Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

An-caps, STOP lying to yourself!

This post has 242 Replies | 12 Followers

Not Ranked
Posts 99
Points 3,540
aervew Posted: Thu, Dec 1 2011 9:49 AM

 

An-caps, STOP lying to yourself!
 
All the examples of modern an cap, and all of them you reject out of elitism, naivity or delusion.
when you see kowloon city, the violent drug gangs dont fit your idea of protection agencies.
when you see somalia, the bandit groups dont suit your world of PDAs.
when you see mexico, the cartel controlled free-for-all still doesnt work as an-cap for you.
 
its not right because it doesnt meet the rothbardian an-cap description? Talk about contradictions! When anarchy is supposed to follow your exact rules, lest it be not worthy. Surely papa Rothbard himself would be more open minded about these developments.
 
Its not right because the state outlaws legitimate protection services from competing with bandits? Well guess what, the states prescriptions matter little any more, when the state doesnt even have control over the area. the whole argument doesnt make any sense in this context.
 
Its not right because foreign state outlawed drug demand for drugs feeds money to illegitimate cartel activities/foreign states finance the bandits of nonstate areas. now we're reaching marxism nuttery - nothing will work for you unless the whole world lives by your ideas - in the case of trotsky the global socialism, for you global ancap.
 
so my proposal to you is simple - embrace anarchy. when you see mexico, somalia, kowloon, admit it as your own. Either that, or stop being hypocritical bastards and claiming to support an-cap when in reality, you dont.
  • | Post Points: 170
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

If you were actually interested in discussion instead of just trolling, I might turn you to some resources on why your assessment is ill-informed and misguided, but since you're not, I'll just provide them for anyone else who might actually be interested in intellectual reasoning and discourse.

 

Anarchy in Somalia

Stateless in Somalia , and Loving It

The Rule of Law without the State

Somalia: Libertarian Paradise

Are the Salad Days for Somalia Over?

Somalia Celebrates 20 Years of Prospering Anarchy

Somalia: Society vs. the State?

 

And of course, the thread:

If Anarchism works, explain Somalia.

 

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Thu, Dec 1 2011 10:09 AM

I know Wikipedia isn't always trustworthy, but I doubt that the existence of the Mexican government is a conspiracy theory.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 531
Points 10,985

In Chiapas it is, but the EZLN probably isn't what you'd call ancap.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Thu, Dec 1 2011 10:17 AM

So my proposal to you is simple, embrace statism, admit that murder, theft, child abuse and rape in families and schools, Columbine etc. shootings and massive genocides by dictators and world wars and famine is your own statism, a fantasy, that you so lovingly support.

When you admit this, I will admit, that Somalia etc. is anarchy. Well, to be honest, Somalia has anarchist features for sure. No one, who accepts anarchism, could deny this.

My point is, if I admit that Somalia is anarchy, I am STILL ON MORAL HIGH GROUND, while you are just a supporter of organized rape, murder and theft. I am better than you and that makes me feel good.

"Dude... Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!" - Evilsceptic

(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 198
Points 3,100
jay replied on Thu, Dec 1 2011 10:20 AM

Pretty sure an-cap-ism has to be intellectually assented to, not forced upon people or happenstanced by political upheaval. But that doesn't really help your trolling, does it?

"The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -C.S. Lewis
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Thu, Dec 1 2011 10:21 AM

It's funny how when you point out the faults in the state people say "yes, and we should work to fix those" but if you try to say the same about (supposed) capitalist problems people glare at you weirdly.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 430
Points 8,145

Papa Rothbard? That's a new one, and it's for keeps, too!

“Remove justice,” St. Augustine asks, “and what are kingdoms but gangs of criminals on a large scale? What are criminal gangs but petty kingdoms?”
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Thu, Dec 1 2011 10:25 AM

Pretty sure an-cap-ism has to be intellectually assented to, not forced upon people or happenstanced by political upheaval

You can't really force the absence of involuntary aggression on people.

