Poptech:Statism is not government, it is government control over the economy.
I just explained to you, that all rights are property rights.
Poptech:Government can exist to merely arbitrate and enforce private property rights.
But they have to violate property rights to do so.
Poptech:Calling someone a "statist" when they do not advocate for government control and planning of the economy is a misuse of the word.
Do you support democracy?
Poptech:Is English not spoken here? If not what is and how do you expect to communicate with the rest of the English speaking world using freely defined words? My definitions of words from the English language come from dictionaries.
Instead of debunking, you should invest some time reading FANL. Maybe when you can speak in the vernacular of Austro-libertarians, you will be able to communicate effectively here. Those dictionaries are about as useful as Wikipedia or Paul Krugman's blog.
Juan: Well, he's no libertarian, and he's no liberal...that kinda implies...
He is on NBC because the liberal network wants what they consider to be a conservative punching bag (Buchanan) this does not make him mainstream as no one in the conservative movement listens to him but liberals and others who watch NBC stations don't know any better.
Juan:No poptech, thank god I learnt nothing at public schools. You on the other hand are the typical jingoist joe-six-packs who parrots what his political masters tell him to parrot
Well you sure are repeating public school anti-U.S. propaganda maybe it is just your country's bias, I've seen it before. I am the farthest thing from a "joe-sixpack" and I am the last person to parrot anything I have not researched myself. You seem confused on who you are talking to.
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
Poptech:Actually no statist is defined as socialist.
Figure I should nail this one too. All government is socialism. It's just a matter of degrees. The opposite of socialism, and its sub tenets, fascism, communism etc, is libertarianism. It's decentralization and individual sovereignty.
Well you sure are repeating public school anti-U.S. propaganda maybe it is just your country's bias, I've seen it before.
I am the farthest thing from a "joe-sixpack" and I am the last person to parrot anything I have not researched myself.
You seem confused on who you are talking to.
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."
liberty student:All government is socialism.
That is not true. Government can be laissez faire or socialist. Our current government is partly socialist but it doesn't have to be.
Juan:So, he's not a conservative, not a liberal, not a libertarian.
He is not a mainstream conservative.
Juan:Anyways how come Buchanan doesn't think WWII was justified ?
Because he doesn't understand what he is talking about.
Juan: You on the other hand parrot what all amerikan children parrot - WWII was a the 'good war'.
I don't believe any war is good but some are necessary.
Juan:Of course. And it just happens that your original research(tm) is no different from war propaganda taught to all american schoolkids.
American public school kids are actually taught progressive propaganda.
Poptech:Government can be laissez faire or socialist.
Poptech:That is not true.
We agree. Government is not laissez-faire or socialist. Government can be more or less socialist, but it is still socialist.
Poptech:Our current government is partly socialist but it doesn't have to be.
The US government is increasingly socialist, and in the economic sense, more socialist than China now. Thanks to Bush and his prescription medicine program, which laid the way for Obamacare, and his NCLB which is much worse than the President giving a speech to some students nationwide. But of course, you supported Bush socialism, right? There is nothing about Obama, which is any more socialistic than Bush. Not one bit. Bush was every much a big government socialist as Obama hopes to be, the difference is, Bush got the 9/11 crisis, so he spent trillions on foreign adventurism against boogeymen, and Obama is going to spend trillions on domestic kickbacks and graft for environmental and healthcare expansion.
Bush couldn't help Katrina, and Obama can't save the economy, but they are both are going to make sure YOU pay for it.
This is why I left RPF. Because there are these republicans who think if they say they are for lower taxes and march around in a tri-corner hat, they are libertarian. That is not libertarianism. That's not even beltway libertarianism for crissakes.
If you're going to be a libertarian, then take the time to learn about it. It is a political philosophy based on a moral code of non-aggression. It is not a subdivision of conservatism or progressive liberalism. It is not compatible with political parties or candidates. It is not compatible with democracy. If you want to work from a dictionary definition that isn't the definition as understood here, then find a website like RPF where people think fiscal conservatism is libertarianism, and enjoy yourself.
If you would like to find our what libertarianism is, I recommend you start reading the daily articles here each day, and perhaps start following the articles at LRC, and the LRC blog.
liberty student:I just explained to you, that all rights are property rights.
In order to maintain property rights you need a third party arbitrator (government) or the power to keep them yourself.
liberty student:But they have to violate property rights to do so.
Why would they have to violate property rights? That doesn't make any sense.
liberty student:Do you support democracy?
