I could go through and answer your responses but I don't think it's a particularly good use of my time compared to simply saying this:
War, the human sphere of aggression and thus negation of individual's property rights, is distinct from that of Exchange. The theories of the latter are not blanket-applicable to the former.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
You are advocating war. I am advocating voluntary exchange. I am not attempting to apply theories of exchange to war. If I had done so, I would prefer war (as you do). That is, if war were capable of maximizing utility (as exchange is) I would agree with you. You see? You have it backwards. If anyone is attempting to apply theories of exchange to war, it is you. You are saying that war has utility. You want to use the negation of individual property rights to protect individual property rights. How very odd. War is peace and so on.
dude6935: You are advocating war.
You are advocating war.
Source please? (Didn't you earlier ask me to stop accusing you of intellectual dishonesty?)
War, the human sphere of aggression and thus negation of individual's property rights, is distinct from that of Exchange.
You define war as the human sphere of aggression. You support state militaries and taxation, which are aggression. Thus you support aggression and (by your own definition) war.
Clever. So if no nation-states are at war with each other, then the world is still at war?
I may have mispoken, but can you not recognize peace between states and war between states as distinct?
I'll rephrase in that case: War is a subsect of the human sphere of aggression in which two or more distinct populations engage in combat.
I say so. War can exist between individuals, families, etc.
Sure. I just think it is absurd to advocate perpetual war (by states on their citizenry) as means of ensuring interstate peace. That is even worse than a lesser-of-two-evils argument. That is choosing a present and everlasting evil over a mere risk of evil some time in the future.
Ok. I would simply say that war is forceful aggression. As oppose to coercion - a threat of war.
dude6935: Sure. I just think it is absurd to advocate perpetual war (by states on their citizenry) as means of ensuring interstate peace. That is even worse than a lesser-of-two-evils argument. That is choosing a present and everlasting evil over a mere risk of evil some time in the future.
Is the evil of today, wherein you are sent a 'pay-me-or-else' by the government, equal or even comparable to the evils of total war, wherein entire populations of people are raped, shot, stabbed, set alight, beaten or displaced?
zg7666:how is than state - a legal monopoly of force in given geographical area, gonna form again in a voluntary, free society and free markets? And how is it desirable?
1) That is false choice because the state cannot always repel invasions, and an AnCap society will be able to repel at least some invasions (regardless of which technique is more effective). 2) Yes. Invasions don't happen every day. Taxes oppress and kill people continually. Anytime someone forgoes a health expense (medicine, safety devices, higher quality food) because of taxes, they risk a premature death. @Buzz Killington
Everyone receives the benefit of defense, but no one has to pay the cost.
That isn't true. Someone as to pay the cost. And a tank in Kansas does not necessarily confer defense to people in Key West.
Decentralization is a weakness.
Not always.
In an AnCap society of little private citites, towns, ect., a larger country would be able to easily come in and slaughter them.
You are thinking about society in term of territoriality where each town defends only itself, like mini city-states. That is not the theory. A given defense firm may have clients across a city, or across a region. Wal-mart has a location in almost every city of significant size. What if there were a Walmart and a Costco and a Target of defense? If a state invades town A and threaten hundreds of Costco's clients, they will step up and attempt to repel the invader (assuming they see such an action as cost effective). Since customers demand that business honor their agreements, they will usually come to the defense of their clients rather than lose future business. Town B might be larger. And invasion there might bring three major defense companies into the situation. We don't know exactly what size firms will take or how they will find their respective niches in the marketplace, but we do know that they choices will reflect consumer demand and economic realities.
A third reason is the problem of courts and law. Not everyone agrees on what the law should be. Thus, in the absence of a coercive monopoly ready to crack some dissenting heads, anarchy would reign.
And? How do you define anarchy? The absence of political rulers sounds like a good thing to me. And you comment begs so many other questions. Why is monolithic law good? How can we find the best law if laws cannot compete in the marketplace for acceptance? If Japan has a better drug policy than the US, we can adopt it here. But if every area had the exact same laws, how would we ever improve law? How would we know if it was good law at all?
It's not a false choice. The question isn't asking you the expedience of AnCap or Statist paradigms. It's asking the comparability of the two situations. Both historically valid.
2) Yes. Invasions don't happen every day. Taxes oppress and kill people continually. Anytime someone forgoes a health expense (medicine, safety devices, higher quality food) because of taxes, they risk a premature death.
