Is it in my personal interest to be an anarcho-capitalist?

[DanielMuffinburg]

@bloomj31

@Jonathan M. F. Catalán

@bloomj31

I don’t think this is necessarily true, but basically he says the desired ends of democracy are good but the actual ends of democracy can be bad. So how do we judge democracy? By its desired ends or its actual ends?

I’m not sure that you can go as far as to claim that the concept of “democracy” desires any particular end. There may be a number of individuals who believe that “democracy” leads to a better government, and for the short-run they are probably correct, but over the long-run democracies tend to turn into totalitarian regimes because the mechanism by which they work allows for this to occur. That is what that quote seems to be saying.

“Convince the majority” but not everyone, As he says earlier, the state must exist to eliminate or at least use physical coercion against those who would oppose peaceful cooperation etc. This is why I’m a minarchist.

I’m not sure how you came to such a conclusion. Why is this so? If an individual who does not support liberalism does not have a monopoly on force, how can he efficiently deny me my liberty? When there is a State there is, by necessity, an entity which monopolizes force. Only this entity can efficiently deny me my liberty, so it would follow that the State is not the best possible method by which to protect liberty. In an anarchic society, where defense is privatized and localized, nobody has a monopoly on force and therefore nobody can efficiently coerce somebody else (in general, of course).

…

2. In my mind, the small amount of liberty you lose by having to obey a certain amount of majoritarian decided rules is worth that sacrifice because it pays off for all of us in the long run. However, there is a certain point where too much liberty is denied and at that point, we have to stand up and fight to have new people put in charge. That’s what I’m saying the libertarian party needs to do.

Fine, but why should I be forced to do so?

@bloomj31

And I don’t trust PDAs so I’d rather deny you a little liberty than take the risk of having everything denied by feudalistic governments take over. There is no way in the world that anyone could convince me that a private army would be safer than a public one. The public one hasn’t attacked me yet without just cause. If they do, I’ll become an anarchist.

What do you consider losing a little liberty? 90% income tax? sales tax? not being able to open a business without permission from the state? not being able to install a toilet in you home without permission from the state? being forced into the military? not being able to enter the country without permission from the state? having your children forced into government schooling, or schooling that must be approved by the state?

[liberty_student]

@bloomj31

Yeah, but this is obvious. Is an-cap a part of the libertarian political party platform?

What does the libertarian party have to do with anything? It certainly has nothing to do with Austrian economics or the NAP or voluntarism.

[liberty_student]

@bloomj31

I think it’s because you kinda have to accept all of it to accept any of it with an-cap.

You think wrong again.

@bloomj31

but as the mastermind behind so much of the ideological movement

It’s debatable how much of a mastermind Rothbard was.

[E_R_Olovetto]

I think that Rothbard’s strategy is faulty (participating in electoral politics at all). I don’t call myself an anarcho-capitalist, instead a voluntaryist. If I get to talking with someone and they really have an open mind, I might mention what an-cap is supposed to mean so they aren’t confused if they start getting into studying.

Voluntaryism is a more important concept. We don’t actually care so much if some people want to live in primitive communist enclaves or under a voluntary government. We just want left out of it. I think that all people are anarcho-capitalists in some sense. If they really understood the nature of states or the inevitable outcome of true socialism, I don’t think they would want to be a part of it.

[fakename]

@JAlanKatz

This is exactly the point I made in my first paragraph. The point of the second was that the question might not be “am I better off with a state, or without one?” The question could also mean “given that the world is as it is, am I better off supporting the state (perhaps nominally as a minarchist) or being an anarchist?” If one does not have the choice of “state goes away today as long as I oppose it” then one may, in fact, benefit from being a statist, relative to living in the same world being an anarchist. Anarchists have a higher liklihood of winding up on the wrong side of the redistribution and of state violence, and get less girls in college, and have trouble getting jobs if they write online, and so on.

I know that was the original point but I would argue that you had the wrong answer. I believe that it would be better for someone to not use the state services than to use them since they are, as I said, inefficient. The roads breakdown due to the economic calculation problem, they are choked with cars due to the tragedy of the commons, the police are corrupt and ineffective at protecting the citizenry, the electricians are overpriced, the food regulations are slowly killing you, etc. The reason why people continue to patronize these services is because they want to be seen as successful but not because they truly want to be -if they wanted to truly then would try to become agorists.

[liberty_student]

@E. R. Olovetto

I think that Rothbard’s strategy is faulty (participating in electoral politics at all).

i believe SEK 3 called Rothbard on this. MNR made some dubious alliances and compromises to further his agenda, and I think most of it backfired.

[JAlanKatz]

@bloomj31

Well, if it makes you feel any better, I’ve never been able to pull a girl by telling her I was a minarchist.

No, that was part of my point - if you really want these benefits, you’re better off being a liberal.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@liberty student

@E. R. Olovetto

I think that Rothbard’s strategy is faulty (participating in electoral politics at all).

i believe SEK 3 called Rothbard on this. MNR made some dubious alliances and compromises to further his agenda, and I think most of it backfired.

