I hadn’t. Thanks for sharing. That’s a perfect example of what I mean by working to acheive anarchy as opposed to libertarianism.
Good way of putting it.
I’m thinking from a strategic point of view. The Ron Paul people see libertarianism and anarchism as seperate things. The diagram is simplified to make a point. That article is an attempt to pull people “up” on the diagram. I think this could be a more fruitful approach than trying to pull people “left” on the diagram.
I went from B to A.
And here I thought you went from A to H.
In the context I was writing about Sage’s position, not mine.
True, it’s probably better to say “monopoly on power” so that we include the power inherent in having the public on your side. For details, see my response to Merlin in “Have we defined the state correctly?”
In this case, you can replace “racket” with “actions I do not like.”
For their own benefit, in the broadest sense.
Thanks trulib. You’ve elaborated what I am getting out very nicely.
Also, maybe here we want to instead call these people who say “let them go” panarchists or voluntarists, or just people tolerant of other legal systems within their territory. That way it’s easier to see how someone could be non-libertarian (they want a welfare state for their society) but tolerant (they will allow you to opt out).
Of course, such things are already implied in the Rothbardian ideas of freedom of contract, but the emphasis has thus far been different in that there is still a tendency to use weasel words like rogue court.
Bottom line is that if society is truly ready for AnCap, eliminating monopoly of force/power is sufficient. If it is not sufficient, that means society isn’t ready yet - there are too many individuals who will still support monopolies, or who have ingrained paternalistic senses.
Simple, they want the US government running the world but not their neigborhoods. Trust me it makes perfect sense.[;)]
What actions of the state do you like?
None? Then what’s the point / worth of that definition?
“In this case”, what about every other case?
“And if the individual criminal benefits from those consequences, i.e stealing / theft… so be it?”
Yes Conza, you and I conceive morality differently. I don’t see any more point to that line of discussion.
What is the difference between you and Conza in perspective here? He doesn’t like the state. You don’t like the state. Case closed. Quit nit-pickin’ leading to unnecessary turmoil.
Agreed.
Great post Prateek, but I didn’t see a question in it.
I’m not sure what you mean by marked, but there are a few of us who have no issue with the Friedman approach.
This is very true, and we find that sometimes people who are big on natural rights and aren’t theists, aren’t very strong on economics, and so don’t have exposure to value free analysis.
I’d rather say, he doesn’t do a wrong thing. I like Friedman’s approach because I tire of the moralizing, and it is more consistent with my morality which trends towards panarchy/polycentricity to stay value free (accommodating of others’ values) than to become dogmatic and narrow the way Rand did. Ultimately, she became a caricature of her own ideas. I think all of the moralizing philosophers risk this.
stop by. drop links whenever you want to.[:P]
thanks and visit again
No, it’s just as wrong. The state has no monopoly on power. Power is shared between state employees, ‘ordinary’ criminals and the mafia. And ordinary people have power too, except that they usually don’t choose to use it.
and power is simply energy, kinetic or potential. I have the power to move a tree stump and actually enacted such the other day.
Competition only makes sense if people believe in property rights to begin with. Otherwise the sort of competition you get is called ‘war’.
The idea of competing providers of security was directed to people who already believed in individual rights and a minimal state to protect them. The idea is that competition in the protection of individual rights is better than monopoly in the protection of individual rights..
Panarchy on the other hand is sheer nonsense.
It would be nice if some people here didn’t use the word ‘anarchy’ in a completely ambiguous fashion…
I agree. I’ve posted before that I think a better term would be pan-theory, but such a theory in this context is always based on the axiom of property rights. The ethical and economical argument on how best to deal with scarcity, ie. property. There is no argument or law on these issues that don’t boil down different interpretations of property rights. So how best to deal with scarcity lead to such numerous theories on property from communism to libertarian views, etc…
How so?