Considering either joining Austrian Forum or LibertyHQ in preparation for our (eventual) exodus from Mises, and while digging around on LibertyHQ I found this thread, which made me think of this video. I was curious two things:
1) When will this eventual shift from Mises.org take place? Hence, when will the Mises.org forum end?
2) How do you approach the argument that the NAP must be universally upheld, hence the imperative for monopoly?
I remember that thread.
1. To my knowledge no one even has any knowledge of this.
2. I believe that a free market on the provision of law will ultimately get us here. It's an awkward debate but ultimately the "radical objectivist" and the anarcho-capitalist position appear to be realistically the same since all but the most literal "market anarchist" must advocate force to uphold the NAP.
Curious, what is the AnCap solution to defense of the NAP? For instance, privately owned land without a tax-funded military. Would private companies shoot nuclear weapons at random? It's a curious thing to think about. I don't know how well "pot shots" so-to-speak would do against a unified force such as China, let's say.
Rothbard was a pacifist, but I don't know whether or not he past this view on to private companies. Nukes would never be advocated to solve the problem however. To use George Carlin's phrase: "That's like f***ing for virginity". A country is violating the rights of "its" citizens. Therefore we will use weapons against the aggressors with huge collateral damage potential.
And when Mr. Rothbard faces an enemy launching Nukes, does he just sit idly by and hope for the best? Sort of reminds me of Stefan Molyneux when he was asked what he would do with rapists/murderers that already exist in society. He said he would prevent any further rapists/murderers through re-educating them, all without giving an answer for how to handle current ones.
And what if someone who knew how wanted to create a nuclear defense system for his land? Would he be forcibly prevented from doing this, or just (hopefully) persuaded to not do it?
Well if you're really adhering fully to the NAP then nukes could not be launched. But you're right (if this is what you're implying) that if a nation used nukes against any other group then that group could almost certainly not use that nuke in retaliation if it was to adhere to the NAP.
Also, what good is shooting a nuke if someone has just shot a nuke at you?
1) Neodoxy - a pacificst rejects all use of force, even in retaliation - hence, Rothbard was not a pacifist.
2) That video is very bad. It's saying that just because companies are competing then that must mean they're somehow breaking the NAP. This doesn't have to be the case at all. Just as making shoes doesn't break the NAP and hence require a monopoly, neither does production of defense.
The whole premise is absurd. Should we ban bodyguards too?
3) How private security would be provided - see Chaos Theory by Murphy. It's pretty great. For more sources, see
As to nuclear weapons, see
Yea sorry, anti-interventionist.
Also, the maker of the video seemed to suggest that he opposed competition in law itself, not in its provision. I've gotten objectivists to concede this much before. Those who provide even mildly different laws cannot be tolerated, but different agencies providing the same laws can.
Similar to critiquing the Objectivists on monopolized defense, I must critique the AnCap notion that I can't own nuclear weapons in a free society. Who will enforce this but multiple people attacking the individual? Regarding the article on the Voluntaryist Reader, a gun is always pointing at one direction or another. Does that mean guns ought to be outlawed altogether? The collective vs. the individual is not good; a gun merely pointing some direction does not denote aggression. If a weapon is created to be as powerful as the Fat Man and Little Boy, where is the cutoff? How is it known that a weapon is too powerful?
The gun's not pointing at a person, though. It's pointing at empty space.
As to differences in law - AnCap doesn't required those. I'm partial to a Rothbarian constitution myself.
However, I think that the world would act a little more like David Friedman's polycentric legal system. I don't know.
Still, the main point is that AnCap itself doesn't have to advocate different laws.