Poptech:So if I am willing to pay for a law that women are my property it will be enforced?
If you and enough other people are, and there aren't enough people that care on the other side of the issue to pay to prevent it, then YES. There is no authority to decree otherwise.
Note that all that happens when there is a territorial monopoly on force (a State), generally speaking, is that consumer preferences are distorted by the monopoly for the benefit of the monopoly and in most every aspect also the detriment of the people. Take that monopoly away (reaching the AnCap conception of "anarchy"), and the general result is that consumer preferences are better reflected. That is all. It doesn't change human nature or cultural attitudes, so quite possibly in an AnCap society that was predominantly a certain Muslim sect, something like that might happen. However, protections of minorities would be better, too. And the other side of the coin is that in such a society where most people wanted women to be property, if it were Statist it would be far worse.
Why anarchy fails
Poptech: Angurse:Mises, was he not a classical liberal, a big supporter laissez-fair? laissez-faire (defined) "A doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights" laissez-faire is not anarcho-capitalism.
Angurse:Mises, was he not a classical liberal, a big supporter laissez-fair?
laissez-faire (defined) "A doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights"
laissez-faire is not anarcho-capitalism.
Maybe not, but that definition does not contradict anything. AnCaps hold that the minimum necessary governmental interference for maintenance of peace and property rights is zero.
Poptech: Angurse:Probably not. A company that even attempts to enforce that law would quickly find itself unprofitable and out of business. (And that at best) What if I am a Billionaire and own gold mines? I could keep funding them so in that case "the law" would be enforced.
Angurse:Probably not. A company that even attempts to enforce that law would quickly find itself unprofitable and out of business. (And that at best)
What if I am a Billionaire and own gold mines? I could keep funding them so in that case "the law" would be enforced.
What if you are a billionaire and own gold mines? You could keep lobbying and paying off government officials so in that case "the law" would be enforced. Or probably still most societies would not allow it, but your unfair advantage as a billionaire is only magnified by the existance of a monopoly on force that you can buy off. AnCap is not utopian; it simply eliminates the additional tool for abuse of inequality known as the State.
Angurse:That is why I called it the logical extension of...
No that is a subjective extension of.
Angurse:Not necessarily. Ignoring all moral opposition that would arise, if its legal for him to kill, then its legal for him to be killed. Outraged people could take up a collection and have the billionaire "whacked."
Why would it be legal for him to be killed? He pays his private defense force which is larger than all others. Your collection is useless since his army is stronger.
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
AJ:AnCap is not utopian
Very true. Minarchism is utopian. It claims belief in the existence of a perfectly honest and neutral government.
AJ:it simply eliminates the additional tool for abuse of inequality known as the State.
I wouldn't go there necessarily. I'm an anarchist first because I do not believe it is legitimate for me to use force to gain property or control someone else's property.
Poptech:No that is a subjective extension of.
Not really. It may not be successful in practice, but that isn't the case. There are only two directions one can go from Mises' views on government: more or less.
Poptech:Why would it be legal for him to be killed?
Why wouldn't it be legal?
Poptech:He pays his private defense force which is larger than all others. Your collection is useless since his army is stronger.
You are changing the scenario... which opens up an entire different discussion. But the size of his army doesn't really matter as we really only need to pay one person to have him killed, and generally the larger an army is the less dedicated they generally will be, and mercenaries aren't particularly famous for being loyal soldiers.
AJ: Poptech:So if I am willing to pay for a law that women are my property it will be enforced? If you and enough other people are, and there aren't enough people that care on the other side of the issue to pay to prevent it, then YES. There is no authority to decree otherwise.
Why "enough" people if I have more money than anyone else? I can pay for whatever law I want.
AJ:and the general result is that consumer preferences are better reflected.
No they are not. In an anarcho-capitalist society whoever has the most money makes and enforces the law.
AJ:[Maybe not, but that definition does not contradict anything. AnCaps hold that the minimum necessary governmental interference for maintenance of peace and property rights is zero.
They claim this but have not provided evidence of this. I can claim anything it does not make it so.
AJ:What if you are a billionaire and own gold mines? You could keep lobbying and paying off government officials so in that case "the law" would be enforced. Or probably still most societies would not allow it, but your unfair advantage as a billionaire is only magnified by the existance of a monopoly on force that you can buy off. AnCap is not utopian; it simply eliminates the additional tool for abuse of inequality known as the State.
