In an anarchist society who decides the “vision” and why would people listen to them?
I think the really important question for people interested in Austrian economics to ask is “Do libertarians discredit us?”.
What you don’t think calling anyone who does not agree with Anarcho-Capitalism a neo-con, socialist or marxist is an effective way to convince people to their position?
In liberty I can decide to listen or not, but it’s obvious the State is never absolutely listened to - or else the State wouldn’t have to rely upon coercing people to adhere to their false ideology.
I want truth and justice.
No one, and that is my point. I maintain that if anarchists are consistent, then their particular vision - such as having PDAs, etc. - is just educated speculation as to how things will turn out (however correct that speculation may be). I sometimes sense an oblique implication from some AnCaps that their vision will be “decreed,” but that’s clearly at odds with their core position.
Poptech,
In reponse to your signature I’d like to quote Robert Le Fevre:
“If men are good, you don’t need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don’t dare have one.”
A stupid question to ask at the LvMI
Some people need to get slapped in the face with a wet fish, metaphorically of course. By the way, I’m still waiting to hear a comment from you about the world government Blockian point I brought up in the conspiracy thread. If you need to be reminded of it:
First Post, top page
Yes, I think appeasing conservatives and taking up conservative causes is debilitating to the goal of a free society.
I could not agree more.
I think we are utilizing thymology to ascertain possible future outcomes which are more likely then others. I don’t think anyone here knows with 100% certainty how the society will develop, though if I am wrong and you are 100% certain then please speak up.
How does misusing words “slap someone in the face”? It just makes you look like you never took an English class
I had a long reply to one of your posts and it was deleted because the thread got locked. Your assertion that I must accept world government is a strawman as the world clearly functions without it and the existence of state governments. Anarchy only exists in places like Somalia where coincidently the strongest warlord rules.
Sounds good to me.
The problem I notice every few days on these forums is that somehow people end up with the impression concerning AnCap that somethings will be decreed or banned, and that confusion is often at the core of their rejection of it.
Some do. Then again, so does Dr. Morgan Reynolds.
yeah the state will be ‘banned’ (i say that loosely for obvious reasons) and that confuses some people.
ambiguous!
Anarchy! You are on your way.
Be that as it may, Somalia has actually gotten safer since the state fell. Even ignoring the culture behind clan leaders, and the all of the outside funding (U.S.!) that has gone into the hands of said warlords, and the outside threats (Ethiopia, U.N., U.S.) that help to empower such people, Somalia still has lower murder rates than many governed nations (and less warlords!). The point is, you don’t really have a point.
There really isn’t any difference between a warlord and a general.
Do you have these same concerns about slavery, and the social position of women? Do you worry that we might slip back into treating women like property and diminishing their role in society? Are you concerned that we will slip back into tribalism or monarchy? Does it keep you up at night that you might have to bow before a ruler of a divine blood line? Do you see where I am going with this?
Can’t help you with this. It’s a myopic view of things. I’ve been there. Such thinking is basically an excuse to inactivity, validation of not committing to an ideal. That’s your choice. You can rationalize anything, and most people do.
Yes, a lot of people think the state is good, and the use of violence is acceptable. I’d say nearly all of us here thought that at some time. Ancap isn’t intuitive. The desire to be free, perhaps, but the conception of a private society conflicts with the earliest stages of human development, where we did not operate independently, but in groups as it was necessary for survival. That has changed with the advent of technology. It will continue to change. A single person with a powerful weapon can kill millions now. That was inconceivable even 75 years ago. In another 100 years, a single individual might be capable of solo space flight.
The possibilities for the decentralization of power grow every day.
Which warlord gives you these “accurate” statistics? LMAO!
Sometimes I wonder if you’re just trolling these threads, Poptech.
But we’re not flipping this over to a defense of anarcho-capitalism. This thread is about conservatives and the (potential) harm they do to the liberty movement, and whether or not they are fellow travelers towards liberty.
You can find dozens of threads where marxists of every sort show up and challenge ancap, and end up leaving with their hat in their hand.
I don’t have to validate a free society to you, because I don’t know what it will look like. You have taken the positive position that a state is necessary. the burden of proof lies with you.
Both statements are incorrect.
Man has organized by establishing law. Government have done little to organize people.
Anarchy is “without rulers”. Somalia is not in a state of voluntarism. As you said, there are violent war lords. That is not at all what we are talking about. But there is an excellent paper over at the Independent Institute which explains the advancements in the standard of living in Somalia under decentralized rule. If you need help finding it, let me know.
Their targets are prohibited from protecting themselves. That said, what they do is no different than what any government does. It depends money at the barrel of a gun.
When 19 men can attack you and kill thousands, due to the capacity of technology to magnify violence, it is not cheaper unless we pretend it is still the 18th century.
This is a nonsense statement. Government doesn’t own anything. Government is not a person, and only individuals can homestead (originally appropriate) property.
What does this mean? Either you support Jefferson’s assertion that there is a right to secession (a control of your own property and sovereign individual) or there is not. If you claim there is no individual right of secession, then you have admitted that the American revolution was illegal and unjust. Take your pick.
Semantics. The force is ultimately lethal. Thousands of dead muslims since 9/11 can attest to the lethality of the state use of force.
What part about this false notion of rights do you not understand? Under the state, you have no property rights. In 1791, Washington was already going to war with the American people under the influence of Alexander Hamilton so they could secure funding to grow and enrich the federal state. The friggin ink wasn’t even dry on the Constitution yet. The state uses violence, to claim title to all property, including all persons.
The state doesn’t do that. They promise to do that, as part of the social contract, but you have no legal recourse or compensation if they don’t catch the bad guys, or don’t return your property. It’s a bogus contract, because one party has no obligation to fulfill their half of the deal in return for funding and fealty.
It is violence. You’re just comfortable pretending it is not.