No I support a Constitutional Republic.
liberty student:Instead of debunking, you should invest some time reading FANL. Maybe when you can speak in the vernacular of Austro-libertarians, you will be able to communicate effectively here. Those dictionaries are about as useful as Wikipedia or Paul Krugman's blog.
I speak English and will continue to use English dictionaries to define my words and continue to point out the misuse of my language. I have had no problem communicating effectively here as I understand the definition of words.
poptech: Juan: Anyways how come Buchanan doesn't think WWII was justified ? Because he doesn't understand what he is talking about.
Juan: Anyways how come Buchanan doesn't think WWII was justified ?
liberty student:If you're going to be a libertarian, then take the time to learn about it. It is a political philosophy based on a moral code of non-aggression. It is not a subdivision of conservatism or progressive liberalism. It is not compatible with political parties or candidates. It is not compatible with democracy. If you want to work from a dictionary definition that isn't the definition as understood here, then find a website like RPF where people think fiscal conservatism is libertarianism, and enjoy yourself.
OT: I consider myself an ancap after doing a lot of thinking about it, but I still support the Free State Project. What are your views on how it helps or hampers anarcho-capitalism (due to being an endeavor in minarchism)?
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.—Ludwig von Mises
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.
liberty student:Government is not laissez-faire or socialist. Government can be more or less socialist, but it is still socialist.
Of course government can be laissez-faire, just because it is not currently does not mean it is an impossibility.
liberty student:The US government is increasingly socialist, and in the economic sense, more socialist than China now. Thanks to Bush and his prescription medicine program, which laid the way for Obamacare, and his NCLB which is much worse than the President giving a speech to some students nationwide. But of course, you supported Bush socialism, right?
Yes I agree the government is becoming more and more socialist. Bush was a disaster in many ways with the prescription drug program and tarp but it pales in comparison to Obamacare, Obama Stimulus and upcoming Cap and Trade legislation. He is rolling back reforms that Bush enacted to push back the welfare state. No I don't support Bush socialism.
liberty student:There is nothing about Obama, which is any more socialistic than Bush. Not one bit. Bush was every much a big government socialist as Obama hopes to be
I disagree Obama is ten times worse. Obama is already advocating for tariffs and new taxes to support his big government, big spending progressive ideology.
liberty student:This is why I left RPF. Because there are these republicans who think if they say they are for lower taxes and march around in a tri-corner hat, they are libertarian.
That is supply-side economics. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about not only lowering taxes, but reducing government spending, repealing the welfare state and repealing regulations and laws.
liberty student: If you're going to be a libertarian, then take the time to learn about it. It is a political philosophy based on a moral code of non-aggression. It is not a subdivision of conservatism or progressive liberalism. It is not compatible with political parties or candidates. It is not compatible with democracy. If you want to work from a dictionary definition that isn't the definition as understood here, then find a website like RPF where people think fiscal conservatism is libertarianism, and enjoy yourself. If you would like to find our what libertarianism is, I recommend you start reading the daily articles here each day, and perhaps start following the articles at LRC, and the LRC blog.
I am aware of Rothbardian Anarcho-Capitalism, which I do not advocate. Though I have enjoyed reading many of Rothbard's books as well as the daily articles here for over two years and many of the archives none of it has changed my mind on minarchism. But I also read Cato, Reason, The Heartland Institute, FEE, The independent institute and The Heritage Foundation.
Juan: And progressive propaganda is, for instance, that the 'good' anglo-american democracies had to fight against the evil anti-democratic nazis.
Progessives would be insulted your used the word "anglo-american" as it would hurt minorities "feelings" thus they would never say that. The Nazis were socialists whom you appear to support, irony.
Juan:Just the very same propaganda that neocons like you repeat.
Please define neo-con.
Poptech:In order to maintain property rights you need a third party arbitrator (government) or the power to keep them yourself.
You only need the latter. The former is an agent. That agent doesn't have to be a government. It could be a private security firm. It could be an insurance agency. It could be a volunteer local militia. But you're on the right track now.
Poptech:Why would they have to violate property rights? That doesn't make any sense.
Sure it does. When you don't pay taxes, they violate your rights. When they want to build a freeway through your property, they violate your rights. When they force your children to go to school, they violate your rights (and probably the child's as well). When they go to war, they violate your property to pay for it.
If the state was voluntary, it would not be a state. It is by its very nature, involuntary. It uses compulsion to maintain consent and authority.
Poptech:No I support a Constitutional Republic.
Same thing essentially. People can only change the Constitution by vote. An individual cannot withdraw from the Constitution as social contract. That is Lysander Spooner's point. The Constitution has no authority as a legal document, because the people who agreed to it, have long since died, and it is impossible to contract the unborn. Nor is it a slave contract, that is, one that cannot be withdrawn from by the constituent.