Making arguments against the state does not make them for anarcho-capitalism. You still haven't answered the question of what stops the Billionaire and his larger than yours army from coercive action. Who protects property rights if the Billionaire can simply use his army to take your property.
Angurse:Not really. It may not be successful in practice, but that isn't the case. There are only two directions one can go from Mises' views on government: more or less.
That is subjective.
Angurse:But the size of his army doesn't really matter as we really only need to pay one person to have him killed, and generally the larger an army is the less dedicated they generally will be, and mercenaries aren't particularly famous for being loyal soldiers.
Paying one person this mystical Rambo is purely conjecture. What if he knows how to keep his soldiers happy? You would have no chance.
liberty student: AJ:it simply eliminates the additional tool for abuse of inequality known as the State. I wouldn't go there necessarily. I'm an anarchist first because I do not believe it is legitimate for me to use force to gain property or control someone else's property.
Don't you mean libertarian, not anarchist? I tend to think of libertarianism/ NAP as the ideology or ethical doctrine, and anarchism ("anti-monopoly-on-force-ism") as the practical side. It seems to me that we are aiming to achieve the latter, because we expect the former to be better upheld as a result - because of the better reflection of consumer preferences, true "democracy."
Poptech:That is subjective.
The directions are logical, which one is subjective. More or less, pick one.
Poptech:Paying one person this mystical Rambo is purely conjecture. What if he knows how to keep his soldiers happy? You would have no chance.
Mystical Rambo? Thats the equivalent of hiring an assassin?
Pure conjecture is this billionaire goldminer who magically knows how to keep mercenaries loyal and has more money and men than the rest of the world can muster up.
Luckily, we don't live near any such world.
Poptech: In an anarcho-capitalist society whoever has the most money makes and enforces the law.
No, this is what happens in a statist society. There is a monopoly on law. You can buy monopoly privileges (military, educational, medical etc industrial complexes) and you can buy positive law (no smoking, no drinking, no sex, no pot, no driving fast etc.)
In an ancap society, law is polycentric.
Give this a read, http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
Poptech:You still haven't answered the question of what stops the Billionaire and his larger than yours army from coercive action.
Who stops him now? Who can stop Obama?
Ancap is not only a consequentialist position. It is an ethical one. That we're all safer and happier and more prosperous, when we're not trying to enforce rules on each other, abrogating property rights and competing for political power over the group. It's an acknowledgment that the only fair and rational society, is one where violence is not used as a means to gain control of property.
Poptech: AJ: Poptech:So if I am willing to pay for a law that women are my property it will be enforced? If you and enough other people are, and there aren't enough people that care on the other side of the issue to pay to prevent it, then YES. There is no authority to decree otherwise. Why "enough" people if I have more money than anyone else? I can pay for whatever law I want.
In theory, yes. However, it's even easier for the uber-rich to control things under the system we have now, as I already explained.
Poptech: AJ:and the general result is that consumer preferences are better reflected. No they are not. In an anarcho-capitalist society whoever has the most money makes and enforces the law.
You made it clear earlier in the thread that you do not understand the fundamental arguments of anarcho-capitalism. If you would like to learn, read actual works by scholars in the field, because it's going to take way too long to get a grip on the concepts here on the forums. Other than that, you seem to want to argue against AnCap even though you do not yet comprehend how it even purports to work. That fact alone ought to set off warning bells in your mind that you've been biased against that which you cannot yet even identify.
Poptech: AJ:[Maybe not, but that definition does not contradict anything. AnCaps hold that the minimum necessary governmental interference for maintenance of peace and property rights is zero. They claim this but have not provided evidence of this. I can claim anything it does not make it so.
You objected that laissez faire was by definition at odds with AnCap, and you gave the definition. I refuted that. What you wrote here has nothing to do with the thread of discussion you are responding to. I know there are a lot of posts, but if you're going to participate try to at least follow along.
Poptech: AJ:What if you are a billionaire and own gold mines? You could keep lobbying and paying off government officials so in that case "the law" would be enforced. Or probably still most societies would not allow it, but your unfair advantage as a billionaire is only magnified by the existance of a monopoly on force that you can buy off. AnCap is not utopian; it simply eliminates the additional tool for abuse of inequality known as the State. Making arguments against the state does not make them for anarcho-capitalism.
