Poptech:Banishment from where? I am a billionaire (theoretical) who owns my own property, I do not need your service and I can defend myself from all violence.
But that's nonsense. The equivalent in this world is someone like Saddam Hussein. How did that play out?
You are only a billionaire because your property is recognized. When you stop recognizing the law, no one will recognize your rights. You can't defend yourself, if no one will work for you, and no one will work for you, if your money is not accepted as payment, and you have been in violation of the law. You will be a rogue. Remember, you made the case about private recovery of property.
Poptech:There is no probability that anyone to obey any laws if there is no on to enforce them.
But this is nonsense. Most of humanity co-exists peacefully without excess criminality or violence. The times where there is high crime or violence, is when the government creates black markets with prohibition, or when they exercise violence against citizens or foreigners.
Besides, you've not demonstrated an understanding of positive and negative law. Libertarians are not legal positivists.
How did you get to be a billionare? w/o IP laws and the state to enforce a monopoly, getting to that point would be rather difficult. But even if you are at that point, why is this any different from the state, that has the power to enforce it's will with a massive supply of arms? Also, if you can become a billionare, how many other billionares are there, or perhaps coalitions of millionares? How many others are there who can and will take action against you in one form or fashion?
Poptech:Can you show me a definition of the word libertarian that means "no government".
Did you read Kinsella's article?
Poptech:Why would the word anarchist exists then?
Anarchist has a lot of meanings, it predates libertarian. Anarchists are not all libertarians, many of them are pro-aggression. Libertarians are against aggression.
Poptech: And why is it called anarcho-capitalism and not libertarian-capitalism then? If what you are saying is valid then when you state to someone "libertarian-capitalism" they will understand that means "no government". Do those not familiar with Rothbard understand liertarian-capitalism to mean "no government"?
And why is it called anarcho-capitalism and not libertarian-capitalism then? If what you are saying is valid then when you state to someone "libertarian-capitalism" they will understand that means "no government".
Do those not familiar with Rothbard understand liertarian-capitalism to mean "no government"?
I'm not sure how any of this is relevant. You're at LvMI. Libertarianism is understood to be a particular thing here. It should, because Rothbard was fundamental in the creation of the 20th century libertarian movement out of old right conservatism. Now, I don't usually appeal to Rothbard as an authority, except at LvMI he is an authority, and most certainly in the libertarian movement, he is synonymous with libertarianism.
You can call yourself a big yellow bird if you want to, but it doesn't necessarily make it so. I would rather you keep calling yourself a libertarian, and adopt libertarian ideals, than to call yourself a libertarian, and remain an apologist for the state.
Poptech:Only based on you redefining words that the rest of the English speaking word does not accept.
They also misunderstand socialism, capitalism, etc. I'm not going to let a bunch of morons define the words I use, or tell me what they can or cannot mean.
Read Kinsella's article.
SilentXtarian:I think that Republicans discredit us by talking about socialism... when their whole ideology of supply-side economics is based on revolving around the federal reserve and the state.
Republicans and Conservatives are two different things, while the latter usually votes for the former the latter's ideologies can vary and they are not all supply-side economics. And libertarians can also be Republicans (Ron Paul). You might be better off by stating "Conservatives who believe...." or "Republicans who believe..." to be more objective.
Anyway I have spoken to many people who label themselves Republicans, Conservative and even liberal Democrats who after getting their views on issues are really minarchist libertatians. There are more people out there who believe in personal liberty and economic freedom then people realize, my suggestion is not to attack them but to show them why they are defining themselves wrong.
IMO the fanatical infighting in the libertarian sphere is absurd.
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
Poptech: IMO the fanatical infighting in the libertarian sphere is absurd.
And it's mostly because of semantic confusion & debates such as these.
"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
Poptech:I made not claim of a temple only a rational belief that an institution named after someone would not only support beliefs not espoused by the person the institution was named after. This is logical. The claim that minarchist views are not acceptable at an institution named after a person who held these views is illogical.
Nobody said that minarchist views are not acceptable. Wrong on the other hand...
(If they did say it they too are as wrong as a minarchist)
Poptech: So you suppot freely defining words and abolishing dictionaries? How would we communicate if you can define words how you please?
So you suppot freely defining words and abolishing dictionaries? How would we communicate if you can define words how you please?
