Unfortunately the masses are all too easily brainwashed by statist propaganda.
I think we brainwashed you pretty quick with our propaganda, you are an anarchist now huh? :-p
Except that there is nothing practical about it, considering your goal is impossible and thus utopian. It will never be reached and must therefore be discarded - if you want to be practical, that is .
I never said it was possible to limit the state. But it is certainly possible to try. Let’s say the American government collapses in the near future. Would you rather let it be swallowed into a totalitarian North American Union, or fight to rebuild a sovereign republic? Although all states may end up tyrannical, they are not created equal. There is a big difference in terms of freedom between living in America and living in China. At least we’re allowed to surf the internet freely and have more than one kid here.
I think we brainwashed you pretty quick with our propaganda, you are an anarchist now huh? :-p
I’m just a poor, innocent, impressionable youth - stop taking advantage of me! 
But in all seriousness, I am quite a gullible person and my mother is worried that I spend too much time at Mises.org. Fortunately she is a Republican so being anti-government isn’t the worst thing in the world right now.
I’m making the point that spreading a message is serious business, and not the same as sitting on ones hands (as some people claim…)
I’m making the point that spreading a message is serious business, and not the same as sitting on ones hands (as some people claim…)
I agree.
Do you believe in critical mass?
I think “critical mass” is a fuzzy term. How do you define it? How do you believe in it? Generally, I am inclined to think that critical masses get things done. A critical mass has power. But I also believe that small groups of people with power get things done despite what the masses want.
“But it is certainly possible to try.”
It’s impossible to square a circle. What in the hell would be the point of trying to do it?
“Let’s say the American government collapses in the near future. Would you rather let it be swallowed into a totalitarian North American Union, or fight to rebuild a sovereign republic?”
Neither. And that is a legitimate choice, in fact - the only one. Why on earth would you work towards re-establishing your oppressors and rulers? Are you a masochist?
Btw - you failed to comment on the Kinsella article.
Rettoper wrote, “Before heads explode in the peanut gallery, I acknowledge that factors other than government were the primary drives for this change, nonetheless nothing noteworthy in any human endeavor (save heady and empty rhetoric) has ever emerged from anarchic society.”
Who here thinks Rettoper would agree that the State is something “noteworthy” that has “emerged from anarchic society”, and by so doing would be contradicting his statement above?
Here are my comments on the Kinsella article:
The piece provides a good illustration of some of the dangers of relying on utilitarian arguments and being overly focused with “strategy” and tactics. And it demonstrates the importance of relying on principle and carefully distinguishing the pursuit and advocacy of truth and rights from activist concerns.
This pretty much summarizes the article. Kinsella successfully refutes all of Carl Milsted’s arguments, and then reiterates what it means to be an anarcho-capitalist:
Rather, as I have pointed out elsewhere, to be an anarcho-capitalist is simply to recognize (a) aggression is unjustified; and (b) even the minarchist state necessarily commits aggression (and is therefore unjustified). It does not mean one predicts such a situation will occur, or “is workable,” etc. It only means that the anarchist libertarian opposes all forms of aggression: both private aggression committed by criminals, and institutionalized aggression the state is able to perpetrate only because a large percentage of the population erroneously regards it as legitimate.
In other words, if one is not an anarchist, this means one either holds that states do not commit aggression, or maintains that aggression is (in some cases) justified.
Based on this analysis, I am an anarcho-capitalist. As I have stated in other threads, the only “state” I would support is one that does not commit aggression. But, apparently, this is an impossibility. Therefore, I must be an anarcho-capitalist.
However, I disagree with Kinsella that in general there is a “danger” of being “overly-focused with ‘strategy’ and tactics.” (Why does he put strategy in quotes, as if it is a misused word?) I would argue that when it comes to libertarianism, the danger is perhaps the opposite - there is too much focus on principles, and not enough thought dedicated to strategy. For example, Marxism has been successful because the members of the movement dedicated themselves to strategy and figured out how to achieve power. Vladimir Lenin was a master tactician, and his strategies have helped collectivists all over the world achieve and maintain power.
Rettoper seems to confuse people being pissed at him for people hating classic liberals.
It seems (to me, at least) like Grayson has won the debate. I think Rettoper is missing some understanding of the “theory and history” stuff.
Maybe there will be a twist? Like in the movies.
Rettoper: do you agree with the assertion by anarchists that a small measure of government would lead to absolutism over time?
Lilburne: No. It depends on the circumstances. A small measure of government that in practice enforces property rights would be less likely to lead to absolutism than a completely anarchic society populated by people who don’t believe in the efficacy of capitalism and property rights. However a completely anarchic society populated by people who DID believe in the efficacy of capitalism and property rights would be far less likely to lead to absolutism than either of the other two systems.
This is why anarchy may not be the next model of freedom. It will not work until enough people “believe in the efficacy of capitalism and property rights.” I would be interested to know how long Lilburne and other ancaps think it will take for the majority of society to become educated enough for anarchy to be feasible. I think it will take many generations. In the short run, perhaps the most free society we can hope for is one with a limited state that enforces property rights. If this is the case, it is up to minority who believe in capitalism and property rights now to work to establish this sort of state.
@LeeO, define majority. Majority of a city? a State? the Nation? Isn’t New Hampshire working on this?
You don’t need the majority of society to be educated. I don’t know what Liburne meant. But what about a small city state seceding from it’s mother State? And then smaller factions of the city State seceding down further? You don’t need to educate all of society. Freedom can start small and then spread
Rettoper>>Paradoxically, it seems that the more affluent a society becomes the more likely it will lurch back toward statism.
The ghost of Schumpeter walks amongst us
Sorry to break my rule about responding in here, but it is not to debate, only to clarify. Yes, DD5, assuming secession is possible and the seceded community is large and wealthy enough to defend itself against outside aggressors, a small community need only have a sufficiently large proportion of its own members believe in the benefits of maximal capitalism for anarcho-capitalism to be sustainable.
This is a wonderful point. Both minarchists and anarchists are working in the same direction. I see the debate between the two positions as an onion (representing a state). Both sides agree that almost all of the layers should be stripped away, it’s just one or two layers at the absolute center that present us with a problem. Since there are dozens of layers on top of that, let’s work together at repealing those rather than fighting over what to do once we reach the core. We are so far from it that it would be absurd to divide ourselves now.
I attempted to argue that point from the stance of allying with the anarcho-left towards our common goals on this thread. Went over like a lead balloon.
“DISSENT WIL NOT BE TOLERATED!!!”
zero anarchic successes based on tens of thousands of years of human history is not “ad hoc” ---- it is significant.
What is “debating” this type of person going to accomplish? Here is he is blatantly ignoring the history we’ve provided as evidence months ago. Talk about garbage on the front page.