Making arguments against the state does not make them for anarcho-capitalism.
At this point, we cannot really continue until you do more reading on the subject. I don't think anyone here is willing to sit down with you and rehash all the points brought up again and again in the literature until you understand it. Just like any system of social organization, the full theory with all objections answered is not going to be found from a poster on a forum, and to demand that we produce the full theory and answer every last objection without you having to do your homework is a bit silly.
If you're truly interested in the theory, we can recommend you some reading, all available online.
Poptech: You still haven't answered the question of what stops the Billionaire and his larger than yours army from coercive action. Who protects property rights if the Billionaire can simply use his army to take your property.
You still haven't answered the question of what stops the Billionaire and his larger than yours army from coercive action. Who protects property rights if the Billionaire can simply use his army to take your property.
I think you misunderstand what private defense agencies would be for. They would be for capturing criminals that have performed a coercive action.
A private defense agency would not perform a coercive action against some else, even if paid, because they are responsible for their coercive actions just like any other individuals. If a private defense agency was performing a coercive action against an individual without cause, then the defense agency could be brought to an arbiter an charged for their crimes (unlike government officials).
What would make the private defense agency listen to the arbiter you say? Well, if the agency did not listen to the arbiter, then no one would purchase from them again and they would get no more funding.
You could say that a rogue agency funded by only a madman billionaire (which btw sounds like a comic book story) could happen in this society. But I find it highly unlikely that an agency would throw away it's business reputation to reap the benefit of a short term payment from a madman (which btw would also harm every individual within the agency as well, because not one of them would be trusted for employment anywhere else)
Robbery: The nation's fastest growing career!
Duties: Giving the people their bread and circuses, extracting payment by force, validating legitimacy, etc.
Job Outlook: Ever increasing and shows no signs of stopping!
This always gets carried away. So it usually is that the young liberal anarchists here don't abide by the Dallas Accord. Instead of actually refuting Mises, they turn this into a large name calling hullabaloo.
Anarchy means no rule, by it's purest interpretation. Yet, anarchists say there will result rules of order such as competing courts, and defense agencies. Yet those are instruments of social rule. In this environment of no rule(anarchy) how are the meek to be protected from the most dominant?
I agree with LeFevre, that there is another option, that of self-rule(autarchy).
Government is a tool of men. Men sometimes don't use their tools in the best manner. Anarchy, under it's purest meaning(no-rule) is no sort of tool at all. Anarchy is like an evenly rotating economy(a fiction), in that it makes a nice mental model. In practice it is a means of barbarism, and perhaps savagery. I think it is possible that men may find a better tool other than government, I pray that intellectuals may find it.
Why can't we all agree that we hate the state, and when we can minimize it as much as possible, than we can decide on how much if any is needed or not?
That said let the ad hominem commence.
Individualism Rocks
Bank Run:self-rule(autarchy)
A synonym for anarcho-capitalism.
Bank Run:In practice it is a means of barbarism, and perhaps savagery.
I thought government was barbarism and savagery.
Bank Run:Anarchy, under it's purest meaning(no-rule) is no sort of tool at all.
Where did you get that definition from?
liberty student:Where did you get that definition from?
"Either the State for ever, crushing individual and local life, taking over in all fields of human activity, bringing with it its wars and its domestic struggles for power, its palace revolutions which only replace one tyrant by another, and inevitably at the end of this development there is ... death! Or the destruction of States, and new life starting again in thousands of centers on the principle of the lively initiative of the individual and groups and that of free agreement. The choice lies with you!" [Prince Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921)]
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan: LeFevre was yet another anarchist
This has been linked here in the past, but it is a short read that all should really consider.
Autarchy Versus Anarchy
Angurse:The directions are logical, which one is subjective. More or less, pick one.
Neither, there is no logical reason something has to be "progressive".
Angurse:Mystical Rambo? Thats the equivalent of hiring an assassin?
What if the Billionaire lives in a former U.S. missile silo and only allows his trusted men to visit him? It would be impossible to "assassinate" him and he can conduct all his business over the Internet. Your plan is easily defeated.
Angurse:Pure conjecture is this billionaire goldminer who magically knows how to keep mercenaries loyal and has more money and men than the rest of the world can muster up.
