I could go through and answer your responses but I don’t think it’s a particularly good use of my time compared to simply saying this:
War, the human sphere of aggression and thus negation of individual’s property rights, is distinct from that of Exchange. The theories of the latter are not blanket-applicable to the former.
You are advocating war. I am advocating voluntary exchange. I am not attempting to apply theories of exchange to war. If I had done so, I would prefer war (as you do). That is, if war were capable of maximizing utility (as exchange is) I would agree with you. You see? You have it backwards. If anyone is attempting to apply theories of exchange to war, it is you. You are saying that war has utility. You want to use the negation of individual property rights to protect individual property rights. How very odd. War is peace and so on.
Source please? (Didn’t you earlier ask me to stop accusing you of intellectual dishonesty?)
War, the human sphere of aggression and thus negation of individual’s property rights, is distinct from that of Exchange.
You define war as the human sphere of aggression. You support state militaries and taxation, which are aggression. Thus you support aggression and (by your own definition) war.
Clever. So if no nation-states are at war with each other, then the world is still at war?
I may have mispoken, but can you not recognize peace between states and war between states as distinct?
I’ll rephrase in that case: War is a subsect of the human sphere of aggression in which two or more distinct populations engage in combat.
Clever. So if no nation-states are at war with each other, then the world is still at war?
I say so. War can exist between individuals, families, etc.
I may have mispoken, but can you not recognize peace between states and war between states as distinct?
Sure. I just think it is absurd to advocate perpetual war (by states on their citizenry) as means of ensuring interstate peace. That is even worse than a lesser-of-two-evils argument. That is choosing a present and everlasting evil over a mere risk of evil some time in the future.
I’ll rephrase in that case: War is a subsect of the human sphere of aggression in which two or more distinct populations engage in combat.
Ok. I would simply say that war is forceful aggression. As oppose to coercion - a threat of war.
Is the evil of today, wherein you are sent a ‘pay-me-or-else’ by the government, equal or even comparable to the evils of total war, wherein entire populations of people are raped, shot, stabbed, set alight, beaten or displaced?
There are several reasons for a state. One reason is the problem of defense. Everyone receives the benefit of defense, but no one has to pay the cost. A second reason is protection against larger invaders. Decentralization is a weakness. In an AnCap society of little private citites, towns, ect., a larger country would be able to easily come in and slaughter them. A third reason is the problem of courts and law. Not everyone agrees on what the law should be. Thus, in the absence of a coercive monopoly ready to crack some dissenting heads, anarchy would reign.
Voluntaryism is a childish fantasy.
Is the evil of today, wherein you are sent a ‘pay-me-or-else’ by the government, equal or even comparable to the evils of total war, wherein entire populations of people are raped, shot, stabbed, set alight, beaten or displaced?
That is false choice because the state cannot always repel invasions, and an AnCap society will be able to repel at least some invasions (regardless of which technique is more effective).
Yes. Invasions don’t happen every day. Taxes oppress and kill people continually. Anytime someone forgoes a health expense (medicine, safety devices, higher quality food) because of taxes, they risk a premature death.
@Buzz Killington
Everyone receives the benefit of defense, but no one has to pay the cost.
That isn’t true. Someone as to pay the cost. And a tank in Kansas does not necessarily confer defense to people in Key West.
Decentralization is a weakness.
Not always.
In an AnCap society of little private citites, towns, ect., a larger country would be able to easily come in and slaughter them.
You are thinking about society in term of territoriality where each town defends only itself, like mini city-states. That is not the theory. A given defense firm may have clients across a city, or across a region. Wal-mart has a location in almost every city of significant size. What if there were a Walmart and a Costco and a Target of defense? If a state invades town A and threaten hundreds of Costco’s clients, they will step up and attempt to repel the invader (assuming they see such an action as cost effective). Since customers demand that business honor their agreements, they will usually come to the defense of their clients rather than lose future business. Town B might be larger. And invasion there might bring three major defense companies into the situation. We don’t know exactly what size firms will take or how they will find their respective niches in the marketplace, but we do know that they choices will reflect consumer demand and economic realities.