But in a sense it's true: Since we reject a violent uprising, we de-facto need to get at least 51% of the public to be favorable towards at least minarchy. At that point, I'm fairly sure things would work at least decently well.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 99
Points 3,540
aervew replied on Thu, Dec 1 2011 10:36 AM

 

 
John James, Oh ive read those resources alright. Ive even argued FOR somalia in the past. The point is, none of these resources truthfully support a rothbardian style nap/nonagressive production service model. As far as they are concerned, it is all racket style/minimal taxation by the gangs.
 
Wheylous, there are numerous areas in Mexico, Brazil, even France where the government has effectively zero or minimal control, compared to the violent gangs. Even more so with Kowloon city, and Somalia. That is, in those areas the govt of mexico is NOT the state, at most it is one of the groups competing for power.
 
And gang-rivalled areas arent An-cap? Well, what is then? There is effectively no state, and there is capitalism. It is an.cap by any reasonable non-pretentious definition. Remember, if your definition of an-cap includes all the rothbardian nap and other chapters of "ethics of liberty", yes it IS pretentious. 
 
MaikU, organized rape, murder and theft is exactly what the somali gangs do. Unless you are a complete denier like the guy in with the yellow avatar who in his somali thread systematically rejected all mainstream news reports of gang violence in somalia. Kind of 911 no-planer level denialism
 
And Jay, aah the intellectual ascent. If only people were smarter and more educated, then we would have peace and prosperity in an.cap. I forgot to write about this in the OP. You think the would be gangs that pillage the land care about your education? You think that will remove their thirst for power, glory and money? But this isnt even relevant. The fundamental problem stays, you admit an cap to not being workable with the current set of people, quite unlike the Friedman-style natural order or rothbards NAP fueled self evident system that people would surely rejoice in and fight to guard.
  • | Post Points: 65
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Thu, Dec 1 2011 10:46 AM

I'll entertain your notion that there would be gangs to pillage the countryside. But why doesn't government do the same, hm? Because people "vote"? Oh, yes, I'm certain that a few paper ballots are exactly what is preventing government from trampling over us. Oh, and the Constitution? Try to tell that to an alien: "Our government is kept in check by a 200-year old piece of paper." Really, now? Who sounds more ridiculous? Give all power of aggression to a monopoly which is essentially not controlled by the public directly (no law of physics controlling the government)? Seriously? And you expect government to respect our rights. HOW IN HELL? There is no intellectual reason why it would. And yet, we do not see marauding gangs of raiders in the Mad Max sense. Why not? Culture, my friend, culture. Our belief system is centered around a general environment of peace and property rights.

Once you can defend why the hell the state would not destroy us while ancap would, then we can talk. What keeps the state in check, a?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Thu, Dec 1 2011 10:59 AM

aervew:

 

MaikU, organized rape, murder and theft is exactly what the somali gangs do. Unless you are a complete denier like the guy in with the yellow avatar who in his somali thread systematically rejected all mainstream news reports of gang violence in somalia. Kind of 911 no-planer level denialism

nice try, troll, to ignore my post :) organized crime is what state is. Rape is what state is. Theft is what state is. War is what state is. So yeah, I would better live in uncertain danger of Somalia gangs, than in PERPETUAL VIOLENT STATE, that steals people's money, put them in cages (with rape and abuse), kills them and forces them to go to wars. Yeah, only psychopath like you could ignore all of this and try to shift burden of proof on me, when actually it is YOU, who support violence and it is YOU who should be sorry for it and beg our understanding of your insanity.

Once again, I will keep pointing your violent tendencies and beliefs as long as you will be on this forum. You are in denial, that's for sure. But still, I like being on moral high ground.