So it impossible to keep people employed for money? Why would the rest of the world care what he is doing? Why would the whole world be in an anarchistic state?
Angurse:Luckily, we don't live near any such world.
Correct, luckily we don't live in an Anarcho-capitalist society.
AJ:In theory, yes. However, it's even easier for the uber-rich to control things under the system we have now, as I already explained.
No it is not, in the current system they have to lobby congressmen who are not elected by this one man, they do not have to just name a price.
AJ:You made it clear earlier in the thread that you do not understand the fundamental arguments of anarcho-capitalism. If you would like to learn, read actual works by scholars in the field, because it's going to take way too long to get a grip on the concepts here on the forums. Other than that, you seem to want to argue against AnCap even though you do not yet comprehend how it even purports to work. That fact alone ought to set off warning bells in your mind that you've been biased against that which you cannot yet even identify.
Then surely you can argue it better than you are doing.
AJ:You objected that laissez faire was by definition at odds with AnCap, and you gave the definition. I refuted that. What you wrote here has nothing to do with the thread of discussion you are responding to. I know there are a lot of posts, but if you're going to participate try to at least follow along.
You have no refuted it at all the definition clearly has nothing to do with no government. That is why a separate word exists "anarchy".
AJ:At this point, we cannot really continue until you do more reading on the subject. I don't think anyone here is willing to sit down with you and rehash all the points brought up again and again in the literature until you understand it. Just like any system of social organization, the full theory with all objections answered is not going to be found from a poster on a forum, and to demand that we produce the full theory and answer every last objection without you having to do your homework is a bit silly.
Then you clearly do not understand the theory if you cannot defend it or it is indefensible. I am not advocating for anarcho-capitalism, you are and it is up to you to make the case, if you cannot then you fail.
Too bad Mises has been shown to be wrong on this, as he was on monopolies.
Only because little fascists won't allow them to come about, and won't allow - as Mises allowed for - secession down to the individual level. Seriously, get over your religious attachment to the state. If you want one, form one and leave anyone who doesn't out. Or else you're nothing but a fascist.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Libertarian_for_Life:I think you misunderstand what private defense agencies would be for. They would be for capturing criminals that have performed a coercive action.
Who decides this? Why would a private security agency not do what I pay them to do in an anarchistic society?
Libertarian_for_Life:A private defense agency would not perform a coercive action against some else, even if paid, because they are responsible for their coercive actions just like any other individuals. If a private defense agency was performing a coercive action against an individual without cause, then the defense agency could be brought to an arbiter an charged for their crimes (unlike government officials).
What if the private defense industry has no morals? Who is the defense agency / arbiter? How is this created and funded?
Libertarian_for_Life:What would make the private defense agency listen to the arbiter you say? Well, if the agency did not listen to the arbiter, then no one would purchase from them again and they would get no more funding.
The private defense agency is funded by the Billionaire, they don't care if anyone else funds them.
Libertarian_for_Life:You could say that a rogue agency funded by only a madman billionaire (which btw sounds like a comic book story) could happen in this society. But I find it highly unlikely that an agency would throw away it's business reputation to reap the benefit of a short term payment from a madman (which btw would also harm every individual within the agency as well, because not one of them would be trusted for employment anywhere else)
If the Billionaire funds them long term and makes arrangements with them why could this not happen?
Jon Irenicus:Only because little fascists won't allow them to come about, and won't allow - as Mises allowed for - secession down to the individual level. Seriously, get over your religious attachment to the state. If you want one, form one and leave anyone who doesn't out. Or else you're nothing but a fascist.
Am I an neo-con, soft-communist or a fascist? I'm confused.
Are you for the forceful prohibition of voluntary attempts to set up an anarchist society and/or secede down to the individual level? At their root all the above ideologies idolise the state. So anyone would do. People whining about what hypothetical billionaires would supposedly do in some anarchist world when they have a monopoly over force to hijack right now strike me as funny.
Jon Irenicus:Are you for the forceful prohibition of voluntary attempts to set up an anarchist society and/or secede down to the individual level? At their root all the above ideologies idolise the state. So anyone would do.
If you are not able to reach your goal then your argument is flawed. The context in which Mises places the state is not "idolization".
