I would love for anyone who was raised in a libertarian like family, or plans to raise one of their own, to weigh in on this.
Although my parents are not libertarians (“small government” Republicans is a better characterization), their values had much to do with me becoming one. I hope to have kids, and to instill in them a respect for private property, freedom-of-choice, and voluntary charity.
Apparently, not only are “states” capable of acting, but so is “statism”.
Well, I don’t know but I’ve been told…that without the state you couldn’t tell anyone.
Sufficient, but unnecessary condition.
Agreed.
I am just a little giddy this morning from being out in the heat too long yesterday and I thought I’d get one in before I leave for church…
Have a good one.
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.–grayson
I presume this means that the useless rule that we cant post on other threads is jettisoned.
I made one post to clarify (not debate), so you can make one post to clarify (not debate). And that’s it.
It’s obviously not a useless rule, because it’s short-circuited the flame wars you were having with others before.
The debate is still on. I’ll respond to your latest posts when I get a chance.
[USE ISSUES FORUM]
Anyone else find Rettoper to be Quixotic? It’s like he’s fighting imaginary pro-anarcho-capitalist arguments.
Grayson Lilburne, you are a man of great patience.
Thank you, cporter.
Good stuff, Grayson. This is a pretty good thread for demonstrating the validity of the idea of the “ancap society”. He’s thrown everything at it, from assertions of how it would fail to attacking the philosophical foundations of it. The idea still stands as valid and useful, from what I’ve seen.
Although I think you have too much patience for your own good. 
Rettoper: “unlike classical liberals, ancaps rejects the use of force, and force is required to obtain and preserve power” (emphasis mine)
For seriously? He did it again! … Again! … Again! … … … … … … … Again!
I hope Lilburne sticks to his guns about the ‘naive arguing from history’ point
Rettoper: “unlike classical liberalism, anarchic societies allow the introduction of dangerous controlled substances into society”
Wut? Not even the Constitution prevented that. This is an odd one that, ironically, is not supported by history.
Rettoper: Has Anarchism been Disproved by History?: A Debate between Rettoper and Lilburne - #84 by Rettoper
sigh!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/PalOMine?page=3&action=comments&display=blog&sort=newest
Read the 3rd comment under “Bush’s Baghdad”. I didn’t say it!
You guys, mises is dead. Apparently.
It’s all very unfortunate. A debate between Grayson Lilburne and a classical liberal committed to serious discussion could have been instructive. Instead, Rettoper seems to change his stance (especially in regards to the merits of praxeology) based solely on its convenience in making the latest baseless assertion.
If there were a moderator this debate would have been stopped long ago. It’s like watching Milton Friedman pummel that red-headed kid on Free to Choose.
Rettoper - “for starters, you are an anarchist — von mises is not. you have not sufficiently reconciled this contradiction.”
Lilburne - “There is no contradiction in that statement. I think you are taking my avatar too literally. I do not claim to be von Mises.”
After 5 minutes I’m still laughing at this…