 

Once again, I am not denying gang violence in Somalia. I admit it. But do YOU have the same intelectual honesty to admit that STATE CAUSES much more violence and even on a GLOBAL SCALE? Do you have honesty to admit, that the biggest wars were caused by the states? Do you have honesty to admit that state kills it's people if they do not obey the "master"? Do you have hoensty to admit, that state puts non-violent people in prisons, where they get LEGALLY raped and beaten to death there and all of this is funded through extertion racket called "taxation"? Are you willing to admit this or are you in denial, like 9/11 truther? :)

 

"Dude... Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!" - Evilsceptic

(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 99
Points 3,540
aervew replied on Thu, Dec 1 2011 11:02 AM

 

 
Wheylous and Maiku
It can certainly be argued that state is non-aggressive, because it owns all the land in its area, hence doesnt violate the NAP. But even if you reject that, i can follow along and agree that yes state does do what you say. However it has the fundamental interest and incentive of keeping peace and welfare of its citizens to ensure prosperity for itself, whereas competing gangs who lack firm control of their area by this virtue dont have this incentive. Essentially, the state fundamentally has the incentive to work in the interest of its citizens BECAUSE it owns the land and can be secure that as a result of  policy of protecting citizens it will gain more revenue in the long run, while direct confiscation and slavery would net far less revenue. It is this ownership that you consider evil that is what has allowed the world to prosper, both in government firmly owning its land, and as an extension in the private sector by people having firm property rights to their land.
 
This has all been discussed in depth in here( http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/18788.aspx?PageIndex=1 )  so id prefer to not continue on this due to it not being part of the realist-current political situation concept of this thread, in fact your whole post was a blatant attempt to change the subject and avoid direct confrontation in the problematic areas of an-cap.
 
Dont worry man, ive gone through all this. Ive been the biggest fan of rothbard and an-cap, but you gotta see its problems if you want to be realist and not living in fantasy world. All i want to do is show you too the problems, so that you can move to the next level after an-cap - that is political realism and perhaps neo-nihilism / subjectivism that the mainstream political sphere adheres to. 
 
In a sense, you can complete the full circle from main stream - extremist radical - enlightened main stream, if you only embrace the problems that an-cap has had in every example in history, and make the conclusions of the inevitability of the problems of such political radicalism.
 
  • | Post Points: 50
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Thu, Dec 1 2011 11:08 AM

"However it has the fundamental interest and incentive of keeping peace and welfare of its citizens to ensure prosperity for itself"

 

You are in denial. Tell these words to million of people that died in WW1 or WW2. And I am not talking about jews. Tell that to innocent japanese people, who were nuked by peaceful US goverment.

 

You are like any other psychopath, ignore state violence, and if you are pushed in a corner, you RATIONALIZE it that it was "for greater good" or "war would never be over if not peaceful US nukes".

 

YOU'RE INSANE.

 

P.S. admit, that you are affraid of anarchy, because in anarchy people like you wouldn't survive very long. Just like any other mentally unstable person, who believes, that might makes right, you would be ostracized quickly and efficiently from any anarchist city. But with the state you get the chance to leech from everybody without punishment.

"Dude... Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!" - Evilsceptic

(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

aervew:
John James, Oh ive read those resources alright. Ive even argued FOR somalia in the past.

Suuuuure you have.

 

none of these resources truthfully support a rothbardian style nap/nonagressive production service model. As far as they are concerned, it is all racket style/minimal taxation by the gangs.

Thanks for proving you have no clue what you're talking about.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 516
Points 7,190
bbnet replied on Thu, Dec 1 2011 11:20 AM

We are the soldiers for righteousness
And we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 99
Points 3,540
aervew replied on Thu, Dec 1 2011 11:33 AM

 

 
 Maiku, your war example is an example of anarchy, not statism. World anarchy, that is. Would truman have nuked los angeles or new york? No, because it would reduce make US citizens less productive, and state would become less wealthy and lose revenue. Again, im not denying that state policy can be interpreted as being violent like that of gangs, merely that state has the system of incentives to minimize it as for citizens be wealthy and prosperous, as opposed to the brutality of competing gangs. And yes, states have made errors even in this framework, like possibly Vietnam conscription, communist economies around the world, primitive and harsh medieval and ancient taxation systems, but they realized the negative effects and terminated the policy/ replaced it with something more reasonable that better suits the citizens. The state functions like private sector in this sense, constantly improving and learning from past mistakes, to make life better for both its citizens and itself.
 
 bbnet, if mafia is monopolist, then it sure can be good and reasonable to citizens(similarly to state), but competing mafia is very brutal and not a good situation to live in. Same problems as the anarchist examples ive pointed out.
 