Poptech:I speak English and will continue to use English dictionaries to define my words and continue to point out the misuse of my language. I have had no problem communicating effectively here as I understand the definition of words.
That's fine. But I suggest you start doing research on LvMI, as it is the richest site on libertarianism and AE on the web. It might be one of the richest non-governmental/educational websites on American history as well.
Justin Spahr-Summers:OT: I consider myself an ancap after doing a lot of thinking about it, but I still support the Free State Project. What are your views on how it helps or hampers anarcho-capitalism (due to being an endeavor in minarchism)?
Stranger had a good post today or the last couple days, about how FSP is like an invading army, like illegal immigrants, moving into a community and seeking to overturn the culture and legal norms in place. And if you watch the roundtable discussion with Molyneux, Stephens, the guy from FTL and Sam Dodson (its on YT, I think on Molyneux's channel - stefbot) its mentioned that the locals aren't exactly crazy about the FSP in Keene.
I don't see anything wrong with the FSP except they should be moving into a territory and buying up the property. When the community is mostly libertarians, not because they chased people off, but they bid for the value to own it, then they might have more success.
I see things very differently from that project though. I think we've got a lot of work to do, before we worry about seasteading or FSP. There is so much education that needs to be done. LvMI has really taken off in the last couple years, they need more funding, more resources, more labour. Even if a FSP works (and I am not sure it can, because even the people there are everything from Constitutionalists to Anarcho-Capitalists) the world is much bigger than Keene, let alone NH.
I've lamented that people don't do more offline, but there is so much that can be done online because we can all network, even though we're geographically scattered. And short of moving to NH, this method of organization seems to me to be a second best, and in fact with the ability to reach everywhere, it may even be the ideal option.
Keep learning, keep sharing, keep working. Ancap is an idea and a goal. Until the goal is in sight, we can develop the idea.
Poptech: Juan: And progressive propaganda is, for instance, that the 'good' anglo-american democracies had to fight against the evil anti-democratic nazis. Progessives would be insulted your used the word "anglo-american" as it would hurt minorities "feelings" thus they would never say that. The Nazis were socialists whom you appear to support, irony.
liberty student:You only need the latter. The former is an agent. That agent doesn't have to be a government. It could be a private security firm. It could be an insurance agency. It could be a volunteer local militia. But you're on the right track now.
What if you do not have this power and cannot afford protection, does that mean your lose your property?
liberty student:Sure it does. When you don't pay taxes, they violate your rights. When they want to build a freeway through your property, they violate your rights. When they force your children to go to school, they violate your rights (and probably the child's as well). When they go to war, they violate your property to pay for it.
I mostly agree but this was not what I was referring to.
liberty student:If the state was voluntary, it would not be a state. It is by its very nature, involuntary. It uses compulsion to maintain consent and authority.
All states are voluntary unless they restrict you from leaving.
liberty student:Same thing essentially.
Absolutely not. Democracy is mob rule, where a Constitutional Republic is an elected government limited in power by the constitution and protected by checks and balances.
liberty student:An individual cannot withdraw from the Constitution as social contract.
Of course you can, you can leave the state.
liberty student:That's fine. But I suggest you start doing research on LvMI, as it is the richest site on libertarianism and AE on the web. It might be one of the richest non-governmental/educational websites on American history as well.
I have done extensive research on it and continue to, that does not mean I agree with everything or endorse Anarcho-capitalism. LvMI is an excellent resource.
Juan: By the way, the nazis were fascists...
NAZI - "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" - National Socialist German Workers' Party
Juan:you know, like roosevelt and churchil...
Roosevelt was another progressive socialist. Churchill was a classical liberal/conservative.
Juan:Now, if you were a libertarian, you'd know that libertarians are always at odds with both left and right. You on the other hand, as a right winger, basically agree with the progressive views on war.
Define and source for me what the progressive views of way are.
Juan:But, what about Buchanan ?
Buchanan is clueless.
Poptech:Of course government can be laissez-faire, just because it is not currently does not mean it is an impossibility.
Laissez-faire as you use it, is just less socialism. It is not the absence of socialism.
Poptech:Yes I agree the government is becoming more and more socialist. Bush was a disaster in many ways with the prescription drug program and tarp but it pales in comparison to Obamacare, Obama Stimulus and upcoming Cap and Trade legislation.
