The more I consider it, themore flabbergasted I am by your reasoning:
I do not advocate anarcho-capitalism on moral grounds.
David Friedman, likewise, claims he cannot offer rational arguments for his moral beliefs.
You consider me to not be an anarcho-capitalist but call yourself a “Friedman” anarcho-capitalist, even though neither of us claim to be able to convince others of “moral principles.”
Soemthing’s gone awry, and methinks it’s your brain.
By what other standard would you consistently hold to non-aggression? You have claimed to be a pragmatist who would happily violate property rights whenever it suited your sense of justice (madman). Do you think that pragmatic violation of property rights is consistent with ancap?
Is it an “ancap in sunny weather” sort of philosophy you adhere to?
[quote=“[David D. Friedman]
(http://freemarketmojo.com/?p=5539)”]There is, however, an important qualification to that view. Whether a particular form of political organization, including that one, is stable, can maintain itself, depends on a variety of factors, including the environment that surrounds it. I don’t believe that my preferred form is stable under all possible circumstances, and there is not a lot of point to abolishing one government only to have the institutions that are supposed to replace it collapse and be replaced by another and possibly worse one.
[/quote]
Furthermore, all the exceptions I’ve provided are creations of Friedman’s own thinking.
One’s first exposure to logic can be a shocking event. I recommend you sit down and drink a glass of water.
On what grounds do you advocate ancap?
Where we derive a principle of non-aggression from isn’t important to the fact that we have a principle of non-aggression, without which, ancap cannot work. Rothbard felt it came about through natural rights. Friedman and I (if I can mix us up like that) are skeptics, and while we feel moral sentiments, we cannot attribute them to any objective source or design. Neither David Friedman or I reject the notion of morality and immorality as you do (assuming you still want to call yourself a moral nihilist).
So again I will ask, on what grounds do you advocate ancap? As a moral nihilist, it’s not moral. And as a pragmatist, you seem to be saying you will violate voluntary exchange whenever it is pragmatic for you to do so.
His moral skepticism matches my moral nihilism insofar as both of us deny being able to rationally argue for one’s moral beliefs, hence such arguments are–necessarily–devoid from our arguments for anarcho-capitalism.
Furthermore, all the exceptions I’ve provided are creations of Friedman’s own thinking.
[/quote]
This quote is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Please, please stop referencing David Friedman as an authority. Learn to make your own arguments.
What is anarcho-capitalism?
They aren’t the same. You don’t believe they exist as meaningful concepts. He cannot objectively identify their source or correctness. He doesn’t declare them meaningless concepts.
C’mon man, you can do so much better than this.
Still waiting on answers to both of these.
To give an example of this line of reasoning;
You don’t believe prices are a meaningful concept. He believes prices are subjective. Somehow you conclude this means neither of you can argue for prices.
It is inconsistent only if anarcho-capitalism means uncompromising support for property rights as a normative right.
He himself declared that he cannot argue for his “moral beliefs” (in your example, “prices”).
[quote=“[David D. Friedman]
(http://freemarketmojo.com/?p=5539)”]For reasons I have gone into elsewhere, I think such [an anarcho-capitalistic] society would produce more attractive outcomes, by widely shared standards, than alternative forms of arrangement.
[/quote]
Like Friedman, I believe anarcho-capitalism can be rhetorically supported by appealing to generally desired outcomes: more wealth, more choice, etc. Of course, as Jeffrey Tucker insightfully elaborates, many leftists actually want to reduce the standard of living, so my arguments won’t hold much sway with such people.
As far as definining anarcho-capitalism, I believe the name itself is straightforward: maximize free markets, minimize Statism.
Go back and read his quote again.
Isn’t this your definition of libertarianism? If not, what is libertarianism?
The name is straightforward. Anarchism. No state whatsoever.
What does anarcho-capitalism mean?
It will save us all a lot of time if we can define our terms. I have defined mine. StrangeLoop has defined his. Oddly, he uses the same definition for more than one term, but at least getting a definition is a start.
“It will save us all a lot of time if we can define our terms. I have defined mine. StrangeLoop has defined his. Oddly, he uses the same definition for more than one term, but at least getting a definition is a start.”
Anarcho-capitalism is the belief that the market can act as a rational pricing mechanism without formal institutions of government.