 John James, im serioius. Where is even remotely rothbardian competing gang system in somalia been even loosely similar to the NAP-ideas that fuel rothbardian dreams of an-cap?
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Thu, Dec 1 2011 12:08 PM

yada yada yada yada. Everything that's bad is not state. It's ANARCHY! Go away troll.

You are fast to call state violence as "mistakes" while trying to push the agenda, that anarchy somehow create more violence. Shame on you.

"Dude... Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!" - Evilsceptic

(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Thu, Dec 1 2011 12:10 PM

How odd, a statist complaining about special pleading. Let's see:

North Korea
Syria
Somalia (according to the UN, they have a government!)
Sudan
Ivory Coast
Belarus

... we can go on and on. And these are just a few of the contemporaneous nightmare states, if you'd like to go back to the historical record, we could fill pages and pages with all the nightmare states that have existed in human history.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Thu, Dec 1 2011 12:12 PM

Clayton:

How odd, a statist complaining about special pleading. Let's see:

North Korea
Syria
Somalia (according to the UN, they have a government!)
Sudan
Ivory Coast
Belarus

... we can go on and on. And these are just a few of the contemporaneous nightmare states, if you'd like to go back to the historical record, we could fill pages and pages with all the nightmare states that have existed in human history.

Clayton -

 

 

Bbbbut Clayton!!1 It's all in the past now!!! Sure, state made some mistakes here and there... but it constantly improving!!! Can't you see it? FREE HEALTH CARE, free roads!! Cheap food!!! You have to be dumb to not see the superiority of statism!!!! Wars surely is not a part of statism, it's part of ANARCHY, which is CHAOS AND RAPE!! Loook at Somalia for god's sake.

"Dude... Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!" - Evilsceptic

(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Thu, Dec 1 2011 12:18 PM

@Somalia: The error of appealing to Somalia as an example of "free markets" or "anarchy" is that it is clearly neither. The Somalis themselves couldn't give a flying flip about Amero-European philosophical ideas such as "free markets" or "anarchy"... Somali culture simply is what it is. Rather than looking at what we can learn from the Somalis and their heroic, unprecedented resistance to a century of colonialism and violent meddling in their affairs, those who denigrate Somalia as a wasteland of free-market and anarchist ideology are simply exhibiting the same racist snobbery that infuses European colonialism. They impose alien cultural concepts onto Somalia, generalizing as if the Somalis were themselves so many cattle rooting for this or that European ideology.

Until you start talking about Somalis as human beings with a rich culture and history of their own that clearly deserves respect, you really aren't talking about Somalia, you're just using the name "Somalia" as some kind of boogey-man to push whatever ideology it is you happen to be peddling today.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 743
Points 11,795

When it comes to Somalia especially- why ignore the intense US government involvement in that region and its support for the dangerous Somali government which seeks to impose its will on all the people. I'd definitely say that particular kind of state action has a lot to do with making sure theres some type of chaos. 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Thu, Dec 1 2011 1:11 PM

You see? That's why anarchy will never happen, because there will always be bullies like US who would try to impose their will upon free people in other countries!!! Better have a state! :D Anarchy debunked.

"Dude... Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!" - Evilsceptic

(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 445
Points 9,445

Here's another good piece on Somalia http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_off_Stateless.pdf

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 198
Points 3,100
jay replied on Thu, Dec 1 2011 1:26 PM

"And Jay, aah the intellectual ascent. If only people were smarter and more educated, then we would have peace and prosperity in an.cap."