Thats a complete strawman. You even left out where I elaborated on the point further. Do specialised fields with specialised terms exist?
Poptech:I was able to find that definition in a dictionary.
LOL! In a dictionary. If someone here writes a dictionary and then goes on to define their terms how they see fit will you cease this pedantic nonsense? The very fact that you allow use of multiple dictionaries just shows how non-existant this argument is. What if dictionary A differs from dictionary B? Of course, thats not a problem if you understand specialisation.
Poptech:Not at all, a government can exist to be the arbitrator and protector of property rights without interfering in the economy.
Assertions do wonders for arguments.
That is a perfect example of a contradiction. Protection is a service, it being removed from the market and placed into the hands of goverment is just as an interference just like government trash collection, education, road maintenance, vehicle production, farming, etc...
Poptech:I agree except that I believe the name to be very relevant but that is not what is being implied here by others.
Yeah, you haven't really explained how its relevant at all though. in the end, names are utterly meaningless.
Poptech:They are clearly possible. The dictionary makes no mention of this impossibility or evens mentions government.
When is it required for a dictionary to mention a possibility? Perhaps a dictionary has the answer. Regardless, its still an impossibility.
"a legal right to or in a particular property"
"the quality or state of being free"
Angurse: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.
Further:
Monopoly "exclusive control or possession of something"
Taxation "charge against a citizen's person or property or activity for the support of government"
Its simply a contradiction to have full property rights and live within a state, as your legal right to property is charged. (by definition)
SilentXtarian: My ideal minarchist government would be one that's just there. It would abide to the people that want to send voluntary donations to it. It would not create laws or control anything other than the services that it would provide aside from the ones that it would receive from the people that gave it money. There would be no taxes. No transcription.
My ideal minarchist government would be one that's just there. It would abide to the people that want to send voluntary donations to it. It would not create laws or control anything other than the services that it would provide aside from the ones that it would receive from the people that gave it money. There would be no taxes. No transcription.
Then your ideal is anarchy. As that is a protection agency. A state (minarchism) requires more than what you've proposed.
SilentXtarian: I don't think that it would be more of a utopia than an anarchist society. Either anarhcism or minarchism would be fine with me. I don't think that it's impossible for there to be an extremely limited government. There would have to be real constraints on it. I think that the argument that every government causes violence, and, violence exists because of governments is false- as violence has been a natural human part of human behavior, and violence towards one another (in war) would probably not change unless drastic changes were made so people would be more acceptable to the idea of free trade and peacful cooperation.
I don't think that it would be more of a utopia than an anarchist society. Either anarhcism or minarchism would be fine with me. I don't think that it's impossible for there to be an extremely limited government. There would have to be real constraints on it. I think that the argument that every government causes violence, and, violence exists because of governments is false- as violence has been a natural human part of human behavior, and violence towards one another (in war) would probably not change unless drastic changes were made so people would be more acceptable to the idea of free trade and peacful cooperation.
I think you need to see the line between government and state better.
Poptech:There are more people out there who believe in personal liberty and economic freedom then people realize,
No there is not. More people have faith in the state than god!! A full 10% of the U.S. population does not believe in god. How many do not believe in the state? I doubt even 1% do not believe in the state. How many registered users does this forum have? fr33agents only has 5 people from Utah on it. 5 out of 3 million people! Granted, that is not all of the anarchists in Utah, I am sure, but could I find a 100 anarchists in Utah?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Poptech: Can you show me a definition of the word libertarian that means "no government".
You missed the point entirely.
Libertarian (by a definition you provided awhile back) is the idea of total individual freedom. Total individual freedom is 100% incompatible with the state.
To advocate the state is to advocate destroying, to some degree, individual freedom.
The advocacy of any destruction of individual freedom is incompatible with libertarianism, according to your own definition.
Therefore, it is impossible to both advocate the state and libertarianism, unless one also attempts the argument that the state does not infringe on any personal freedom.
SilentXtarian:Laughing man, the state wouldn't have a monopoly of the services. It would allow for free competition to the services it has. Kind of like the Post Office. It would be ran like a private enterprise here.
