Hoppe’s peice is the only one I can think of that laid it all out with examples. One thing that I think offends some potential converts is simply attacking earlier limited government/minarchist movements. Alot of these movements meant well but they all end in failure, and that is something that needs to be brought home. If limited government worked, there wouldnt be nearly as many ancaps now.
Are you referring to “The Private Production of Defense” or “Fallacies of Public Goods Theory”?
Neither. “On the impossibility of limited government”
Link.
How is it that you need so much economics, philosophical, and political science education (on your own personal time) to get from state worshiper to anarcho-capitalist?
It seems that to become a socialist, you almost have to do nothing. Most socialist have no real education in free markets or libertarian philosophy, nor do they fully understand their own philosophy. while the anarcho-capitalist can literally lecture about socialism.
I do find that weird, why do anarchists have to justify themselves, statists should have to justify their belief on why they believe a state is nessacary.
In Defense of Rational Anarchism by George H. Smith
Bookmarking… I have reading to do…
My most influential pieces, but the one that finally pushed me from Minarchist to Anarchist was the one about Law that Giles first linked to.
This Hoppe piece was another one. There was an MP3 with a Rothbard lecture that flipped me around on a whole bunch of things, I wish I could remember which one it was.
But that brings me to another thought. Sage, maybe you should consider a top 10 articles, video and audio. Ha! Now you can cheat and list 30.
Just some of my observations. There are two types of minarchists;
- Those who are open minded & susceptible to anarcho-capitalism, they have just never read or been shown how it could work, or that it has in the past.
- Those who worship the Constitution and State propaganda surrounding it. They have fallen for the “Hobbesian fear” and “We the people” are the government.
Possible ways to address these:
- If they have a sense of moral righteousness, rhetoric helps i.e Spooner and Rothbard. If they are a utilitarian (shame), David Friedman would be best.
Establish what the State actually is. An anti-social institution. Gang of thieves writ large. Political Elite. Class analysis: Rulers vs. Ruled. Taxation is theft. Government is the mafia. Social contract theory fails. Market can work everywhere. How can an institution purport to protect something, it must violate to exist?
- The Enemy of the State by Albert Jay Nock. (Constitution was a coup d’etat). And obviously Lysander Spooners work. No treason - Constitution of No Authority. Objectivists should read “Market for Liberty” by Morris Tannehill and Linda Tannehill.
Establish “We” (the people) are not the Government. “We” are the victims, not the oppressors. Minarchists always blame the people and themselves, *"*we didn’t hold them accountable [insert quote about eternal vigilence]". Yet how it is possible to stay vigilant when the victims (taxpayers) have lives and productive work to do, whilst the unproductive parasitic politicans cater to special interests and work full time to rob the populace?
- Ask why not support the Articles of Confederation? It limits Government far more than the Constitution does.
- If a state has to exist, a Monarchy is > than a democracy or Republic. Democracy the God that Failed by Hans Hermann-Hoppe. (Interview - audio)
- In regards to the Hobbesian fear, point out what makes civilization possible. The division of labor and property rights.
- Economy, Society, History by Herman Hans-Hoppe.
- The Nature of Man and the Human Condition: Language, Property, and Production
- The Spread of Humans Around the World: The Extension and Intensification of the Division of Labor
- The Production of Law and Order: Natural Order, Feudalism, and Federalism
- Economy, Society, History by Herman Hans-Hoppe.
- Introduction to Natural Law by Murray N. Rothbard
Here is a nice fictional story, that illustrates many of the above points: A Fable for Our Times by Murray N. Rothbard. The following crystalizes it. The Anatomy of the State by Murray N. Rothbard
What the State Is Not
What the State Is
How the State Preserves Itself
How the State Transcends Its Limits
What the State Fears
How States Relate to One Another
History as a Race Between State Power and Social Power
Possibly ask them what books they have read on the subject? Ask for intellectual honesty. (Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography by Hans-Hermann Hoppe) A nice quote might help:
“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is contempt prior to investigation.” ~ Herbert Spencer
Possible Objections:
The State evolved - See. (Robert Nozick and the Immaculate Conception of the State by Murray N. Rothbard)
Dictatorships will rise up out of anarchy - See. (Stateless Dictatorships video)
Very interesting piece SST…
Dude, I just decided this week to stop listening to Infowars daily!