I never mentioned level of education. I just meant that you need to have a body of people that accept ancap principles even if they don't name it as such.

"The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -C.S. Lewis
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

aervew:

[...]when you see mexico, the cartel controlled free-for-all still doesnt work as an-cap for you.[...]
Que dices? How are the cartels not states?

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,439
Points 44,650
Neodoxy replied on Thu, Dec 1 2011 1:59 PM

 

"All the examples of modern an cap, and all of them you reject out of elitism, naivity or delusion."
 
No they don't.
 
"when you see kowloon city, the violent drug gangs dont fit your idea of protection agencies."
 
That's not anarcho-capitalism.
Stupid constitutionalists. Haven't you seen what happened in Iraq before the United States came in?
 
"when you see Somalia, the bandit groups don't suit your world of PDAs."
Somolia is a mediocre case of anarcho-capitalism that has evolved out of the worst possible situation, all of which are because of governments. Life is better in Somolia than most of the surrounding 'nations'. That's more than the Weimar Republic could say.
 
"when you see mexico, the cartel controlled free-for-all still doesnt work as an-cap for you."
 
That's not anarcho-capitalism. You're literally either ignorant of anarcho-capitalism itself or you are a liar.

"its not right because it doesnt meet the rothbardian an-cap description? Talk about contradictions! When anarchy is supposed to follow your exact rules, lest it be not worthy. Surely papa Rothbard himself would be more open minded about these developments."

When democracy is supposed to follow exact rules when it's meant to embody the will of the majority....
 
"Its not right because the state outlaws legitimate protection services from competing with bandits? Well guess what, the states prescriptions matter little any more, when the state doesnt even have control over the area. the whole argument doesnt make any sense in this context
 
 
 
"

 
"Its not right because foreign state outlawed drug demand for drugs feeds money to illegitimate cartel activities/foreign states finance the bandits of nonstate areas. now we're reaching marxism nuttery - nothing will work for you unless the whole world lives by your ideas - in the case of trotsky the global socialism, for you global ancap."
 
So when there is a government waging war against an organization and itself has a monopoly on dispute resolution which means that the only way that anyone can either sell drugs or law is underground. The demand for law is scarce while drugs are not, so no law despute regulation arises, however organizations that then defy property rights and act like STATES, because people understand force in this ideological servitude of statism where they don't understand cooperation. This is anarcho-capitalism? NO.
 
"so my proposal to you is simple - embrace anarchy. when you see mexico, somalia, kowloon, admit it as your own. Either that, or stop being hypocritical bastards and claiming to support an-cap when in reality, you dont."

No, we do, we oppose statism. You, as a supporter of statism, support the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. Accept the great wars of the past, accept the genocides of Rwanda and of Nazi Germany. Don't deny statism when you see it!
You're an idiot.
 
You can't be bothered to actually bother to take on intelligent responses to the foolishness you spit out. There are intelligent arguments against free markets and anarchism, I know, I've used them before and I sometimes pull them out against austrian dogmatists who have no real idea what they're talking about. I have yet to hear you make a single intelligent argument.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0
 
Also, nice grammatical fail with the title.... Champ....

 

At last those coming came and they never looked back With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black...
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745

it has the fundamental interest and incentive of keeping peace and welfare of its citizens to ensure prosperity for itself, whereas competing gangs who lack firm control of their area by this virtue dont have this incentive

Doublethink alert! I repeat, we have a doublethinker!

You speak of the state as "it" as if it is a living organism capable of making decisions and acting purposefully. At the same time, you break up the supposed warloard in the free market as separate individuals. Why not put them on equal ground, eh? Why not instead use "the market"? Let's try that. Then, the market, too has incentives to protect its people so that it can maximize benefit from them.

Or perhaps you don't like merging the market into one. Then, you can accept the reality that government isn't an "it" but is a collection of individuals with porposes who are fundamentally not different from your free market warlords. A this point, your argument for government breaks down.