Jon Irenicus:People whining about what hypothetical billionaires would supposedly do in some anarchist world when they have a monopoly over force to hijack right now strike me as funny.
This is a very real possibility. Billionaires do not have a monopoly over force right now, the State does which is granted these powers indirectly by the people not the one with the most money.
Mises refutes your idealistic notions.
"anarchists implied that all men without any exception will be endowed with perfect wisdom and moral impeccability"
Juan:Maybe you should take a look at this little pamphlet
Thank you Juan. I like Rothbard's introduction. I found your link did not work but I have now been introduced to a new website as well.
Molinari doesn't address the possibility of violant conflicts between security forces. There may of course be no need for violence.
I do take issue with what the laws are, what they will be, and how they will be commenced.
What if court A follows retributive justice. Court B practices just compensation. Court C follows a different system. Go on to say that there may be a situation in which the plaintiffs are from each one. Even if a man accused abides by the law of A and the accuser abides by the law of B, the matter of punishment becomes a dispute. I am very bad at giving examples, but I hope I impressing that one system of law would resolve such a situation. To have one system of law would require it to be scribed(it should be available to all in plain words). Would one system of law would fall under some sort of governance?
The key point I would like to make is that we can further reduce the size of government without infighting. I am in favor of the Dallas Accord.
Minarchists, and anarcho-capitalists hate the state. These two groups are both radicals. Rothbard has addressed this.
Bank Run:Molinari doesn't address the possibility of violant conflicts between security forces.
Nor does he address what stops a much larger more well funded security force from coercive action against others.
Bank Run:The key point I would like to make is that we can further reduce the size of government without infighting.
I agree and have been calling for this but anarchists viciously attack limited government Libertarians as outright communists/fascists or neo-cons. When I saw this I realized why the libertarian movement has gotten nowhere. Now Mises is called a "Statist" and Ron Paul an "enabler or Murder" for his military service. The nonsense here from some is outright ridiculous.
Bank Run: Juan: LeFevre was yet another anarchist This has been linked here in the past, but it is a short read that all should really consider. Autarchy Versus Anarchy
Except, of course, that autarchy is also a word in common use with a completely different meaning (namely, absolute dictatorship). His argument against using "anarchist" applies much more forcefully to his chosen term (after all, his only problem with "anarchist" is that some people define it as anarchism plus some other stuff (socialism, etc.), which is not inherent in the definition. The dictionary definition of autarchy, on the other hand, is the polar opposite of what LeFevre means by it!)
Poptech:How are the private law enforcement agencies created and funded? What law are they enforcing? If you cannot answer the questions let me know.
Same question. Same fallacy. Stop crying.
Poptech: Jon Irenicus:Only because little fascists won't allow them to come about, and won't allow - as Mises allowed for - secession down to the individual level. Seriously, get over your religious attachment to the state. If you want one, form one and leave anyone who doesn't out. Or else you're nothing but a fascist. Am I an neo-con, soft-communist or a fascist? I'm confused.
Try all of the above
Bank Run: Anarchy means no rule
And how are the meek protected with a government which, by its nature, doesn't protect anyone except the biggest contributors. And even then...
Poptech:If you are not able to reach your goal then your argument is flawed.
How is that government only getting involved in life, liberty and property theory doing?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Bank Run:Minarchists, and anarcho-capitalists hate the state. These two groups are both radicals.
Minarchists are only radicals because they are Utopians. They believe it is possible to have a small monopoly state that doesn't violate personal liberty.
We know that in order to have a monopoly state of any size, personal liberty must be violated.
Minarchists are just like marxists, its the same sort of idealistic day dreaming about the absurd as the possible.
With the exception of a few demagogues, most ancaps acknowledge that there will be conflict in an anarchist society. That's why we demand anarchism. So that conflict can be resolved without monopoly interference.
Bank Run:Rothbard has addressed this.
One of my least favorite Rothbard articles. I'm very sympathetic to Friedman's arguments because they don't rest on emotionalism.
I hate appeals to authority, although it seems appropo that you are doing it (for the second time) in this thread.
Poptech:Neither, there is no logical reason something has to be "progressive".
Yes, there is, its that wich follows from given premises. What follows from an extremely limited government, more or less?