But you gotta admit, there are a lot of bubbas who call up and they are so far from being libertarian, I mean today, Webster Tarpley, sheesh!
I have to agree with you there, besides the randomness of external interaction, the dramatic nature overall is detrimental to credibility…
Conza: great ideas in your post there. Regarding Nock’s book ‘Our Enemy, the State’, I’m just looking at it on Mises…he talks about the Consti. vs. the Articles. That sounds like great stuff. I gotta read that. That’s an angle I really like pushing with RPers.
ps. Haven’t seen you on the DP in awhile. Feel free to stop by once in a while! I’m still spreading the message of liberty to all the archists on there! Our numbers are growing…
Give me some words used or some topics discussed. Anything and I can tell you what it is.
LTV. He explains how if someone makes something in seclusion and it takes him a long time but it is already mass produced, obviously this disproves the LTV.
That’s from memory so it could be fuzzy. I have a lousy memory for facts, great memory for understanding (if that makes any sense).
Ah right his example of the man in seclusion that thinks he is the first to build a tv but realizes that he is like ten years behind. He makes multiple references to that throughout his podcasts.
Try:
Demand and supply, Consumer goods, prices and exchange
http://media.mises.org/mp3/rothbard/R1-16m.mp3
OR
Capital, Interest, Profit
Just finished the Hasnas article, what a great read, extremely interesting, thanks for posting that.
That is a great Rothbard article criticizing the idea that the state arises from spontaneous order.
I know I’m going to get flamed for this, but. . .
But why should we waste our time converting minarchists? All that accomplishes is it creates infighting among liberty-minded groups. There really is no need to convert minarchists to ancaps. The state is already so huge that there is really no need to discuss the issue in a political setting until the state is reined in enough. It’s, of course, excellent to advance the ideas of anarcho-capitalism in academic settings, but in political settings, it just alienates people. The state is so big right now that minarchists and ancaps are both working in essentially the same direction, so there is no need to waste time converting them.
Honestly, I would rather have 1000 Constitutionalists working for the cause of liberty than 100 Ancaps. Both groups have to fight the exact same battle in the present day to get what they want. Actually, I think “vulgar” ancaps hurt the liberty movement by alienating outsiders to more moderate libertarian ideas that allow radical ideas to grow on them.
I take the approach as an academic Anarcho-Capitalist and a political Constitutionalist. I know that politically, I can get a lot more people sold on libertarian ideas by taking a more moderate stance than going all out anarchist on them. I’ve been much more successful with this method than with shouting for the abolition of the state. If progress is to be made, I think this approach has to be taken. I have a leadership position in the Libertarian Party, and I’ve experienced time and again when ancaps with good intentions drive people away, but more moderate members get a lot done. I’m a firm believer in the fact that you can keep your purist libertarian principles, but you can also sell them in a more easily swallowable package.
In short, be an ancap, but save it for academic discussion.
The point of contention is how we achieve liberty and where its stopping point is. I think Constitutionalists are ridiculously dependent on a document that has been proven to hold no meaning on the very institution that both interprets its power and is suppose to be limited by it. The logical conclusion of libertarian minded ideas is anarcho-capitalism, but it’s no sweat off my ass if the Libertarian Party is bothered by radicalism. It is not like the Libertarian Party is going to be winning any giant elections anytime soon nor is it suddenly going to start gradually reducing the size of government. It is a feel good party, nothing more. Just go to the Libertarian Party website where they gleefully talk about how our military could be subsidized by 100 billion dollars instead of 250, how immigrants should be forced to pay fines and back taxes, as if people are happy to pay taxes and small government will just stay stagnant.