You make it sound so simple. Why don't leftists, if they're so concerned about health issues, just advocate cutting taxes ? Joking aside, which taxes kill?
Good question... All taxes kill and reduce quality of life because of the economic calculation problem. You know the issue here, just apply it. The state cannot know the needs of the people, much less economically fulfill them. Here is one of many reports on a study that shows that tax filling itself kills people. We aren't even talking about the effect of loosing money (that could be spent on a better, safer car), but of complying with the mandate to file. The act of filling causes auto fatalities. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-10/death-and-taxes-collide-as-fatal-crashes-mount-on-irs-filing-day.html
dude6935:That isn't true. Someone as to pay the cost.
You know what I mean. I can receive the benefit of defense without paying. It's the public good problem.
dude6935:Not always.
When has it ever been a strength?
dude6935:You are thinking about society in term of territoriality where each town defends only itself, like mini city-states. That is not my theory.
FTFY.
dude6935:A given defense firm may have clients across a city, or across a region. Wal-mart has a location in almost every city of significant size. What if there were a Walmart and a Costco and a Target of defense?
How would one arise? Furthermore, that sounds awfully alot like a monopoly on defense.
dude6935:And? How do you define anarchy?
Chaos, absence of law.
dude6935:The absence of political rulers sounds like a good thing to me. And you comment begs so many other questions. Why is monolithic law good? How can we find the best law if laws cannot compete in the marketplace for acceptance? If Japan has a better drug policy than the US, we can adopt it here. But if every area had the exact same laws, how would we ever improve law? How would we know if it was good law at all?
But the only way you can actually have any law is if someone comes in with a gun, points it at everyone's head, and demands that they follow this set of rules. People disagree on what the law is. In the absence of a monopoly on law, this will lead to disorder.
I can receive the benefit of defense without paying.
Not the full benefit. I suggest you read what Jargon and I have been discussing so you and I don't have to relive the whole chain of arguments.
Al Qaeda, Wikipedia, I am sure you can think of some if you want to. Also, you should read our discussion so we don't rehash the same things. For example, state militaries are divided as well. Each state has its own national guard for example. And the American Indians are not a compelling example. They did not have advanced industry and weaponry at their disposal.
That is not my theory.
Sorry people for not being able to follow the talk and put some answers, hope it's not too late.
Thank you for sharing your opinion. vive la insurrection since you seem to be into philosophy, you probably have checked out www.freedomainradio.com!?
zg7666:Johnny Doe, congrats bro, you are stepping to the bright side of force :)
zg7666:Yes, if it is chosen, for those people who have picked it out, minarchism is an option in a free voluntary society.
zg7666:In my opinion it would be wise when "contracting" with your minarchist state to put an opt out clause, just in case. But that whole idea that you and I, our families and everyone else could choose, is voluntarism.
zg7666:It is not a minarchist society in which you could have voluntary one,
zg7666:but in free society you could have minarchism.
zg7666:Examples, there are few http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Historical_precedents_similar_to_anarcho-capitalism even today. David Friedman, son of Milton, has some nice work on this... maybe you could check it out.
What about those who don`t choose it..
You can`t choose not to respect other individuals(and get away with it, avoid other people trying to stop you from harming them), if a majority of them organize/cooperate in order to protect their lives and property, not even in an anarchy.
By "It is not a minarchist society in which you could have voluntary one," I meant in a idea of minimal state, you still have a state as a geographical monopoly on violence and there is no opt-out option, there is no ability or "right" to choose. It's mandatory. If you put in just that smal but very important bit it becomes idea of voluntaryism. You don't need even to support it or wish for it, but you need to recognize other peoples "right" to choose. Am I right? That's more of clarification of terms - "but in free society you could have minarchism. A group of people could organize the protection of themselves/their property(minarchism), and it would be a free society, because other people would be free to harm the people who organized the protection of themselves/their property(minarchism)?" - no, rather in my opinion it is logical that we would move from some sort of state (maybe not minimal, but some sort of, probably highly inefficient one) to a free society. Hoppe just had a book on 4 pillars of the state and how they are slowly crumbling ... in addition he argued that disappearance of state will happen step by step as those pillars, functions are overtaken by private businesses, by individual interaction. (I've just watched Tuckers summery of the book)