IMHO, the best way is to “nudge” rather than “force” them in the right direction. They have to discover it on their own, but we can help guide their course of discovery.
That is why I’m here. To learn. To adjust based on knowledge, or to validate. My biggest disagreement with anarcho=capitalism is its susceptibility to mob rule, not by vote, but by force.
Forgive my bluntness, this may sound rude but I’m not intending it to be rude.
Do you think the market only successfully works when a benevolent overarching institute of coercion keeps it in line?
Indeed. But wouldn’t a murderer see any ancap justice as illegitimate also? He does not voluntarily submit to its judgement like parties to arbitration do. How does an anarcho-capitalist society deal with murderers while being voluntary?
Property rights. That includes over land as well. It wouldn’t work the way your advocating it. Many Ancaps are pacifists(myself). If it comes t, a murderer who does not voluntarily choose to submit, we can employ mechanisms such as ostracism.
I welcome your bluntness.
I think the market’s success in bringing us to intelligible solution is critically dependent on an institution designed to prevent force. I mean, you can’t deny that many people would kill if it weren’t for this coercion.
But anarchism, is voluntary government then, correct? Then, you don’t deny that governments will develop, and people will choose the government most preferable to them, right? Private governments, voluntary governments. I am not sure, but it seems that the same "benevolent overarching institute of coercion will develop, as to use the survival of the fittest term, only the fittest government will survive.
Why do you think government governance services are a natural monopoly ?
I don’t think anything is in any meaningful sense.
But if you too don’t see that then you should agree that the fittest ‘so called - government’, like the fittest shoe store will survive … under a regime of competition which keeps it as honest as it can be kept. (swap out /honest/ for any concern that you feel more keenly, (just/pragmatic/cost-effective/etc/etc/))
I think the solution to defense of property can be erected on the market, as defense is an economic good. I don’t think the market’s functionality rests solely upon the pre-existence of an over-arching monopoly of force. Markets were around long before states were.
Well I would argue that I can. I can deny that people would kill simply because there was an absence absence of an over-arching monopoly of law and coercion. To clarify, people WOULD kill, for sure, but not as a consequence to there being no state. People kill regardless. No institution will prevent murder, or murderers. If the intended purpose of this over-arching coercion was to prevent death by homocide, it’s obviously failed.
Either way
I guess I like to make a distinction between governance and governments. The latter typically a state of some sort.
If this is truely your greatest concern, what political philosophy do you offer up as a solution to this alleged problem?
Ostracism due to crime is a little weak for my taste. A lot weak actually.
I was explaining AnCap and to my girlfriend tonight. She made the move to where I am philosophically in a single conversation. It took months to get her from Liberal to ConservoLib.
During the conversation, I thought of a mechanism to give free courts legitimacy.
A community would ask that residents sign a contract that outlines agreements against murder, theft, ect. If they break the agreement, they have already agreed to submit to the local justice system. Then any punishment is not force, but a contractual penalty. If they refuse to sign the agreement, they can be ostracized.
This doesn’t deal with people who just drift in to town. But it is a step in the right direction (IMHO).
Ancap is not a promise of utopia but it is predicated on the non-aggression principle. So to argue that non-aggressors would form a community of aggression is like arguing that vegetarians are going to raise livestock for food.
This is Hobbesian and in my opinion, misguided. Man is not innately barbaric. We didn’t evolve societies by accident.
So we need force to stop force so we can have reason. Too bad reason isn’t strong enough to overcome force. Oh hay…
Again, you do not understand ancap. And we are only going to devolve to pre-capitalist societies if the state keeps pursuing its structurally inevitable slide into totalitarian socialism.
Did you not appeal to democracy?
Indeed, the government is of men, not of the law or the people.
So you have to obey the Constitution if you disagree with the Constitution so you can change the Constitution into something you can agree with, but you already do agree with it, because you obeyed it at the start.
Next question, how do 300 million people amend the Constitution so that it reflects all of their individual preferences?
Another question, why do you have to use the process to try for something that you never gave consent to have taken away in the first place?
Well, firstly, that distinction you’re making is entirely semantics, since any governance implies a government, governments employ governance. As far as the jurisdiction of a voluntary “governance” is concerned, you would have to think that forms of governance will be tested, and expand jurisdiction or lose jurisdiction based on their efficiency, like a shoe store as you’ve suggested. However, history is littered with oppressive regimes, it is evident that propoganda and force can equate to much power and dominance. How long did Hitler last? Under a system that involves a constitution, one which forbids the suppression of free speech to the pursuit to happiness, how far would such a regime go in the process? Hitler would be condemned and ostracised, but not killed, a probable solution the other poster suggested. But were the constitution not a barrier, a protection from this use of force, such a man as charismatic as Hitler will have his oppurtunity to reign. Unless the constitution of the United States is altered or made obsolete, and as long as those under its government’s jurisdiction as well as the government itself agree that the use of force is immoral and should be prevented (which has to hold an overwhelming majority), you have to consider that in the venture to prevent force, the U.S. government is very voluntary. Of course many other ventures I’m sure you vehemontly disagree with, such as welfare, social security, medicare, unemployment. But, such is the fallibility of government as a concept.