A third reason is the problem of courts and law. Not everyone agrees on what the law should be. Thus, in the absence of a coercive monopoly ready to crack some dissenting heads, anarchy would reign.
And? How do you define anarchy? The absence of political rulers sounds like a good thing to me. And you comment begs so many other questions. Why is monolithic law good? How can we find the best law if laws cannot compete in the marketplace for acceptance? If Japan has a better drug policy than the US, we can adopt it here. But if every area had the exact same laws, how would we ever improve law? How would we know if it was good law at all?
It’s not a false choice. The question isn’t asking you the expedience of AnCap or Statist paradigms. It’s asking the comparability of the two situations. Both historically valid.
You make it sound so simple. Why don’t leftists, if they’re so concerned about health issues, just advocate cutting taxes ? Joking aside, which taxes kill?
You make it sound so simple. Why don’t leftists, if they’re so concerned about health issues, just advocate cutting taxes ? Joking aside, which taxes kill?
Good question…
All taxes kill and reduce quality of life because of the economic calculation problem. You know the issue here, just apply it. The state cannot know the needs of the people, much less economically fulfill them. Here is one of many reports on a study that shows that tax filling itself kills people. We aren’t even talking about the effect of loosing money (that could be spent on a better, safer car), but of complying with the mandate to file. The act of filling causes auto fatalities.
You know what I mean. I can receive the benefit of defense without paying. It’s the public good problem.
When has it ever been a strength?
FTFY.
How would one arise? Furthermore, that sounds awfully alot like a monopoly on defense.
Chaos, absence of law.
But the only way you can actually have any law is if someone comes in with a gun, points it at everyone’s head, and demands that they follow this set of rules. People disagree on what the law is. In the absence of a monopoly on law, this will lead to disorder.
I can receive the benefit of defense without paying.
Not the full benefit. I suggest you read what Jargon and I have been discussing so you and I don’t have to relive the whole chain of arguments.
When has it ever been a strength?
Al Qaeda, Wikipedia, I am sure you can think of some if you want to. Also, you should read our discussion so we don’t rehash the same things. For example, state militaries are divided as well. Each state has its own national guard for example. And the American Indians are not a compelling example. They did not have advanced industry and weaponry at their disposal.
That is not my theory.
FTFY.
Then whose theory are you critiquing? I suggest you skim Chaos Theory, starting at page 43 of you want to know where I am coming from.
Chaos, absence of law.
I prefer a more literal definition. non-archon-y. The absence of rulers.
But the only way you can actually have any law is if someone comes in with a gun, points it at everyone’s head, and demands that they follow this set of rules. People disagree on what the law is. In the absence of a monopoly on law, this will lead to disorder.
The basis of libertarian law is private contracts and private arbitration for peaceful dispute resolution. Law is enforced by social and economic pressure. People will use defensive force to prevent crime and to recover damages from criminals. People will ostracize those who break agreements. If you are not a man of your word, you won’t be able to get a good job or a buy the things you need (without doing business with other shady people, and at higher cost). Insurance will play a major role in defense, police, and fire services that are now mostly state run.
Here is a summary of David Friedman’s ideas on law and defense. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o
Sorry people for not being able to follow the talk and put some answers, hope it’s not too late.
Thank you for sharing your opinion. vive la insurrection since you seem to be into philosophy, you probably have checked out www.freedomainradio.com!?
Right ToxicAssets, if I have correctly understood you, in your opinion state could appear if group of people simply forced other into it? Is that fair summation? Because if voluntarily chosen, it is not state, right.
The problem with that scenario for me is like with any other monopoly, it is inherently deficient, flawed, inefficient and would be soon overtaken by competition, from outside or inside. Plus in a environment in which all surrounding “society” are free and prospers, it would be obvious forceful occupation, slavery,wouldn’t it!?
