, right, we should keep the current system of governance which is totally not controlled by idealism.

Virtuous Leadership

Bs

Limited Government

Aggressive

Social Contract

Bs

free market capitalism and the voluntaryist concept of change through education

Finally something that makes sense!

You have come to the logical conclusion that to become AnCap we need a cultural change toward non-aggression. Congrats! What we need to do is educate people about non-aggression. We cannot simply push a button. That won't work. People's hearts have to be in it.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (21 items) | RSS