No, Bush helped set the table for cap and trade too. He was out there chanting the AGW nonsense. They are just puppets. Obama is just a face. It shows how silly conservatives are when they mock Obama, but the real enemies are the Congress. The Congress write and vote on the legislation, Obama just signs it. But that's what I mean, conservatives, like liberals, don't get it. There is no left and right. That is a false paradigm.
Poptech:I disagree Obama is ten times worse. Obama is already advocating for tariffs and new taxes to support his big government, big spending progressive ideology.
Like I said, Obama is not worse, he's just phase II, or phase 44, depending on how you look at it. Bush was able to inflate and double the debt because the economy was in a boom for most of his time. Obama is raising the debt, because he has to pay for the excesses of the Bush years. But again, there is no Obama or Bush. There is the Congress. If they don't write and pass the bills, nothing would move. They are the ones raising the debt. They will pass cap and trade. They are the check on Obama. They failed to check Bush, so they will fail to check Obama, because the American government has been getting bigger since Day 1, which is entirely predictable because that is what states do. If you ever get into Hoppe or Higgs, you'll hear some compelling analysis on the nature of leviathan.
Poptech:That is supply-side economics. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about not only lowering taxes, but reducing government spending, repealing the welfare state and repealing regulations and laws.
But no tax is legitimate. They are all illegitimate. They are all extracted by force where consent is lacking. It's no different than being mugged.
As Rothbard said, "government is a gang of thieves, writ large". And now, I truly believe that after listening to Marc Stephens compelling argument about how there are no citizens, because there is no social contract (slight variation on Spooner).
Poptech:I am aware of Rothbardian Anarcho-Capitalism, which I do not advocate.
What about Hoppean anarcho-capitalism? What about Rockwellian Libertarianism? What about Blockean plumbline libertarianism?
Poptech:Though I have enjoyed reading many of Rothbard's books as well as the daily articles here for over two years and many of the archives none of it has changed my mind on minarchism.
So you still advocate violence as a first resort to get your kind of government. Not much can be done about that.
Poptech:What if you do not have this power and cannot afford protection, does that mean your lose your property?
If someone violates your rights? That's possible. It is impossible to guarantee rights. Although it is more likely you would not acquire and retain property you could not defend. It would be like buying a house with no roof.
Poptech:I mostly agree but this was not what I was referring to.
I know, but its a logical consequence of a state. Your rights will be violated if you do not comply with the rules laid out by others.
Poptech:All states are voluntary unless they restrict you from leaving.
Oh, so the South had a right to secede? Texas could join Mexico? Hawaii can go back to being an independent nation? Alaskan sovereignty?
Poptech:Absolutely not. Democracy is mob rule, where a Constitutional Republic is an elected government limited in power by the constitution and protected by checks and balances.
Yeah, that doesn't work.
Which is why we are here. Studying economics, or the effect of incentives on human action. And as Hoppe demonstrates, the incentives for politicians, are to grab more power, and since they are the sole arbiters of law, they determine how much power they can take.
Poptech:Of course you can, you can leave the state.
Oh really? You can secede?
Poptech:I have done extensive research on it and continue to, that does not mean I agree with everything or endorse Anarcho-capitalism. LvMI is an excellent resource.
You don't have to endorse anything. But if you endorse the state, you're endorsing violence instead of voluntary cooperation.
liberty student:Laissez-faire as you use it, is just less socialism. It is not the absence of socialism.
No it is the presence of government that does not interfere in the economy like we have today. Socialism is government control and planning of the economy.
liberty student:No, Bush helped set the table for cap and trade too. He was out there chanting the AGW nonsense.
No he was not, he delayed it for 8 years and would have vetoed any bill passed.
liberty student: It shows how silly conservatives are when they mock Obama, but the real enemies are the Congress. The Congress write and vote on the legislation, Obama just signs it.
Without question I am more concerned about a Democratic congress than the President. But Obama clearly is the cheerleader for progressive socialist programs and has been using executive orders to circumvent congress (not that he really needs to). Obama can also veto it which is why having one party with complete power is more dangerous than anything.
liberty student:Obama is raising the debt, because he has to pay for the excesses of the Bush years.
He is raising the debt because he signed a trillion dollar stimulus package and wants to spend much more. He didn't have to do anything but cut spending.
liberty student:They will pass cap and trade.
Actually this is stalled in the Senate (thankfully).
liberty student:What about Hoppean anarcho-capitalism? What about Rockwellian Libertarianism?
Different takes on the same theories popularized by Rothbard.
liberty student:So you still advocate violence as a first resort to get your kind of government. Not much can be done about that.
I advocate for a limited/minimal government as I always have.
