Hey, I know some minarchists, who aren’t particularly Austrian, and have never heard of voluntaryism, what’s a good way convincing/introducing to them to this idea without scaring them off?
Introduce them to the LvMI
Maybe just offer them the chance to read some Rothbard. If they accept the challenge, afterwards maybe ask them how their defense of coercion is justifiable when their minarchism is a result of their detestation of government coercion in the first place. Maybe this is a little too upfront though? I’m sure there’s a less provocative way rather than just arguing about it. It seems to me that if they come to it on their own terms, they’ll be more receptive.
If the’yre conservativeish minarchists (like of the Tea Partier ilk), I think drawing comparisons between war and socialism would be a great place to start.
Don’t treat it as a one off event. Make the commitment to talk to them over 3 months, 6 months a year, and encourage them to take some of their pro-liberty conclusions to their logical conclusions.
I would tell them to come on the forums and ask questions. I went from conservative/libertarian to pretty an-cap within like once month of constantly writing on this forum because people smashed my questions/arguments to pieces and I realized where I was wrong. It was really frustrating but it helped me more than I can explain.
YouTube videos of Austrian speakers never hurts either.
Yeah, I used to be frustrated that I couldn’t convince someone in one setting… but neglected to realise that for myself it was a gradual process of learning for around a year +.
Find ways to make them interested in the philosophy, i.e truth. To get them on that path.
If they are in business, well… don’t they think knowing why and how the business cycle will happen - would be good for their business and investment in the long term? etc.
For A New Liberty was the book that made me shift from minarchism to anarcho-capitalism. All I was stuck on at the time was roads, courts, police, and somewhat military. While reading the book, my monopolistic thoughts on courts and police were crushed, and the rest just fell after you see that competition in the market can do everything better than a monopoly:
Secession
Declaration of peace with hypothetical anarcho-capitalist society on island
As someone who is pretty much minarchist, I don’t see how a court system can be private. That is my biggest hangup. I can see private police, fire, mail, ect. But I can’t see private courts or private military as an improvement. I would guess most minarchists are trying to think practically, not idealistically. If you want to convince them, show them how an-cap can be practical. That is, if it can be.
What turned me from a minarchist to an anarchist was the realization that I was applying a double standard to anarchism. I was demanding arguments and evidence from the anarchist side that I was not demanding and could not demand from the minarchist side. Once I saw that, it was easy to make the jump to anarchism.
The arguments that were most effective in helping me realize the double standard were those that turned statist arguments back on themselves. (“How does a private court system work?” “Well, how does a public court system work?” Make them realize that if the roles were reversed their arguments would be no stronger.)
Instead of a court system forcing individuals to have consequences for their supposed mis-deeds, a judge would simply pass judgment on the situation with his years of experience as a guide. People would consider his ruling, and socially treat the guilty party accordingly. At least, thats what I think.
Give this a read. http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
It was mine too.
Again, check out that link.
This was similar for me. I just took the free market to its logical end. If there is demand, a market will emerge, if there is demand for good law, good police, good defense, then entrepreneurs will figure out ways to provide it.
It wasn’t consistent of me to make these great proclamations about the beauty of the market, and then deny that society has a demand for different sets or rules, and different “social” services By denying those areas of society a market, all of my free market enthusiasm was pretty phony.
So I stopped worrying about how specifically (planning utopia), and started supporting the a system which is not self-defeating (moral double standards).
Markets.
Good read. But I still see problems. If our court system has imperfect legitimacy, won’t any free market court have this same problem. For example, a murderer does not recognize any court as legitimate because he does not voluntarily submit to its judgement.
But, I do see how free market adjudication is an improvement in voluntary arbitration.
Anarcho-Capitalism isn’t utopia. We’re not Marxists.
The illegitimacy of the current system has nothing to do with how unfair it may seem to murderers.
The legitimacy of public services is dependent upon the democratic process, which is dependent on our morality, which is dependent on reality. Therefore, if necessary, public services will sustain or be no longer based on a majority agreement. Of course the democratic process is subject to error: Groups can agree on an entity at one time, and upon heeding knowledge of its efficiency in practice, remove it at another. The Individual Rights concept prevents this process from interfering with law, seeing that the minority needs a floor of rights, and the majority needs a ceiling of power. Like any venture for any individual, our actions are put on trial by reality, and we keep improving our ability to act based on reality’s conviction. The reason a singular government is necessary, is so that its power is enough to justify its existence. Succinctly, the democratic process as used to formulate a most efficient government, is an expanded version of this trial by reality process, with everyone’s words being a facet of the plot.
And, ultimately, even adherence to government force is voluntary, unless you believe it is impossible to leave its jurisdiction.
Democracy is mob rule. It is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
Well, isn’t that a misguided state of affairs. We need a singular government so it has enough power to be a singular government.
Still arguing for one world government?
Ah yes, the love it or leave it argument.
Anarcho-capitalism is mob rule. It is two wolves having the freedom to murder one sheep, without the presence of a governmental safeguard
Dividing the powers of the government into an innumerable amount of deviations, would be tantamount to choosing gangs over government. So many different agents of force…I cannot see that working as well as a government does to prevent the use of it. How many different “private” governments would you foresee encompassing the United States? Well, they wouldn’t be united anymore, and they would be much more numerous, if not called states at all.
We need a singular world government so that the concept of individual rights is not compromised. Otherwise, the individual rights of your neighbor will eventually be entirely different from yours. This is a disastrous state of affairs
Love it, vote to change it, or form your own government argument. Love it or leave is is applicable to a dictatorship, where its actions are independent of citizen opinion. “It” as in a government within a constitutionally bounded republic dependent on the combination of democracy and individual rights, is produced by the citizens. Therefore, “it” cannot be there without the citizens.
But yes, your posts invoke a dilemma I have to consider. The claim that government is necessary, can be maximized to include not only a nation of many, but every nation, and therefore, the only nation. If I think that the democratic process, along with a safeguard that protects against force and establishes a basis of rights, is the most efficient system, than I have to agree that it would work no matter its scale…Hmm…
You do not understand ancap at all.
And this is a problem why?
Indeed, a one world government would be a disasterous state of affairs. There would be no market for politics, ethics, law, money, or freedom.
Who knew that liberty was the absence of competition?
You’re placing the democratic state above the individual, in this regard, the state functions as a dictatorship.
Citizens are individuals, not a collective entity. The notion of collective consent rejects methodological individualism, and also signs us up for the cookoo train of Constitution worship. The Constitution has no authority, it was signed by people long since dead, and a contract is only valid when explicitly agreed to. An implicit contract, imposed on birth is for all intents and purposes, a slave contract.
Welcome to the jungle.
Explain why this wouldn’t occur
So many governments will focus on force rather than reason. Without a safeguard a group of people agreeing on barbarism will have the oppurtunity to kill off a more intellectual group of people. Force will overcome thought unless it is suppressed. We would devolve into precapitalistic societies, where force is emphasized, and intellectuality is compromised. Do you think the murder rate would decrease if the prospect of prison time and even death was removed?
I never said that collective consent is valid. The decision making of a government is not autonomous; a government is made up of individuals. And as an individual, I can read the constitution and agree/disagree, decide that adjustments (amendments) are necessary, and use the process to try and realize these adjustments.
Because a market provides for the majority and the minority alike. Whereas democracy only provides for the majority, end of story. The market is not mob rule, the market is consumer sovereignty. The two systems mechanically function extremely differently. As LS says, you have much to learn about Anarcho-Capitalism before you can really begin to criticize it. Use some of that logic you have in your name. 