Why would you substitute faith for reason? Ancap is a position based on reason, not on belief.
Sorry if I confused you. I was making a joke.
A radicalanarchocapitalisttraditionalist.
Oh they can be bothered, and there have been loads of minarchists posting here over the years. Many of them became anarchists, some went away happy to stay in denial that the state is necessary or that a lesser evil is not evil.
The world is full of stupid, self-defeating people.
Humor probably comes easier to the delusional.
I agree. It is a small forum on a very big internet, although that’s not actually an argument for anything, so I don’t know why you said it.
I am considering myself still a minarchist in best case an agnostic anarchist out of 2 reasons:
1: Still lack of studying the necessary issues enough (defense, law and order) (So according to filc’s classification I would count as someone who still doesn’t get how markets work..)
2: I believe that we will not be able to brush away the government with one sweep peacefully, and that an anarchist society needs a much broader awareness of how it works. I don’t say that everyone needs to read MES etc but a lot more people should in fact. So that it’s general ideas are spreading more broadly and are generally discussed also among ordinary people to reach a critical mass. And this means only a step by step procedure is thinkable that goes hand in hand with the spreading of the ideas of anarchism. So first there will be a minarchist state, before we will have the chance to see anarchism working here. (Maybe but very unlikely some anarchist communists overthrow the state by force, and then the new anarchist state turns out to work quite differently as they thought.. )
I think they already tried that in 1776. It didn’t work out.
Governments are like malignant tumors. They grow.
I am an anarcho-capitalist.
I’ve actually noted very few ‘Misesians’, in the sense of advocating free secession rights for small communities, and not anarchy or minarchy themselves. They seem to be rare indeed. Pitty, it’s a very congenial and practical position which many can understand.
Therefore I wrote that a critical mass of people who really support at least minarchy or anarchy is a precondition. Even if you had the power to remove the government with clicking one’s finger at this very moment, the state of anarchy would not last long, and probably would cause some severe turmoil. Without changing people’s minds you would accomplish nothing with it.
In a way people get exactly the government they want, so let’s change what they want by friendly explaining and showing how things work. We cannot do more. And I think mises.org and its forum do a great job. Even if it sounds overblown: I think in the long run Truth and Honesty will prevail! 
I’m an Anarco Communist.
With my amateur-level knowledge I generally consider myself ancap but I wouldn’t mind living in a minarchist state.
A friend of mine said the choice so far removed from what we have now, it’s like choosing to live on Neptune or Jupiter.
It’s cause all the minarchists turned into anarchists.
Why would you substitute faith for reason? Ancap is a position based on reason, not on belief.
Well I disagree, I believe for one to be an ancap a degree of faith is required. At the time however, it was my reason which led me to anarchism, and my reason which drew me away from it. After reading Hayek, I concluded that anarchism suffers from the fatal conciet, and I haven’t turned back since.
That and telling chicks I was an anarchist usually didn’t pan out well.
Faith in what?
How does anarchism suffer from the fatal conceit?
Most of the libertarians on these forums are deontologicals(libertarian moralist). The absence of minarchists who are more consequentialists, probably has to do with how cult like it can seem at times as Dave implied. Some of the reponses in here being a good example. I rarely come here because of it.
It’s only a [sic] cult if people have their ideas challenged, and they are unprepared for it. I welcome a blood thirsty fascist dictator to the forum if he can be honest about his choices and what the consequences of them are.
So-called “consequentialists” tend to want to discuss everything in the abstract, nothing in the specific. The minute a “consequentialist” is asked to justify violence, which in some cases they do support, they immediately throw their hands up and start crying about how the moralizers and Rothbardians are so unfair and irrational.
If one isn’t willing to touch the fundamental question of who owns who, then libertarian ethics, and specifically politics can’t be meaningfully discussed. Consequentialists want to work towards THEIR ends, but they are ok with denying someone else THEIR ends. And that’s fundamentally NOT libertarian. If people like that don’t want to hang out on these forums, I am sure there are statist forums where people can make might makes right and greater good arguments that would better suit that style of libertarianism.
Again, I can love you if you’re honest about your position, I absolutely cannot stand when someone knows their position is uncomfortable (by their own standard) and they won’t address it sincerely. People who wimp out on honesty suck, whether they claim to be for peace or violence.
It’s funny to call a bunch of mostly amoral irreligious anarchists cult-like.
It’s much easier to argue that slavery is immoral then to get into an argument about how “beneficial” it is.
Consequentalists don’t CARE about justfying their positions based on whether they think it’s moral or not because of the NAP.
You should at least have some kind of ethical beliefs. I support minarchy, it’s most likely that minarchy will lead to anarchy. If anarchy were to occur, and it didn’t work, then I would call for minarchy. However, I still have the NAP as a principle to guide my political values. How do you know what will or won’t work until it’s been done, how do you know it would provide the highest utility? You need some principles. The NAP breaks down the main difference between political/state actions and regular actions.
Ethics without understanding utility is dumb, only praising utility without having ethics is blind.
I’m a closet anarcho-capitalist, openly a minarchist. I never try to argue the an-cap position with people who are totally ignorant of it. I fear it might scare them off completely and label me crazy. I always start off making an argument for capitalism and then end up arguing for minarchism, but never go too far as to suggest anarcho-capitalism. I just hope to plant a seed.
I live in Holland. “Capitalism” is a radical idea here.