Yes but the market’s freedom in producing every other good that is deemed important would be subjigated to the presence of, not force preventing institutions, but force inducing establishments. Defense is an economic good, and we pay for a defense through taxation. This form of defense is not entirely dependent on our desire as to how we want it to function. But the vital feature of the military, is that its funding is dependent on our cooperation. Also, since citizens can join the army and do, the army has incentive not to revolt and abandon the features it promises to us.
Markets were before states, but markets led to the formation of states. Everything emanates from the market of ideas. A singular government is an idea.
I say prevent because that is the goal of the institution, not on its resume of achievements. Everyone on this board I assume, agrees that murder is immoral and lacks a place in a functioning society. But this isn’t because we have an innate moral conviction that allows us to prevent murder. It is because we have searched for philosophy, morality, and politics. All of these realms generally aim to eradicate murder. But, some haven’t. Some will tell you that muder is a just means to a just end. Without the government threatening prison time or death, there is no reason why these individuals won’t suppress intellect in favor of force. In a place without coercive prevention of force, and in a sphere where force initiating governments are given sanction, the strength of bullets from a gun will tragically overcome the strength of the mind.
It sounds like the former is a function of the latter
Despite many tragedies it has suffered, I think the American system of a representative government has done a healthy job in promoting intellect over force, and through capitalism it continues to rise the standard of living, despite many of its politicians wanting to move away from it. I mean, consider the living standard of those considered to be in poverty:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america
This article is from 2004, but even now, almost half of those considered poor, own their homes outright. This is because the market, while not allowed to initiate force, is geared to be used to produce everything else. Or that is how I envision the most efficient system. Generally, the American concept of government should allow only for military, police, and courts, all of which are susceptible to citizen opinion and made up of citizen participation.
To argue that non-aggresors would form a community that is not subject to aggresors looking to form their own community, is to deny the presence of brutality.
Not to mention the U.S. Constitution and system was designed to be non-aggressive. Franklin reffered to our policy as that of a rattlesnake: attack when attacked or threatened.
Man is not innately pacifistic either. The presence of murderous regimes and even murderers in America tells us they still lurk.
Reason has told us that force is to be prevented. We don’t need force; a society functions with highest propensity for prosperity when force is exiled. But we need self defense, that is the reaction to force. The Law is a negative concept: it prevents, not initiates.
Ok. And agreed.
Tell me the difference between democracy as to a method of adjusting the government, and the method that would be used to adjust a “voluntary government” in ancap.
The law comes from men, and men are persons.
You take consent in living within the jurisdiction of the government. You don’t have to obey anything, unless you wish to live under its jurisdiction. Obedience =/= Agreement. A victim of robbery doesn’t agree with the robber’s theivery. He obeys his command at the threat of force. But the difference between a robber and a government, is that a government prevents force (such as robbers).
The Constitution is also subject to interpretation. It was once interpreted to sanction slavery.
Also, I think your vision of an ancap society is dependent on your idea that everyone volunteering to be in a particular governance will agree with everything. If you don’t, then I could raise the same questions you do. For instance: Let us suppose I agree with every action of a government, except that it bans abortion. Then according to your logic
I have to obey the rules of the government if I disagree with the government so you can change the government into something you can agree with, but I already do agree with it, because I obeyed it at the start.
What does a person with disagreement within a voluntary governance dynamic do? And how does it differ from the democratic process?
Oh my god…oh my god… all statist apologetics in ONE post. Incredible.
Previous Knowledge +Your Post = Previous Knowledge
Do you know anything about logic? Srsly. I mean, I was skeptical atheist when I first got into anarchism (I never was a minarchist though), and skepticism and critical thinking helped me understand anarchist points and I just realized I no longer believe a state. I mean, I never even did, I just wasn’t aware of it.
There is no identifyable reason for anything you are saying. Are you trying to say that if I disagree with anarchism, I am suddenly unable to achieve awareness of logic?
You never believed in a state.
So you used to believe in a state.
You never believed in a state.
I think you mean to say, I just realized I never believed in a state. That’s the best I can do.
Poor choice of words. My bad. I mean, I never believed in the authority of the state, but this idea of the state has always be with me, like with most people who grew up under the state.
So what has changed was that I left this idea of the state, not that I ever believed in its authority. Same with god, actually. I never believed in deity, but also I was afraid of “what if” and things like that, also my family pressure etc. But for real? No. Never. That’s why I think it was easier for me to become anarchist.
And for you I suggest to read more topics (either on this forum or somewhere else) before debating Liberty Student and ask questions about anarchy in general. He won’t convince you, and you won’t believe what he says unless you do research yourself.
…or doctors using disease (vaccines) to prevent disease.
States, on the other hand…
Z.
“When a reporter asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to explain where in the Constitution she found the authority to nationalize the health insurance industry, she laughed and replied, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” So what if the Constitution says nothing about granting the federal government the power to force Americans to buy approved health insurance packages? As Virginia’s Democratic Senator Mark Warner explained, “There is no place in the Constitution that talks about you ought to have the right to get a telephone, but we have made those choices as a country over the years.””
-Thomas E Woods
^This is pretty much how all politics works.
false analogy very common among natural medicine believers (not that I think you are the one, just sayin’). They only induce immunity of a body, not make you sick with that disease. 
From wiki:
"Vaccines are dead or inactivated organisms or purified products derived from them.
There are several types of vaccines currently in use.These represent different strategies used to try to reduce risk of illness, while retaining the ability to induce a beneficial immune response."