The author of this article is a friend of a friend on Facebook, him and I have butted heads on numerous occasions over pretty much everything that comes up. Besides his normal flurry of strawmen, every now and again something really interesting will come flowing out of his mouth. This was the cream of the crop (close runner up was his attempt to prove Mises was a fascist, along with the Austrian school).
http://libertyamerica.blogspot.com/2011/08/arguing-with-anarchists.html?m=1
He sorts himself among geolobertarian lines. Anyone else come across something this absurd?
I can't see his argument.
>I can't see his argument.
Ditto.
"I had the opportunity in 1985 to ask Murray Rothbard a question."
Too bad the author couldn't tell us the answer... :/
"Government should protect people without violating their rights. It can be done, too"
This appears to be a contradiction, since taxation is a violation of rights.
"By that logic, it's no-holds barred on what to do about it, and violent revolution becomes some fantasy."
What violent nutjobs are giving him these ideas?
He once told me that he was rothbardian in the 80's, so he must be an expert on the topic...
He doesn't see taxation as theft (the geolobertarian part comes out here), in fact, he has "proven" to me how that belief is poppycock. Want to guess how good
of an argument he presented there?
For fun, check out if some of those other articles. It's worth a good laugh.
wheylous, I barely understand any of his arguments. Somehow a case of mistaken identity disproves the NAP in this case.
bloody Georgists
... just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own - Albert Jay Nock
i think he's argument is simply Rand's objection to anarchy, that it would be rival gangs warring against each other (perhaps, to bolster his point, one could look at the condition of global anarchy and the battles between 'gangs' or 'nation states' as an example).
I don't understand how the argument started. Did Mr. Smith really take Mr. Jones jacket? Is Mr. Jones making some sort of pretext to steal Mr. Smith's jacket? In which case, why doesn't he simply rob him of his jacket? Unlike the state, robbers do not typically moralize their robbery. Perhaps Mr. Jones is under the mistaken impression that Mr. Smith stole his jacket. But where could such an impression come from? This example seems wholely divorced from the real world. It's not that there isn't conflict, violence or robbery but when would it ever take the form of the hypothesized disproof of a libertarian society? Is this simply intended to exemplify all conflict? Why would two gangs (and why are these two men members of gangs anyway?) go to war - risking DEATH - over a simple jacket?
>He once told me that he was rothbardian in the 80's, so he must be an expert on the topic...
>wheylous, I barely understand any of his arguments.
So you are asking me to choose between:
1. An "expert", whose arguments you don't understand
2. Clear and cogent arguments from guys like Rothbard and Hoppe
Got it.