Then what makes your ideal state different from any other service provider? From what I understand it is only a name if you take away its geographical monopoly on force
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man: SilentXtarian:Laughing man, the state wouldn't have a monopoly of the services. It would allow for free competition to the services it has. Kind of like the Post Office. It would be ran like a private enterprise here. Then what makes your ideal state different from any other service provider? From what I understand it is only a name if you take away its geographical monopoly on force
Laughing Man, the difference between the state and any other service provider here would be that it would have the official recognition of the main body of the state. It would be a small government compatible with libertarianism/classical liberalism... but it would only need that recognition so people are sure of its legitimacy to carry out the things that they asked for in their donations. It would not regulate things that it would not have control of. In my ideal nation private courts would do most of the regulating setting up the implicit and explicit rules. The people running the private courts would be changed every now and then so that the courts don't become an oligarch of their own. Private courts would be enforcing the rules... much like Rothbard set out in his principles in Libertarian Manifesto.... it would be a state and not a NPO for recognition purposes.
SilentXtarian:Laughing Man, the difference between the state and any other service provider here would be that it would have the official recognition of the main body of the state.
Yes but I don't have to recognize it as anything because it is just another service provider.
SilentXtarian: it would be a state and not a NPO for recognition purposes.
Recognition of what though? It has no monopoly on force, it is just another corporation that provides services.
liberty student: 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.
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.
I have recently replied to the current misunderstandings of the FSP over on this thread.
For those interested in the roundtable discussion between Stefan Molyneux, Ian Freeman, Marc Stevens and Sam Dodson, it can be found on Youtube here. It's a great discussion worth watching.
Poptech: A volunteer army composed of fellow citizens who are private property owners.
A volunteer army composed of fellow citizens who are private property owners.
Who are funded through mass extortion...It doesn't matter if signing up for the army is voluntary if paying for it is not. Whatever the case, they still don't have the right to initiate the use of force.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." - H. L. Mencken
Austin:Who are funded through mass extortion...It doesn't matter if signing up for the army is voluntary if paying for it is not. Whatever the case, they still don't have the right to initiate the use of force.
It does not have to be, are volunteer firemen paid? An all volunteer military composed mainly of reserves is possible.
Poptech:An all volunteer military composed mainly of reserves is possible.
Who is going to volunteer nukes, submarines, air craft carriers and fighter jets?
Poptech: Austin:Who are funded through mass extortion...It doesn't matter if signing up for the army is voluntary if paying for it is not. Whatever the case, they still don't have the right to initiate the use of force. It does not have to be, are volunteer firemen paid? An all volunteer military composed mainly of reserves is possible.
Well as long as they volunteer to kill people, I guess it's ok then
Seph:Well as long as they volunteer to kill people, I guess it's ok then
Murder is ok if the government says so.
Yes of course we should not give them any weapons so they have no way to kill people.
Poptech:Yes of course we should not give them any weapons so they have no way to kill people.
Maybe nerf weapons. Sleep bombs. Compassion grenades.
liberty student: Poptech:Yes of course we should not give them any weapons so they have no way to kill people. Maybe nerf weapons. Sleep bombs. Compassion grenades.
You almost forgot the secret deadly art of...
Nitroadict: You almost forgot the secret deadly art of... JAZZ HANDS
JAZZ HANDS!
Juan:NAZI - "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" - National Socialist German Workers' Party Oh I'm learning so much. 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. Churchill was a classical liberal/conservative. ROTFLOL. Hm. Here's a bit of info for you.
NAZI - "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" - National Socialist German Workers' Party
Churchill was a classical liberal/conservative.
There really isn't that much of a difference. It's funny how an entire political spectrum was devoted to two philosophies with a few minor differences.
No view of society can possibly be complete which does not comprise within its scope both collective organisation and individual incentive. The whole tendency of civilisation is, however, towards the multiplication of the collective functions of society. The ever-growing complications of civilisation create for us new services which have to be undertaken by the State, and create for us an expansion of the existing services. There is a growing feeling, which I entirely share, against allowing those services which are in the nature of monopolies to pass into private hands. There is a pretty steady determination, which I am convinced will become effective in the present Parliament, to intercept all future unearned increment which may arise from the increase in the speculative value of the land. There will be an ever-widening area of municipal enterprise. I go farther; I should like to see the State embark on various novel and adventurous experiments, I am delighted to see that Mr. Burns is now interesting himself in afforestation. I am of opinion that the State should increasingly assume the position of the reserve employer of labour. I am very sorry we have not got the railways of this country in our hands. We may do something better with the canals, and we are all agreed, every one in this hall who belongs to the Progressive Party, that the State must increasingly and earnestly concern itself with the care of the sick and the aged, and, above all, of the children.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:ey Poptech, care to comment about churchill and human freedom ?