But it's alright to accept doublespeak. After all, 2+2=5 when you need it to.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 550
Points 8,575

So ancaps can't be so picky about the definition of their own system? That one condition is met - the de facto absence of state power - is all we're allowed to care about? Not liberal values and conventions? A recent history, even of the past decade, lacking in intervention from foreign powers or of brutal domestic tyranny? (it's not like "anarchy" in these countries led to the degeneration of a functioning liberal order)

Will you take North Korea, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Bahrain, Egypt, as well as the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Nazi Germany, etc. etc. as your own? That they don't fit your idea of a proper state is apparently no excuse.

"People kill each other for prophetic certainties, hardly for falsifiable hypotheses." - Peter Berger
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,551
Points 46,635
AJ replied on Fri, Dec 2 2011 12:23 AM

Suppose the OP is right and there actually is a region with no government, but it is not thriving. There is still a key element missing: time. If the government of the US were to magically disappear this afternoon, no AnCap expects society to be thriving this evening. There would at first be chaos, as with any major sudden change.

It takes time for a society to form, for businesses to start, and for conventions to become established in the new order. No one thinks it happens immediately. The question is how long it takes. Somalia is already better off than its neighbors after just a few years, scarcely enough time for much social-level change to happen. Think what will happen after a generation. And this is to say nothing of the effect of economic education.

If you ask me, the clock is ticking on the statist paradigm.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 461
Points 8,685

If the government of the US were to magically disappear this afternoon, no AnCap expects society to be thriving this evening. re would at first be chaos...

I disagree. I think if we pressed Rothbard's hypothetical button to abolish government immediately (I would), then we would immediately be better off. Maybe not "thriving," but there would certainly not be chaos...

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,551
Points 46,635
AJ replied on Fri, Dec 2 2011 12:32 AM

That depends on what you mean by government. I'm talking about if every agent of the state were to suddenly just quit. People would panic. Criminals would run free in the streets, etc.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Fri, Dec 2 2011 12:53 AM

RD is neglecting the effect of long-term market suppression due to the government's monopolization and cartelization of many markets. The government pumps and treats the vast majority of water that people consume... if the government simply ceased existing instantaneously (and stopped writing paychecks to the waterworks employees), a lot of people would die.

This is why it's a crucial point that being anti-state doesn't mean that abolishing government per se is the goal. In fact, "abolishing government" is no less a collectivist concept than "abolishing crime" or "abolishing poverty." Government is one of many ills of society and being opposed to it doesn't mean support some maniacal project to remove it at any cost. Rather, opposition to government is a matter of principle. I'm opposed to government for the same reason I'm opposed to crime: it's immoral and destructive. The existence of government is merely a symptom of a deeper problem: the bad values held by the vast majority of the public.

Just go look at any police brutality video on YouTube. The majority of the comments will be of the nature "f--- the cops!" but the comments of those who are not anti-police tend to be disturbing in the extreme. Rather than saying something reasonable like "well, we don't know the whole story but yeah it looks pretty bad" or "I support my local police but if they break the law I do believe they need to be punished like anybody else" you read comments like, "She was assaulting the officer! She deserved to have her ass SHOT she's lucky she only got tased!" or "God bless our police officers who risk their lives every day to keep us safe from scum like this" and so on. This response is indicative of the same kind of mob morality exhibited by a medieval serf going to watch a public hanging and throwing rotten fruit at the convict who may be completely innocent for all the spectator knows. I do not believe we have actually progressed very far in real terms from the days of racks, whips and red-hot pokers.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 461
Points 8,685

I was talking about Rothbard's button which immediately abolishes all criminal activity of the State. And I think abolishing government is the same as abolishing the State, since they are synonyms.

