Do people really want anarchy?

[hayekianxyz]

@JCFolsom

@GilesStratton

Once again the parent’s legitimately own their properly, therefore they have the right to decide the rules for anybody entering.

Most children were brought involuntarily to make their homes on the parent’s property, when they lacked even the ability to move themselves from place to place, and until a certain age they don’t even really have the ability to comprehend that areas they cannot immediately perceive exist. The children, having been established, by these property owners, in the household without their consent, should now have a right to it.

So, that’s a violation of the parents right to force them to care for the child. This includes forcing them to keep the baby on their property.

[JCFolsom]

What? The parents were the ones that brought them onto the property, and indeed forced the child to live there.

[duffmann808]

It seems a problem many people on this forum are encountering is that they are using the broadly based “capitalism” as opposed to the more correct “Laissez-faire Capitalism”, of which the Austrian School of Economics has spent a great deal of time. Wikipedia even says…“The Austrian School consider that many modern nations today are not representative of laissez-faire capitalism, as they usually involve significant amounts of government intervention in the economy”. So in your opinion that capitalism involves a great deal of government involvement, you are correct only because we have allowed the government to take that large of a role. Ideally we would have the economy that is suggested by this very website without the government getting their hands in it.

To truly answer the question of whether people want Anarchy you have to look at what anarchy is. Are we speaking of anarchy or Anarchist Economics? Even within the group of anarchist economics there are Anti-capitalist anarchists and Anarcho-Capitalists. This former group includes many communists and noted abusers of economies in general, and therefore arent useful in a conversation about intelligent topics such as moving forward and furthering the positivity of an economy. In order to compete in a successful and intelligent discussion you must have something intelligent to say and spewing proven unsuccessful ecoomic ideas is neither successful nor intelligent. The latter group(anarcho-capitalists) are the laissez-faire economists who have made my life and my career as an economist exciting, enjoyable and a constant positive learning experience.

To respond to a talking point from earlier in the forum, forming an Anarchist party in name or actual construction is not only counterintuitive but also unintelligent. Doing so would be creating an establishment to represent the “anti-establishment”. Creating political parties has already proven to lead to polarization, lower voter turnout and partisan politics that have not only divided Washington, but also lead to a lack of intelligent conversation. What is needed is someone(s) who can lead the country based on what they think and know is right, and not based on a party platform, and not having to answer to anyone but themselves and their constituents.

When I am asked why I am a libertarian people assume that I am an anarchist. What the United States is currently sporting is an ignorance for politics, because of the allowance(by ourselves and others) of a two party system that neither allows nor welcomes intelligent thought. This makes me angry, not because we are not in power, but because we are not allowing a free exchange of ideas. America is and will always be the greatest country in the world, because we generally have one of, if not THE, freest markets in the world, and we allow people to be themselves. Allowing everyone to be themselves is not something that an entire political party can endorse, but is something that an individual can and should endorse.

[hayekianxyz]

I fail to see how the parents have forced the child to live there.

[JCFolsom]

Did they ask first? Did they get informed consent?

[Juan]

@JAlanKatz

It is true that it is not part of libertarianism to believe in tradition, but nor is it part of libertarianism to reject tradition.

I think it rather is. Libertarianism was and is a political philosophy which rejects ‘traditional’ authority. It also rejected ‘traditional’ revealed religions. It rejected the ‘traditional’ treatment of women and slaves, and so on and so forth.

Nothing stops me from being very traditional in my private life, and yet being a libertarian if I simply don’t wish to force this on others.

True. But I don’t think that traditions exist because they are freely accepted. Rather traditions exist because of coercion mainly used against children and young people.

Libertarianism is a theory about politics and ethics, not a lifestyle.

I’m not sure what you mean by lifestyle. I think that a really free society would by no means be something to the taste of so called cultural conservatives and ‘traditionalists’ - the political/ethical side of the theory surely influences other areas of society.

[Byzantine]

@Juan

But these individuals can all cut each other’s throats, as long as there’s no monopoly of throat-cutting ?

They can but since there’s no monopoly on force they won’t unless it’s a society of pathological individuals.