Poptech:What if the Billionaire lives in a former U.S. missile silo and only allows his trusted men to visit him? It would be impossible to "assassinate" him and he can conduct all his business over the Internet. Your plan is easily defeated.
Easily defeated? Check your premises, thats a really big "what if."Trusted men (who are being payed) being just one weak point I'll point out.
Poptech:So it impossible to keep people employed for money? Why would the rest of the world care what he is doing? Why would the whole world be in an anarchistic state?
You've changed the argument again. You will only get what you pay. The rest of the world would care what hes doing because hes trying to enforce laws making women property, etc... If he were use his military and dominate people then the world wouldn't be in an anarchistic state at all, so the state has easily been defeated.
Poptech:Correct, luckily we don't live in an Anarcho-capitalist society.
Or else we'd be at the mercy of billionaire goldminer svenghalis. Please don't act so childish, stick to the topic.
So would you or wouldn't you forbid the free association of individuals to arrange for their own affais sans a state? If so, you're the obstacle. If not, then this discussion is ultimately trivial. Seeing the State as the only way of providing defence, or whatever other service, is treating it like a god.
Yet it is available to them and yet many of them use it to their advantage.
No, he doesn't - in fact his treatment of anarchy is shallow compared to the rest of his work, and is written in ignorance (unavoidably) of works that post-date it treating of the subject. You merely wish for confirmation of your impetuous attachment to mummy state.
Poptech, I linked to these before. You should really read them. A six-part exchange between RC Hoiles and Mises.
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/comment.php?comment.news.2508
yeah i read the previous link you gave. it was interesting
Poptech: I. Ryan:pro-law anarchism That doesn't make any sense. Who decides the law? A majority? Who decides when the majority is reached?
I. Ryan:pro-law anarchism
That doesn't make any sense. Who decides the law? A majority? Who decides when the majority is reached?
protip: you must first understand something before you can refute it.
Here's what you're missing: polycentric law.
Mises could not have refuted anarcho-capitalism in its current conception because he did not address it. He instead took on lawless anarchism, which is something entirely different.
But you won't find all of the answers on this forum. I guarantee you that any objection you can make to polycentric law (e.g. the PDA's will battle in the streets!) has already been addressed, and in most cases refuted. Do not get stuck in the Ayn Rand minarchist trap - go do some reading on your own and come back when you have a new and original objection.
"Constitution worship is our most extended public political ritual, frequently supervised as often by mountebanks as by the sincere"-James J Martin
Paul:The dictionary definition of autarchy
It depends on which one you consult. I would say that calling it a variant of autocracy(absolute rule) and autarky(economic isolation) are definitions that don't follow the etymological nature of the word. Dictionary definitions can change. Under Wiki three definitions are given. Wikipedia has a nice article.
I would say that his argument against anarchism, has more to do with the historical nature of anarchists.
Knight_of_BAAWA:No ruler/government, not "no rule"government which, by its nature, doesn't protect anyone except the biggest contributors
an=without arkhe=ruler or ruled.
I am not a fan of defending government ever. But, I think there have been times when folks were saved from fires, and saved from abusive situations who were not big contributors.
I do believe that government is more likely to protect itself before it's own people though.
liberty student:Minarchists are just like marxists
Eh? I am yet to meet a minarchist who approves of dialectrical materialism. Or one who believes capitalism will destroy itself. Did I miss the Minarchist Manifesto?
Of course you would be lumping a lot of Austrian Economists into being Marxists. Hayek, Mises, Ropke, Hutt, Hazlitt, Fetter, Wicksteed, etc, etc.
I have seen you call minarchists utopians in response to anarchists being called utopians.
Why do you hate minarchists? Did a rogue gang of them disagree with you? Did they insult you?
I think we shall not see of which these two groups really is utopian, if they cannot work together to reduce the size of government to begin with.
Bank Run: Why do you hate minarchists? Did a rogue gang of them disagree with you? Did they insult you?
It's cute how innocent and harmless you want to make your beliefs sound. At least admit, without saying </i>anything<i> about the rightness or wrongness of minarchism, that it is a system which accepts (and often promotes) violence as necessary. Did they insult him? Maybe not. Do they lend moral credence to an organization that regularly extorts money from him with the threat of violence? Yes.
I have little respect for the common criminal, or his supporters. Nothing changes when he establishes a formal organization and puts on a suit.