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.
ROTFLOL. Hm. Here’s a bit of info for you.
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 ?
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.
Then how are rights protected in an anarchist society? If you don’t agree to any rules, private property is meaningless.
I should have said “living in all states is voluntary unless they restrict you (person) from leaving”.
That is because it only requires a simple majority to pass bills in the house. It is too easy to pass new laws.
I can leave the United States and live elsewhere, yes.
That is propaganda. I endorse a limited government not “violence”.
But the state has a larger army than me, so…another strike against it.
Private competing courts and defense agencies, home-owner associations, etc… (all of which you obviously agree to)
So the concept of owning private property does not and cannot exist within the state.
Thats not seceding, so no.
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.
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.
When you can define neo-con.
A volunteer army composed of fellow citizens who are private property owners.
In an anarchist society you don’t have to agree to anything.
Of course it can.
I was never talking about seceding and never brought it up.
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.
The same way they are protected under the state, except there is no legal monopoly. There is polycentric law.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I never said otherwise.
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.
Again, the answer is “no, I would have to leave the United States and live elsewhere.”
Actually, by the very definition of the “state,” it does, whether you wish for violence or not.
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…
You’re still an anarchist.
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.
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.
No, because the free market is not a zero sum game.
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…
Well, praxeologically, that’s not quite right. We’re all trying to get somewhere. The question is, where?
I agree.
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.
Yes, hopefully we will identify them as what they are. Criminals.
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.
Hence “for this moment”
I would call those more judicial than defence agencies, but whatever, that’s not really important. To me. For this moment
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…
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.
Wondering why this question is not explored more, I made a post about it a while ago: Why Anarchy Fails
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!
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
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.
Man has organized by forming governments.
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.
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.
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.
I am not talking about Secession but if you didn’t notice you need to win the war.
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.