Churchill was a classical liberal/conservative.
liberty student:If someone violates your rights? That's possible. It is impossible to guarantee rights. Although it is more likely you would not acquire and retain property you could not defend. It would be like buying a house with no roof.
Owning a house with no roof has nothing to do with having someone come and take your house with no roof because they have a larger army than you do.
liberty student:I know, but its a logical consequence of a state. Your rights will be violated if you do not comply with the rules laid out by others.
Then how are rights protected in an anarchist society? If you don't agree to any rules, private property is meaningless.
liberty student:Oh, so the South had a right to secede? Texas could join Mexico? Hawaii can go back to being an independent nation? Alaskan sovereignty?
I should have said "living in all states is voluntary unless they restrict you (person) from leaving".
liberty student:Yeah, that doesn't work.
That is because it only requires a simple majority to pass bills in the house. It is too easy to pass new laws.
liberty student:Oh really? You can secede?
I can leave the United States and live elsewhere, yes.
liberty student:You don't have to endorse anything. But if you endorse the state, you're endorsing violence instead of voluntary cooperation.
That is propaganda. I endorse a limited government not "violence".
Poptech:Owning a house with no roof has nothing to do with having someone come and take your house with no roof because they have a larger army than you do.
But the state has a larger army than me, so...another strike against it.
Poptech:Then how are rights protected in an anarchist society? If you don't agree to any rules, private property is meaningless.
Private competing courts and defense agencies, home-owner associations, etc... (all of which you obviously agree to)
Poptech:I should have said "living in all states is voluntary unless they restrict you (person) from leaving".
So the concept of owning private property does not and cannot exist within the state.
Poptech:I can leave the United States and live elsewhere, yes.
Thats not seceding, so no.
Poptech:That is propaganda. I endorse a limited government not "violence".
A "limited government" is, in fact, a state.
Nazis were socialists, because fascism is a form of socialism like communism is a form of socialism, like federalism is a form of socialism.
Wow. Churchill was a war monger and a tyrant. I feel like I just stepped into the Twilight Zone.
Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization
This stuff is sorta funny in a way, I haven't had these debates in over a year. The last time I came close, was when I ran into Lee "How the World Works" Doren at Bureaucrash in a chat, explaining to me why it was necessary to bomb Dresden to save Britain. Think about that. He was justifying mass murder of one group of civilians, to save another group of civilians. Like we can choose to kill 25,000 Germans to save a future number of British deaths.
No big surprise most people left Bureaucrash for fr33 agents.
And then these "conservative" "libertarians" can't understand why some people don't like the anglo-american establishment, like its a big mystery. They always play the "anti-american" card, when it's just basic human deceny to not kill innocents.
Juan:The nazis used the word socialism as part of their name, kinda pandered to the left, and were nationalists. You know what ? I think that's called fascism.
Not necessarily as technically Fascism is an Italian concept which differed from National Socialism. The Nazi's implemented wide scale socialist programs and was vehemently anti-capitalist.
Juan:Okay poptech, you are both disgusting and boring. Apart from asserting twice that buchanan is clueless because he's not a neocon like you, can't you provide something resembling an argument illustrating why buchanan is clueless ?
When you can define neo-con.
Angurse:But the state has a larger army than me, so...another strike against it.
A volunteer army composed of fellow citizens who are private property owners.
Angurse:Private competing courts and defense agencies, home-owner associations, etc... (all of which you obviously agree to)
In an anarchist society you don't have to agree to anything.
Angurse:So the concept of owning private property does not and cannot exist within the state.
Of course it can.
Angurse:Thats not seceding, so no.
I was never talking about seceding and never brought it up.
Angurse:A "limited government" is, in fact, a state.
No kidding that has nothing to do with advocating "violence" in the implied propaganda concept.
But that is a non-sequitur. The state can take your house, and does, and has been seizing property going back to the Whiskey Rebellion under Washington. It's neither here nor there, that anyone confronted by greater force, is in trouble. Whether that force is a bunch of criminals who are not the state, or a bunch of criminals who call themselves the state, its still theft.
Poptech:Then how are rights protected in an anarchist society?
The same way they are protected under the state, except there is no legal monopoly. There is polycentric law.
Poptech:f you don't agree to any rules, private property is meaningless.
That's true. But man has been very good at organizing to resolve property rights disputes in the absence of aggression. Look, Britain has a different legal system than America. America has a different legal system (and language) than Mexico. Mexico has a different language and legal system than China. And yet they all peacefully interact (most of the time). They are in a state of anarchy. There is polycentric legal order between the states. When China and Mexico have a dispute, they don't start a shooting war, do they? So why would we assume that anarchy will be all about violence, and not arbitration, negotiation and compromise? Going to war is very unprofitable unless you are in the defense industry. It's always cheaper to settle than to die.
