Right - Net tax producers
Wrong - Net tax consumers
I tried formatting a quote of your OP properly, but got lost in the middle with the run on sentences :(
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
I'm sorry about that, but I really appreciate you trying to interpret my not so great writing. I actually now have a few questions about a state that enforces individual liberty, as well as it not working as well as a society that John Mill envisioned. [i.e., one with maximum individual liberty with minimized pain.]
Nature's god (whoever the divine being is) would be the best deterrent in any society, right?
In anarcho-capitalist society wouldn't the divine prevent the most people from raping, and stealing, as they'd be punished for that, and equally after departing the earth? Also, Ayn Rand pointed out, with her Objective Law, that only the divine (but not man) can read another man's mind. Does Objectivism suggest that only the individual and Nature's god know for certain that the individual intended to deprive another individual of life or liberty?
If yes, then does that mean that only Nature's god (i.e., the divine) can provide a true just desert individual by individual upon one departing earth?
Rather, an anarcho-capitalist society citizen's defense and detterents would be better than a Social Contract.
Even if the Social Contract and Civil Society enforcement officers were paid by a .5% sales tax with gold (or an even more valuable Natural metal) are all of the following good reasons why it wouldn't work?
1. It would turn into a nationalist society if people immigrated, or if population naturally increased, then more would need to be protected or punished.
2. The tax would have to go up, or enclosing borders would have to be built to circumvent more population growth-->free trade would be cut off, the liberty for people to leave the land to aide another nation (anarcho-capitalism supports the individual aiding another nation, just as long as it's not a centralized state, right?)
3. So, a social contract society, really turns into a paleo-con society, right? Or is even the level 5 (extreme left) which I described to be possible for paleoconservatism to evolve into?
Questions about anarcho-capitalism:
1. Technically, it's wrong to say that anarcho-capitalism is no government, right? It's self-government in the State of Nature, and also governed by the divine.
Or, do anarcho-capitalists considerably consider an anarcho capitalist society to be one with no government? I'd say no, because it's the State of Nature, and a State is a government, but was wondering what you thought.
2. Also, what was our legendary hero's (Ludwig von Mises, of course) reason(s) for believing Anarch-capitalist society will never exist?
I can think of some, of which some, one, or none may be right. Someone here needs to better educate me on our hero.
My main 2, I don't know if they're his reasons, but here the are. I'm sure his reasons are good reasons though. I still could never give up educating the masses, however.
French school of thought: Classical liberals are generally the most rational and the weakest willed people. They educate people, but they generally tend to submit to socialists...
English school of the thought: ...as the socialists really never have given up, ever since life ever existed on earth. If one were to think about it, the dinosaurs, or at least 99% of them, were fascists. They killed each other because they couldn't handle petty Natural divisions, and did bad things like killing and stealing. There has never been an Old Right society in existence before.
You're trying to define groups. Which is the opposite of libertarians. We don't think or conform to specific schools of thought rigidly or dogmatically. Well, most of us anyway.
I think you need to spend some time reading Rothbard, because anyone who creates an anarcho-capitalist definition without Rothbard and Hoppe doesn't understand Anarcho-Capitalism.
liberty student:You're trying to define groups. Which is the opposite of libertarians.
But liberterians comprise a group.
liberty student:anyone who creates an anarcho-capitalist definition without Rothbard and Hoppe doesn't understand Anarcho-Capitalism.
Unless they create it themselves, and it happens to be extremely similar to the ones proposed by Rothbard and Hoppe.
Schools are labour camps.
eliotn:But liberterians comprise a group.
Out of convenience we use it as a label. But even here, we have political libertarians, anarchists, left anarchists, libertarians, minarchists, left libertarians, eklektarkists (SP!), etc.
I don't ask people, "are you a libertarian?" because I know the answer will tell me almost nothing. I ask them if they support the non-aggression principle and free markets. Many libertarian and non-libertarians can identify with those principles.
eliotn: liberty student:You're trying to define groups. Which is the opposite of libertarians. But liberterians comprise a group.
I think it's more appropriate to describe libertaranism as a name of philisophical territory, completly opposite to that of Statist territory, that is comprised of varying flavors derived from similar core themes concerning liberty, non-agression etc.At best, libertarianism is an umbrella term, in the same way that Marxism could be considered an umbrella term over it's variants (i.e. leninism, trotskyism, etc).I think this only obvious when one studies political charts & takes referrence to Wikipedia, but this has given me an idea over how useful it would be to map out what umbrella terms would consist of, possibly for easier referrence, which I believe was the OP's intent in the first place. Although, I would probably try & attempt to display them from a tactical viewpoint, not so much as strategic or formal.Additionally, I think umbrella metaphor also works as some variants on central themes may seem to stray to edge of the umbrella, & perhaps go outside of it & for some details, no longer relate to the original term itself. Mutualism could be considered one, regarding it's perspective on STV & LTV, but more obviously, recent variants like neo-liberalsm, neo-conservativism, & neo-libertarianism would be more apt candidates (Ii.e. lack of in-depth info on mutualism on my part)... and with that, my lunch break is over :P
liberty student:Out of convenience we use it as a label. But even here, we have political libertarians, anarchists, left anarchists, libertarians, minarchists, left libertarians, eklektarkists (SP!), etc.
You forgot Hoppeans.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
The problem is that left and right are mainly cultural terms, I agree that there exist certain ideologies that correspond to various cultural beliefs and I suppose in this sense you could say that those ideologies who implentation would bring about the flourishing of certain cultures could respond points along the spectrum from left to right.