Ideologically Churchill does not appear to be a classic liberal but merely joined the liberal party. He comes off as a classic neo-conservative, who focused on foreign policy, played lip service to free market economics and at times supported big government solutions. I deduce this from the actual historical accounts and quotes provided. This is why he is an icon to neo-conservatives such as W. Bush but he was clearly no fascist. The articles here at Mises I found to be disingenuous as they tried to apply other's actions to him. Churchill can only be responsible for his own actions. More historical mention of these and his own words would have made a stronger case. Which is why I suspect this criticism is limited and the reason the essays turned into long opinion pieces and third party recollections. The one piece is not even sourced, making it impossible to check, the other is but not to anything online. I like to check facts and when I do searches for phrases like this and come up with no sites but LewRockwell and Stormfront, I get very suspicious.
"This is what I have dreamed of, aimed at, worked for, and now it has come to pass."
So I found the full speech.
"The first and greatest of events is that the United States is now unitedly and wholeheartedly in the war with us. The other day, I crossed the Atlantic again to see President Roosevelt. This time we met not only as friends, but as comrades standing side by side and shoulder to shoulder in a battle for dear life and dearer honor in the common cause and against the common foe.
When I survey and compute the power of the United States, and its vast resources, and feel that they are now in it with us, with the British Commonwealth of Nations, all together, however long it lasts, till death or victory, I cannot believe there is any other fact in the whole world which can compare with that. That is what I have dreamed of, aimed at, and worked for, and now it has come to pass."
The context is clearly not one of conspiracy. This sort of out of context quoting is aggravating and makes me distrust these sorts of articles in the future.
Ideologically Churchill does not appear to be a classic liberal but merely joined the liberal party. He comes off as a classic neo-conservative,
Juan:Maybe you learnt something eh ?
Yes to fact check "historical "essays on Mises.org since the ones about Churchill are not accurate.
Juan:ow, Once you take into account churchill's militarism and socialism,it's hard to deny that he was no different than the nazis, or roosevelt.
It is hard to deny he was different than the Nazis? Really? It is not hard at all, him and Roosevelt were different than the Nazis.
Juan:No, they were not. The anglo-americans were as fascist as the nazis.
Only in your own mind. Have you ever lived in the United States?
Juan:And a few days ago you presented churchill as classical liberal, which shows you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
I presented him as a classic liberal/conservative because he was a member of both parties. Spinning it by leaving out the /conservative is disingenuous propaganda that you like to peddle in. The only one who has no idea what they are talking about is someone like you who doesn't fact check anything he reads.
Poptech:It is not hard at all, him and Roosevelt were different than the Nazis.
Not really. They were also anti-semites and they were both fascists.
liberty student:Not really. They were also anti-semites and they were both fascists.
FDR was so anti-semitic he appointed the first Jewish U.S. Secretary of the treasury? Amazing as most anti-semites blame Jews for financial problems and here is FDR giving the financial keys to the kingdom to a Jew who he allegedly despises? Enough with the BS.
I presented him as a classic liberal/conservative because he was a member of both parties.
The only one who has no idea what they are talking about is someone like you who doesn't fact check anything he reads.
Juan:Stop lying poptech. You flatly declared that churchill was a classical liberal (and a conservative
Prove me wrong, quote me. Come on liar.
Poptech:FDR was so anti-semitic he appointed the first Jewish U.S. Secretary of the treasury? Amazing as most anti-semites blame Jews for financial problems and here is FDR giving the financial keys to the kingdom to a Jew who he allegedly despises? Enough with the BS.
Your lack of scholarship on this topic is amazing. You never cease proposing correlation as causation.
liberty student:Your lack of scholarship on this topic is amazing.
Was Henry Morgenthau, Jr. Jewish or not? Kind of strange that Jew hater FDR appointing him.
What never ceases to amaze me is your inability to source anything.
Juan: Sonny, go back to the post you write in page 4 (I think) and read it.
Quote me liar.