Well, who owns all property, the state or the people? Libertarian theory sees states as collections of individuals, not an entity like a corporation, that has some form of person hood. A state cannot homestead property, only individuals can homestead property.
Poptech:That is because it only requires a simple majority to pass bills in the house. It is too easy to pass new laws.
Even if it was more difficult, they would continue to pass more laws, and to expand the state. It would just be slower, it wouldn't be stopped.
Poptech: liberty student:Oh really? You can secede? I can leave the United States and live elsewhere, yes.
That's not secession. Secession is the individual right of self-determination, as claimed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, and the Kentucky Resolutions. If you don't support secession, then that means you do not think the American revolution was legitimate. And thus the Constitution was not legitimate.
We've already covered this. The state uses force to compel citizens. The use of force violates rights. The state's only weapon when it does not have 100% consent, is violence. You can't avoid this. It's not actually that radical, its only exceptional in that most people prefer to ignore the fact that the state uses violence to coerce the people it claims to defend from coercion. It is an inconvenient truth.
Poptech:A volunteer army composed of fellow citizens who are private property owners.
And? They are still an arm of the state. They are still larger than me. If they are marching across my lawn, I really could care less if they were volunteers or not.
Poptech:In an anarchist society you don't have to agree to anything.
I never said otherwise.
Poptech:Of course it can.
No. You've said you were familiar with Rothbard so you should be pretty familiar as to what constitutes a state. By definition, the state is an institution which possesses the following properties: it gets its funding through taxation and/or (generally and!) it possesses a monopoly on the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a specific region.
If you have to pay taxes, you have no private property. If an institution claims your property as within its domain and require you to follow its rules, you have no private property.
Any other set up is, in fact, anarchy.
Poptech:I was never talking about seceding and never brought it up.
Again, the answer is "no, I would have to leave the United States and live elsewhere."
Poptech:No kidding that has nothing to do with advocating "violence" in the implied propaganda concept.
Actually, by the very definition of the "state," it does, whether you wish for violence or not.
liberty student: If someone violates your rights? That's possible. It is impossible to guarantee rights. Although it is more likely you would not acquire and retain property you would not acquire and retain property you could not defend. It would be like buying a house with no roof.
If someone violates your rights? That's possible. It is impossible to guarantee rights. Although it is more likely you would not acquire and retain property you would not acquire and retain property you could not defend. It would be like buying a house with no roof.
Didn't you kind of answered it yourself? You can physically secede. You only need to declare it. Then defend your one-man-state by yourself or hire a defence agency. Of course, the chances are that you will lose, but that is an option in an ancap society.
I've been thinking about anarcho-capitalism and it all reads great on the paper. Illegitimate state, taxation is a theft etc. etc. But, isn't life per definitione anarcho-capitalism? Isn't it that what anarcho-capitalists call for has been actually happening all the time? Didn't those who don't want to participate in this one particular agency simply lost on the market against it? There isn't enough demand for a competing defence agency and thus those who don't want to participate in the existing one are on their own....
Just a thought....
SilentXtarian:I used to be an anarchist. However, I've come to a realization that if the government was very small and could provide some services through voluntary donations perhaps it wouldn't be so bad.
You're still an anarchist.
Why anarchy fails
SilentXtarian:If it were voluntary than I think it would solve the problem with coersion. I'm not a statist as I don't believe it should use force to achieve its goals.
It seems that consistent anarchists would logically have to agree with you.
Perhaps you are being turned away from what some people call "anarchy," which is really their vision of how anarchy will be.
Cortex:Didn't you kind of answered it yourself? You can physically secede. You only need to declare it. Then defend your one-man-state by yourself or hire a defence agency. Of course, the chances are that you will lose, but that is an option in an ancap society.
But that was never the point. Yeah, you can physically secede. And then the government will come kill you like they did at Ruby Ridge and Waco. The question is, does the state have a legitimate claim to your property? That is the justification it claims for the use of force. If the government has no justification, then it logically follows, it should not commit violence. This is based upon the notion that the state is a defender of liberty. If your property is your own, then it can't violate your property rights.
This includes your life.
If the state commits violence without justification, isn't that the definition of tyranny? A moral people who value life (and we would presume that most people do in fact value life, if not of others, at least their own), would have to see that the state is criminal.
Cortex:Didn't those who don't want to participate in this one particular agency simply lost on the market against it?
No, because the free market is not a zero sum game.
Cortex:There isn't enough demand for a competing defence agency and thus those who don't want to participate in the existing one are on their own....