Yes. It would be like faulting modern-day Walter Block for being a minarchist pre-Rothbard.

[JAlanKatz]

@fakename

know that was the original point but I would argue that you had the wrong answer. I believe that it would be better for someone to not use the state services than to use them since they are, as I said, inefficient. The roads breakdown due to the economic calculation problem, they are choked with cars due to the tragedy of the commons, the police are corrupt and ineffective at protecting the citizenry, the electricians are overpriced, the food regulations are slowly killing you, etc. The reason why people continue to patronize these services is because they want to be seen as successful but not because they truly want to be -if they wanted to truly then would try to become agorists.

Yes, government roads are very bad. It is better to use non-government roads. But there aren’t any. I don’t see how one will do better by staying locked in his house out of refusal to use roads. Not all government services are the kinds of things you can refuse to patronize. You can decide never to call the police, but they still can show up at your door.

Finally, the agorist question is also not the point here. One could avoid using bad services and still not label oneself an anarchist. Self-proclaimed anarchists have a tendency to end up in jail - true or false?

[liberty_student]

@Daniel Muffinburg

Yes. It would be like faulting modern-day Walter Block for being a minarchist pre-Rothbard.

I don’t see the correlation. Btw, I think Block still advocates voting. He was hanging out at the LP conventions until 2 years ago iirc.

I’m just a big zero, but I am 10 times more radical in practice than my mentors, so I guess that means we’re making real progress.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@liberty student

@Daniel Muffinburg

Yes. It would be like faulting modern-day Walter Block for being a minarchist pre-Rothbard.

I don’t see the correlation…

Me neither.

[MatthewF]

@bloomj31

How do you sell a set of policies that don’t sound as good as “everyone gets a new car!!”?

J:

You’re a Jiu Jitsu man correct?

If you wanted to show people the superiority of Jitz as a fighting system, would you enter a boxing match?

[Nitroadict]

@bloomj31

An-cap is a political system in that it needs to overthrow the current political system to be established.

Wrong.

Anarcho-capitalism, market-anarchism, whatever you want to call it: does not overthrow, it merely verbally & intellectually challenges the political system, de-constructs & liquidates them via market processes, which (hopefully) eventually amass to out-compete the statist political system into cultural & intellectual obscurity.

Any self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalists that “took” over the political system (in a revolutionary sense) would be de-facto contradictions & dead in an hour from statist provocateurs .

[E_R_Olovetto]

I think that is a faulty analogy. Best I know, Rothbard never gave up on electoral politics as a method of strategy.

Even if I am wrong about strategy and voting is somehow a superior means to lessen state power, eventually, for anarchy to be achieved, we’d have to do away with elections. If a Ron Paul type was polling closely to a possible victory, I can’t say that I wouldn’t be tempted to vote. I’m sticking to my guns until that time comes.

[Amanojack]

@E. R. Olovetto

Voluntaryism is a more important concept. We don’t actually care so much if some people want to live in primitive communist enclaves or under a voluntary government. We just want left out of it. I think that all people are anarcho-capitalists in some sense. If they really understood the nature of states or the inevitable outcome of true socialism, I don’t think they would want to be a part of it.

Two very good points, nicely stated. I wonder how many people have been turned away by thinking that AnCaps are not tolerant.

[Juan]

Have the geniuses of amoralism and ‘utilitarianism’, the masters of semantic trolling, explained to Mr Bloom why he’s better off supporting the morally good when he doesn’t give a damn about the morally good ? (which of course can’t be defined anyway, eh AJ ?)

[liberty_student]

@AJ

I wonder how many people have been turned away by thinking that AnCaps are not tolerant.

Maybe they met Juan before they met someone with emotional control.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@E. R. Olovetto

I think that is a faulty analogy.

Yes, yes. I recognize that.

[Laughing_Man]

@bloomj31

So does this mean we can determine what is and is not rational?

Yes.

@bloomj31

How can all values be rational relative to the person considering them but at the same time praexology be absolute?

That would be a question be proposed to a ethical Misesan [ someone who follows Mises’ ethical system ]

@bloomj31

What if that individual just enjoys hurting people? Wouldn’t it be rational to torture people?

You would be defying your human nature in some capacity.

@bloomj31

And yet we cannot determine what is and is not rational because economics is a value free system? This makes no sense.

Economics can only tell you what is, not what should be. For what should be is an ethical system.

@bloomj31

Absolutism implies that absolute values be given to means and ends. Right?

Absolutism implies that there are values or actions that are not relative to the person in question. Absolutism is akin to say ‘Murder is always wrong.’ Not ‘murder is acceptable in situation X or if it involves person Y’

[bloomj31]

Alright, is this thread dead or does anyone want to keep talking about this?

I’m really trying to wait until I’ve read the books LS recommended before I make anymore evaluations about an-cap.

Does anyone know of any books about libertarian politics as opposed to libertarian econ and philosophy?