Using dictionaries (not wiki) define all three words for me.
-
Neo-conservative
-
Communist
-
Fascist.
Prove this statement, show me where Minarchists talk about utopia.
Prove this statement, show how they are similar.
I keep seeing these ridiculous unsubstantiated statements.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again; minarchists are little more than soft-communists.
Since you advocate the state, I assume you advocate some form of forceful exchange of money, from the individual, to the government.
Forceful exchange implies that the government and not the individual is the supreme owner of all land within its arbitrary jurisdiction. If you don’t agree with its rules, it has the right to take away your property. A minarchy may have less rules, but the ability of the government to confiscate your property should you not abide by these rules is no less prevalent.
I submit that someone who has the authority to confiscate your property, should you refuse to patronize it, is, not you, the ultimate owner of the property. Anything you do on your property, you do not because you have the authority to do so, but because the government has made no law prohibiting it.
Total Communism simply has more rules sent down on high from the state, telling the individual what he is permitted to do with property. Under minarchy, the state is still the ultimate owner of all property, it’s just a ‘better’ owner, because it allows the individuals to have more freedom, under its ultimate domain.
Can a thief be both deceitful and thuggish?
Poptech, what do you think a utopia is?
I only use dictionary definitions…
Utopia (defined) - “A place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions”
I am finding serious confusion here about the definition of words, something you can easily look up. If you can show me where Minarchists speak of perfection, please let me know.
“Government and state can never be perfect because they owe their raison d’etre to the imperfection of man and can attain their end, the elimination of man’s innate impulse to violence, only by recourse to violence, the very thing they are called upon to prevent.” - Ludwig von Mises
Do you know how to use a dictionary?
The dictionary! (OED, of course!) [^o)]
Well, you’d be wrong…it was used that way (absolute rule, not isolation, which is a different word) in classical Greek.
The first two with the “absolute dictatorship” meaning, and the third misspelling autarky. You might at least have edited in Lefévre’s definition and claimed four [:)]
I assume you meant “rule”, rather than “ruled”; but it doesn’t mean “rule” in the sense used in English in “no rules”.
Well, it seems to me that LeFevre is objecting to the word ‘anarchy’ but not the system that anCaps advocate.
I don’t think LeFevre wanted a small monopolistic government. LeFevre was fully a voluntarist. Am I right ?
Why does it have to change?
It worked for Saddam Hussein.
He pays well. Why would the rest of the world care? So someone with a lot of money in an anarchistic state can easily destroy it. It appears this theory is flawed.
Billionaires and owners of gold mines do not exist and would not exist in an anarchistic state?
It is not up to me but society. If you are unable to convince enough people of your “ideal” system than your argument is flawed.
That does not change how politicians are elected, which is by more than just the Billionaire’s vote.
Well it is nice to find out that Ludwig von Mises is considered “ignorant” at the Ludwig von Mises institute!
RC insults Mises and Mises clearly does not accept an anarchist position.
That’s ridiculous. So if I say this is a light bulb and it is a light bulb, but nobody will be convinced it’s a light bulb - my argument is flawed. A=A
You are either being purposively dishonest or well, maybe not purposively. This topic is over. Mises was referring obviously not to anarchy that adheres to law (anarchy means no ruler, but that in no way means no law). Let’s not throw out history while you’ve already thrown out logic so I guess your last stand will be irrationality.
I wager there are more socialist-anarchists than socialist-minarchists. If there is a collective ownership over the means of production and a lack of private property, this sort of government cannot be a minimal one.
Seph are you trying to say Mises, Hayek, Ropke, Hazlitt, et al. are soft-communists?
@Paul this one? Or this? What about the following.
- [autarchy](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=autarchy) [](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=autarchy)
- 1665, "absolute sovereignty," from Gk. autarkhia, from autarkhein "to be an absolute ruler," from autos "self" + arkhein "to rule" (see [archon](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=archon)). Autarky (1617), from the same source, means "self-sufficiency."
- [autarky](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=autarky) [](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=autarky)
- 1617, "self-sufficiency," from Gk. autarkeia, from autarkes "self-sufficient," from autos "self" + arkein "to rule" (see [archon](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=archon)). From a different Gk. source than [autarchy](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=autarchy), and thus the spelling. As a term in international economics, prominent late 1930s.
- I am simply trying to say that most anarchists and minarchists have a like agenda. I hate the state, and I'm sure most of y'all do too.
- I would like to respectfully try to keep the peace between two like groups. Libertarians tried this in 1974.
Unless you believe fallacies make good arguments, no, not really.
Since when is that all that there is to the political process? The election part is as contrived and limited with regard to choice as can be as it is.
**
**
Mises was not nor did he ever claim to be infallible. And had you taken what I said in context I said he is inevitably ignorant of works that engaged the topic of anarchism in greater depth because they were not written then or because he had bigger problems to deal with (monetary theory, socialism &c.) than that at the time. That isn’t quite the same as saying he is ignorant simpliciter…
Yes of course, if you are unable to convince enough people that a light bulb is a light bulb your argument is flawed. But this is something that can be done through scientific experimentation and demonstrated.
If you hold up a glass shaped like a light bulb and declare it so but no one believes you because you will not make it “light up”
I find no evidence that Mises even entertained an idea of “pro-law anarchism” in any remote sense. What has been extensively established is Mises refuted Anarchy and that exchange just further supports that. Nor have I seen evidence for him advocating for the establishment of law without government. Do you have any evidence of him supporting an idea of an Anarcho-Capitalist system?
Then if the argument is not flawed how come you cannot convince enough people of an Anarcho-Capitalist system?
While the political process is far from perfect and never could be, you clearly have choices but people continue to only choose between two parties. After reading and dealing with various libertarians, it is very clear to me why this is so.
For many of the same reasons why people still believe that there is a god. Very similar concepts.
Please explain.