Johnny Doe, congrats bro, you are stepping to the bright side of force 
Yes, if it is chosen, for those people who have picked it out, minarchism is an option in a free voluntary society. In my opinion it would be wise when “contracting” with your minarchist state to put an opt out clause, just in case. But that whole idea that you and I, our families and everyone else could choose, is voluntarism. It is not a minarchist society in which you could have voluntary one, but in free society you could have minarchism.
Examples, there are few https://wiki.freecapitalists.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Historical_precedents_similar_to_anarcho-capitalism even today. David Friedman, son of Milton, has some nice work on this… maybe you could check it out.
I have addressed defense in earlier comments, if you don’t mind reading it. here is a part of it: "anyways in order not to depart from my main point, If you are interested in nice, concise answers to this objection of yours I would recommend: http://board.freedomainradio.com/blogs/freedomain/archive/2008/11/14/practical-anarchy-the-book.aspx or a forum where solutions are discussed in detail - http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/242.aspx "
I do not understand how “Everyone receives the benefit of defense, but no one has to pay the cost”?? I are paying for defense.
Why assume decentralized agencies could not coordinate their actions, further more they would have many incentives to do so since their whole existence would be in question, as of every other person and business in that society. Which is not the case for state now-days. Plus we know how much better competing businesses are compared to monopoly.
Arbitration could be done be private firms, check David Friedman on this. The fact that “Not everyone agrees on what the law should be”, is reason more for multiple, competing arbitration agencies (law systems), not in any form a reason for monolithic, unsatisfying overarching state and federal law. So you could choose one most suitable for you.
Cracking some heads only for having difference of a opinion with you is something you ought to be ready to do yourself, before cowardly passing it over to someone else.
Yes and having politicians in control is somehow intelligent, deep and profound idea.
I`ve been inbetween anarchism/minarchism for several years.
What about those who dont choose it, but still live among those who have? Same goes fore an anarchy, i.e. millions and billions of people wont agree all the time, so there will always be those who disagree with individual sovereignty?
You can`t choose not to respect other individuals(and get away with it, avoid other people trying to stop you from harming them), if a majority of them organize/cooperate in order to protect their lives and property, not even in an anarchy.
It`s not minarchism if you could choose to harm others?
A group of people could organize the protection of themselves/their property(minarchism), and it would be a free society, because other people would be free to harm the people who organized the protection of themselves/their property(minarchism)?
I`ve checked it out(including freedomainradio.com) several years before you made your first post here.
Do you know this one, what is difference between minarchist and an-cap!? 18 to 24 months
What about those who don`t choose it..
You mean like if we had a chance to choose, lets say to vote for this or that, and I choose not to live in a state, but my neighbors or most of, lets say city, did choose to stay within the state!? And vice-versa.
Right, of course. Here is just an idea - you could charge me for every service separably, or put some fixed price for bunch of services (roads, protection…). But there would not be any taxes or laws applied on me and/on my property. Same would be done in voluntary society anyways (you would pay for each service separately).
You can`t choose not to respect other individuals(and get away with it, avoid other people trying to stop you from harming them), if a majority of them organize/cooperate in order to protect their lives and property, not even in an anarchy.
I agree on that.
By “It is not a minarchist society in which you could have voluntary one,” I meant in a idea of minimal state, you still have a state as a geographical monopoly on violence and there is no opt-out option, there is no ability or “right” to choose. It’s mandatory. If you put in just that smal but very important bit it becomes idea of voluntaryism. You don’t need even to support it or wish for it, but you need to recognize other peoples “right” to choose. Am I right? That’s more of clarification of terms - “but in free society you could have minarchism. A group of people could organize the protection of themselves/their property(minarchism), and it would be a free society, because other people would be free to harm the people who organized the protection of themselves/their property(minarchism)?” - no, rather in my opinion it is logical that we would move from some sort of state (maybe not minimal, but some sort of, probably highly inefficient one) to a free society. Hoppe just had a book on 4 pillars of the state and how they are slowly crumbling … in addition he argued that disappearance of state will happen step by step as those pillars, functions are overtaken by private businesses, by individual interaction. (I’ve just watched Tuckers summery of the book)
well great, than I am talking with an expert on the subject.