Right, but the state is not a defense agency. It doesn't defend its constituents. That is just the propaganda. It didn't protect anyone on 9/11. It didn't protect anyone at Katrina. In both cases, people weren't fired, the state didn't make restitution to its constituents. When the police assault you, that's your tough luck. When someone steals your TV, the state fills out a report, they don't actually go get your property back, or pay you restitution like an insurance company would. That's actually Marc Stephens argument. That you can't be in this social contract, of citizens and state, because the state has no legal obligation to fulfill its duty to defend rights, and so the contract is void.
Again, ancap involves the NAP. It's not anarcho-capitalism if someone is bullying you around at the end of a gun. That is tyranny.
Will we have a perfectly ancap world? I doubt it. But we can have periods and zones of free exchange and voluntarism. The internet already provides modeling for this. People form their own communities, and they will eventually form their own cultures and laws. And those affiliations will trickle offline the way the Ron Paul revolution started online, and turned into thousands of real life meetup groups around the world.
You got me all wrong :-)
First the thing with losing and sum-zero: I am not a graduated economist, but I do know that. It was my bad wording. What I mean is this:
I am not discussing the nature of the state or whether it actually helps anybody or not. For this moment I am interested not in what ought to be, but what is. NAP and self-ownership are both great ideas, but one cannot seriously expect a large-scale society where every single individual subscribes to them. In such a society there would be no need for any defence agencies in the first place. But, if there will be people who don't subscribe to them, those agencies are needed. So, there will be people who want the state, who want to excercise power over others. An ancap response to their attempts to excercise power over others is either self-defence or hiring an agency. So, how's that different from these days? You've got yourself, you can defend yourself and you can hire people to defend you from those who try to excercise power over you...
Cortex:For this moment I am interested not in what ought to be, but what is.
Well, praxeologically, that's not quite right. We're all trying to get somewhere. The question is, where?
Cortex:NAP and self-ownership are both great ideas, but one cannot seriously expect a large-scale society where every single individual subscribes to them.
I agree.
Cortex:In such a society there would be no need for any defence agencies in the first place.
Sure there will be. There will still be a need for conflict resolution. Proper arbitration, contract enforcement etc. You're reading too much into the NAP IMO.
Cortex:So, there will be people who want the state, who want to excercise power over others.
Yes, hopefully we will identify them as what they are. Criminals.
Cortex:An ancap response to their attempts to excercise power over others is either self-defence or hiring an agency. So, how's that different from these days? You've got yourself, you can defend yourself and you can hire people to defend you from those who try to excercise power over you...
There are a very small number of ancaps, and there is not already an established market for security or defense. When those markets develop, the way the market for pocket tasers and pepper spray developed, then people will start to choose different agencies. Right now, you're proposing a silly sort of situation, where because there is no market in defense, an ancap who tries to go it alone, has to do so without any resources. That's not how people generally behave. You don't go fishing without a rod and bait. You don't go for a drive without gas.
@OP
Yes the conservatives can hurt libertarianism. That much is obvious. I think the real problem though lies with the progressive, democrats, socialists, general leftists amazing control of media and propaganda. Sure the Conservatives have a few outlets, but the outlets they do have are under relentless criticism/ mockary and do not match anything the "left" is capable of throwing out and selling to people. Never think the left will make a good alliance or good natured judge of ideas, it is and has been for quite some time, the group with the strongest control on the spread of and control of information.
If libertarians happen to be agree with Conservatives on an unpopular/ hot buttoned issue (such as health care), it will probably be amplified and hurt libertarians more because the major oposition party is opposed to the party in control of propaganda.
liberty student:Well, praxeologically, that's not quite right. We're all trying to get somewhere. The question is, where?
Hence "for this moment"
liberty student:Proper arbitration, contract enforcement etc. You're reading too much into the NAP IMO.
I would call those more judicial than defence agencies, but whatever, that's not really important. To me. For this moment :-)
liberty student:There are a very small number of ancaps, and there is not already an established market for security or defense. When those markets develop, the way the market for pocket tasers and pepper spray developed, then people will start to choose different agencies. Right now, you're proposing a silly sort of situation, where because there is no market in defense, an ancap who tries to go it alone, has to do so without any resources. That's not how people generally behave. You don't go fishing without a rod and bait. You don't go for a drive without gas.
I thought so, but wanted to be completely sure. But then another question comes to my mind. The very beginnings of the human kind could be called anarcho-capitalism. Everybody was on his own and yet the concept of the state prevailed everywhere. Is there any let's say theory why it did prevail and what would prevent it from prevailing again? First glance at history suggests that the state is pretty lively and vigorous concept.