Again, people are going to get anarchy whether they want it or not as the centralized states decline from fiscal and imperial overreach and advanced weaponry becomes available to non-state actors. What we believe anarchy should be like is secondary to the more urgent question of what anarchy actually will be like.

[Juan]

@GilesStratton

It’s not coercion, they agree to it by living on the parent’s property.

Let’s say a parent tells ‘his’ child “if you don’t read the bible you’ll burn in hell” - is that coercion ?

[duffmann808]

No its a promise.

[Juan]

Haha. Very funny =] But such a promise seems to fit this bill : coercion : use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance..

[duffmann808]

If the child believes in the Bible this will be extra obligation.. The parent is not forcing anything, only voicing their opinion and belief. Knowing how kids of today are, it would take something much more than that to coerce a child to read the bible.

[Anonymous_Coward]

@duffmann808

It seems a problem many people on this forum are encountering is that they are using the broadly based “capitalism” as opposed to the more correct “Laissez-faire Capitalism”, of which the Austrian School of Economics has spent a great deal of time.

Nah, they know what they’re doing.

They just want to redefine the language to fit into their leftist, anti-capitalist agenda. NewSpeak and all that…

[Juan]

Knowing how kids of today are, it would take something much more than that to coerce a child to read the bible.

Maybe a beating would be in order ?

[Juan]

@Byzantine

Again, people are going to get anarchy whether they want it or not as the centralized states decline from fiscal and imperial overreach and advanced weaponry becomes available to non-state actors.

If the centralized states collapse and get replaced by smaller states (likely) then we won’t really get anarchy but a different kind of statism.

What we believe anarchy should be like is secondary to the more urgent question of what anarchy actually will be like.

A situation in which smaller states or ‘non-state actors’ (?) fight each other is not anarchy. You can call it anarchy if you want, but what’s the point ? It’s not the kind of anarchy libertarians talk about is it ?

[Jon_Irenicus]

Flamebaiting, much?

-Jon

[Brainpolice]

@GilesStratton

@Brainpolice

Neither is all coercion wrong. We coerce children, for example, for their own good.

This very logic is the foundation for all forms of paternalistic authoritarianism. Merely replace the parent/child dynamic with the ruler/subject or master/slave dynamic. “You must be coerced, for your own good” or “for the good of society”. I’d probably go so far as to say that coercing people for their own good is a contradiction in terms.

I’m also fairly skeptical of the traditional authoritarian model of the family to begin with.

Do the children not accept it when they continue to reside on the parents property?

Let me turn it around by simply applying the exact same logic elsewhere: Do you not implicitly consent to the state by living within the territory? Does the slave not implicitly consent to their master by continueing to live on the plantation?

This is why I say that this logic is behind authoritarianisms of all kinds.

[banned]

@Brainpolice

Let me turn it around by simply applying the exact same logic elsewhere: Do you not implicitly consent to the state by living within the territory?

The analogy is false, the government doesn’t own the territory they assert a right over.

[Brainpolice]

@Byzantine

Nobody cares about the opinions of single, childless men on family.

An irrelevant ad hom.

[Brainpolice]

@Byzantine

Perhaps not, which may explain why most self-styled anarchists are single men who can’t reproduce themselves. But actually I don’t see how your statement is tenable. Libertarianism simply means when you don’t like the rules of the game, you can pick up your ball and go start your own game somewhere else. Cultural Marxism is as irrelevant to libertarianism as the NAP is to anarcho-capitalism.

There you go again with that straw man of “cultural marxism” when noone here is a marxist of any sort. Someone is not a “cultural marxist” by defacto merely for not being a strict traditionalist or cultural conservative like you appear to be.

[Brainpolice]

@Stranger

@Brainpolice

This very logic is the foundation for all forms of paternalistic authoritarianism. Merely replace the parent/child dynamic with the ruler/subject or master/slave dynamic. “You must be coerced, for your own good” or “for the good of society”. I’d probably go so far as to say that coercing people for their own good is a contradiction in terms.

The whole idea behind liberty is that people are not children.

And children are somehow not people? You’ll be hard pressed to prove that point.