I didn't realize you were talking about if all the relatively non-aggressive services were abolished immediately too, sorry. The courts and police (and their employees) would still be there, just ready for a quick confiscation by the private sector.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 461
Points 8,685

By way of analogy, let me explain that the State school system would be abolished, but the public school/employee resources would still be there: simply without the coercive link to the populace, where they can force parents to send their children to their indoctrination camps.

That's how I always read Rothbard's button, anyway. I'd still press it, though, even if it meant the elimination of all the services/agents in the process.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Fri, Dec 2 2011 1:19 AM

@RD: The trouble is that there is no non-arbitrary way to separate between the "aggressive" and "non-aggressive" components of the State... the waterworks are paid for out of tax revenues which are collected by threat of the very men with guns who can assault you for no good reason, etc. Any responsible and lasting process of elimination of the immoral functions of the State must necessarily be gradual and evolutionary and driven by real change in the public's morality. We can't just "change the system" and then hope that people get used to the new way things work and then change their minds.

This is why revolutions never work. They start out idealistic... "We're going to bring FREEDOM to the people!" but then the opportunists start jockeying for "leadership" of the budding revolt. If things go to the streets and a revolution is effected and the old government thrown out, it is in large part the result of the organization and executive management of the early-adoptive revolutionary leaders who now become the new rulers of the land. Being the opportunists they are, they do not deliver liberty, just their brand of government oppression and tyranny.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Fri, Dec 2 2011 1:21 AM

I was talking about Rothbard's button which immediately abolishes all criminal activity of the State. And I think abolishing government is the same as abolishing the State, since they are synonyms.

I didn't realize you were talking about if all the relatively non-aggressive services were abolished immediately too, sorry. The courts and police (and their employees) would still be there, just ready for a quick confiscation by the private sector.

There's a difference in privatization of government monopolies and the complete and sudden stopping of government services.  Just imagine every government employee going on strike without pay, you have no cops, courts, fire department, schools, and any other tax funded services.  Criminal activity and non criminal activity of the state are rather...borderless.  If you accept taxation as a criminal activity, then all services funded by taxes are criminal inherently.  You can't pick out which one's you'd keep and others you'd get rid of in some time scale.

If there was a button that only got rid of criminal activity of the State that doesn't get rid of the State, that hypothetical would only cleanse the State of crimes, different than getting rid of the apparatus itself.

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Fri, Dec 2 2011 3:26 AM

My new state concept would work in Somalia:

Democracy is unworkable in Africa for several reasons. The first thing that voting does is to divide a population into two groups — a group that rules and a group that is ruled. This is completely at variance with Somali tradition. Second, if democracy is to work, it depends in theory, at least, upon a populace that will vote on issues. But in a kinship society such as Somalia, voting takes place not on the merit of issues but along group lines; one votes according to one's clan affiliation.

Since the ethic of kinship requires loyalty to one's fellow clansmen, the winners use the power of government to benefit their own members, which means exploitation of the members of other clans. Consequently when there exists a governmental apparatus with its awesome powers of taxation and police and judicial monopoly, the interests of the clans conflict. Some clan will control that apparatus. To avoid being exploited by other clans, each must attempt to be that controlling clan. (src)

Democracy of another kind could work in Somalia still. My state's right of political separation would allow each clan to create their own jurisdiction and opt out of controlling ones. With a separation of economy and state, there'd be no largesse to vote to one's self or one's clan. 

Just because we tried to force a western-style democracy on Somalia doesn't mean you can't tweak a few key variable in how a state works and create a working system.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Fri, Dec 2 2011 4:15 AM

Is this a joke, Anenome? Since when democracy works?

"Dude... Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!" - Evilsceptic

(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745

Well, it appears to work in the corporate system with shareholders.

Remember, democracy is not a governmet system. It's a system for making decisions. Democracy can exist regardless of government.

Anyway, what if Somalia adopted a "Constitution"? Not one which creates a stronger government, but one which defines the crime of property violation? I realize I, too, and ignorant of Somali culture, and hence don't know what's "best" for them, so there.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 7 (243 items) 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last » | RSS