I think that people, or better - most of people actually wanted to be ruled. If explicitly asked they may deny it, but it seems to me the desire for hierarchy is somehow...inherent to people, being a brick in the wall makes them feel good. That doesn't mean that I approve of such sentiment or that I think it is an excuse for coercing people, I am just - again - thinking out loud....
Cortex: An ancap response to their attempts to excercise power over others is either self-defence or hiring an agency. So, how's that different from these days? You've got yourself, you can defend yourself and you can hire people to defend you from those who try to excercise power over you...
The difference now is that there is a monopoly on force, i.e., the State. Sometimes AnCaps can be a little oblique about stating that, which leads to confusion. I think the reason they do this may be that they want to focus the debate on principles. However, if you're "interested not in what ought to be, but what is," there is your answer.
Cortex:The very beginnings of the human kind could be called anarcho-capitalism. Everybody was on his own and yet the concept of the state prevailed everywhere. Is there any let's say theory why it did prevail and what would prevent it from prevailing again? First glance at history suggests that the state is pretty lively and vigorous concept.
Wondering why this question is not explored more, I made a post about it a while ago: http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/8889/228392.aspx
Well, to be honest, it sounds to more like wishful thinking than an actual "proof". But hopefully, it's just me being overly skeptical about human nature.
It's not that I don't like the idea of anarcho-capitalism, I just can't imagine it happening.
Edit: from the discussion under your article:
Due to never being able to take away self ownership we always live in anarchy. The question you are asking is why does a people that always have the right of self determination choose to slave to the central powers that be. I can tell you why I don't take up arms right now against the state, because the state moves in gradual steps. If the state tried to become totalitarian in one step me and many others would take up arms. But when they pass a 1 cent tax on ammo, its not worth risking my life for. Let me further clarify and say that if I knew that everyone would stand with me against a 1 cent tax I would do it. So I guess the real problem is that coordinated individual action is hard without a centralized structure.
Precisely my thoughts!
liberty student:But that is a non-sequitur. The state can take your house, and does, and has been seizing property going back to the Whiskey Rebellion under Washington. It's neither here nor there, that anyone confronted by greater force, is in trouble. Whether that force is a bunch of criminals who are not the state, or a bunch of criminals who call themselves the state, its still theft.
I agree that this power needs to be removed from the constitution but I was referring to an Anarcho-capitalism society were those with can fund the bigger army can take your property
liberty student:The same way they are protected under the state, except there is no legal monopoly. There is polycentric law.
In an anarchist society no one has to agree to anything, anarcho-capitalist "law" is irrelevant. So protection is based on who can fund the larger army.
liberty student:That's true. But man has been very good at organizing to resolve property rights disputes in the absence of aggression.
Man has organized by forming governments.
liberty student:So why would we assume that anarchy will be all about violence, and not arbitration, negotiation and compromise? Going to war is very unprofitable unless you are in the defense industry. It's always cheaper to settle than to die.
Obviously it would not all be about violence. Somalia is in a state of anarchy and the most powerful warlords rule. Going to war to acquire property can be very profitable, look at Somalia pirates. It is not cheaper to settle if you have a larger army and your intentions is to acquire property.
liberty student:Well, who owns all property, the state or the people?
Property should be owned by who owns it. Private Property for individuals and the government should own property for things like police stations, courts and military bases.
liberty student:Even if it was more difficult, they would continue to pass more laws, and to expand the state. It would just be slower, it wouldn't be stopped.
Not necessarily. Making it much more difficult to pass laws and much easier to repeal them would have a drastic effect on liberty in the United States.
liberty student:That's not secession. Secession is the individual right of self-determination, as claimed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, and the Kentucky Resolutions. If you don't support secession, then that means you do not think the American revolution was legitimate. And thus the Constitution was not legitimate.
I am not talking about Secession but if you didn't notice you need to win the war.
liberty student:We've already covered this. The state uses force to compel citizens. The use of force violates rights. The state's only weapon when it does not have 100% consent, is violence. You can't avoid this. It's not actually that radical, its only exceptional in that most people prefer to ignore the fact that the state uses violence to coerce the people it claims to defend from coercion. It is an inconvenient truth.
The state uses coercion not "violence" as you use the term. You can avoid most of it by limiting it to basic things like the protection of private property rights. So say a gang forcefully steals my house and throws me on the street, the state can use the police to arrest the gang and restore my private property to me. The way you manipulate the term "violence" is to claim people support the police just randomly beating people up for fun which is propaganda and nonsense.