I am not deterred in the slightest. But you’ve confirmed my suspicion: you are most certainly a coward.
By the way, I edited my previous post. You might like to read the new version - if you’re not too afraid, that is.
Centinel, it’s been a couple of days since I posted a response to you. How about you stop the mental masturbation and start having actual discussions. But I’ll respond here too:
True.
True.
And I thought you were about to lay down a bunch of premises, but no logic from you. Statists are in power through aggression. Unfortunately, most people do not realize that the state is illegitimate in principal. They realize something is wrong when it is another country (Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, etc) but not when it is in their own homeland. There was a time when people did realize this, at least in the Western World - the revolutions in various western countries during the last 200-300 years. Unfortunately, now people do not realize that those in power are there illegitimately.
This should have been number 3.
And? Is this not by definition? I suppose it is a premise, and it is true. However, this does neglect the fact that anarcho-capitalism did not arise as a philosophy (or whatever you want to call it) until 1849 (Gustave de Molinari). Let’s be serious though, that may be the earliest the idea was seen, but it hasn’t been until the last century that the idea of anarcho-capitalism has taken hold with some people. I will say it again: SOME people. Very few. It is has more adherents now, but it is still a very small percentage of America’s population, nevermind the world’s.
What is pacifism to you? I think to most libertarians on this forum, it is the non-initiation of violence. If we take this definition, I do not see how you have provided a truthful premise.
As I have now previously stated, anarcho-capitalists cannot be in power. Also, anarcho-capitalism has only arisen in the last 100 years. There are few adherents in the population. It is not like there has been some 1,000 year struggle between statists and anti-statists. This is a new thing.
Ah, yes, this again. I will actually repost our little conversation about this nonsense:
It seems I did not make progress with you after all. My mistake. This is a dishonest premise. Not only do you equivocate on the word “coersive”, you do not believe that there should be a violent revolution against the American state. So, why do you insist on anarcho-capitalists making war against the state? We clearly have no intention, and you have no intention…so why bring it up?
This is a dishonest statement. This implies that there has been a struggle between statists and anti-statists for all of recorded history. This could not be more further from the truth.
GotLucky, Centinel has been equivocating over the meanings of “coercion” and “coercive” since he first came here. Despite repeated requests by me and (I believe) others that he stop doing so, he hasn’t. I’ve concluded that he’s arguing from a fundamentally dishonest basis and that he’s probably fully aware of this (i.e. he’s the one who’s trolling).
Oh don’t I know it. But it’s great practice for me!
Fair enough.
Besides, we have a duty to save all the lurkers from the likes of him! And there are all the new posters from the other community, so we better get crackin’.
Tell me, do you consider the military to be a statist institution?
Earlier you wrote: “I agree that government must be nimble to handle emergencies dealing with national defense.” Presumably “nimble” means “efficient”. I can’t imagine that an inefficient government would nevertheless be nimble in any situation.
So we can amend your statements above to assert that the purpose of a “constitutional federal republic” is precisely to be inefficient - except when it comes to “emergencies dealing with national defense”. In that case, the “constitutional federal republic” is to be very efficient indeed. Hence, this type of political arrangement is a prison to “potential statists” except those in the military. Of course, this latter amended statement presumes that your answer to my above question is yes. I’m predicting that that’s precisely what your answer will be.
If so, then we can follow through with demolishing your other claims. Does a “constitutional federal republic” intentionally decentralize, balance, limit, and make transparent armed force in society? Not if there’s a huge, glaring exception for the military. Under this arrangement, the military would simply grow in power relative to the other institutions of government, as it’s not bound by the alleged inefficiencies imposed upon the rest of the government under “constitutional federal republicanism”. Indeed, the limit of growth for the military would be to the point where it becomes equivalent to the entire government. Wouldn’t you call that “military absolutism”? I think I would.
On second thought, it doesn’t matter which way you answer my question. (I’m still curious about your answer, though.) By providing a huge, glaring exception for the military in terms of keeping it efficient - so that the government can be “nimble” when handling “emergencies dealing with national defense”, “potential statists” would presumably flock to the one part of the government that isn’t imprisoned by the inefficiencies of “constitutional federal republicanism”. So your prison is no prison at all - it has a huge, gaping whole in the wall.
Centinel,
I think you would find any of martin van Creveld writings very interesting, especially his ideas on the effect of nuclear powers on warfare and states themselves.
Creveld on Iranian nukes (starts at 1:50)
A prison with a big, gaping hole in the wall?
Didn’t they already make a movie about The A Team? 
Statists are in power through aggression.-- gotlucky
Now your starting to get it.
It is irrelevent whether you believe a system is moral, legitimate, or best serves the public good — society is controlled by those actors whose most aggressively pursue their own self-interests, NOT those whose self-interests most benefit society.
Let’s be serious though, that may be the earliest the idea was seen, but it hasn’t been until the last century that the idea of anarcho-capitalism has taken hold with some people. I will say it again: SOME people. Very few. It is has more adherents now, but it is still a very small percentage of America’s population, nevermind the world’s. – gotlucky
Ancap society is rejected by elites and mainstream in science, academia, politics, business, arts, et al – moreover, it is an unconvincing argument that it will ever be accepted when even Mises, Hayek, Jefferson, Madison, et al rejected it:
Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists… Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- Mises, Omnipotent Government
Anarchists shallow-minded, dull, and suffer from illusions and self-deception. – Mises, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science, 98
Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. MIses Liberalism, 36
There are people who call government an evil, although a necessary evil. However, what is needed in order to attain a definite end must not be called an evil … Government may even be called the most beneficial of all earthly institutions as without it no peaceful human cooperation, no civilization and no moral life would be possible. –Mises, Economic Freedom and Interventionism
Now if you can’t convince societal elites and Mises on the efficacy of ancap society, how in the heck are you going to convince the masses ?
In addition, I have provided unchallenge arguments that ancap society would be violent when the following conditions were met:
- peaceful exchange is not possible
- peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of armed force to acquire a valued resource
- a net gain will be realized by acquisition of a valued resource by using armed force.
Indeed, this dynamic will benefit ancap society (at least until a hegemon cartel of PMA formed) because it will force reallocation of valued resources from inefficient and unprofitable managers we were unable to fund a sufficient level of security to efficient and profitable managers thereby releasing resources that were denied to the marketplace by bad management. Society will welcome this development because it will increase productivity, supply of scarce goods and services, and lower prices.
Moreover, I have provided numerous unchallenged arguments that ancap society would quickly devolve into absolutism because PMA would form cooperative cartels to reduce conflict and costs to consumers, once this threshold is cross, then all bets are off – you have a defacto territorial monopoly on armed force and in short order absolutism. Unless you discount the adage – power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
@ got lucky
The AMerican Constitutional Federal Republic has been responsible for creating more freedom, wealth, and peace then any society in history. Indeed, our political and civil freedoms have improved markedly since 1776. In addition, our example to the world has been copied resulting in an increase from 1 liberal democracy in 1776 – to over 100 today.
Why would I want to dismantle that in favor of an ancap fantasy that would quickly devolve into territorial monopolies of armed force and despotism – which has always been the case with anarchism.
Of course, I have repeatedly acknowledged that economic shortcomings in our present political arrangement that requires change through our Constitutional mechanisms – hence an economic Bill of Rights to fine tune the system.
But under no circumstances do I advocate armed force to undermine our Constitutional system since it is a net positive to political and civil freedoms. Indeed, we still have more economic freedoms than virtually all other peoples throughout history. INdeed, coercion or soft tyranny is used to plunder my wealth and labor – but it is done via the shortcomings in our system. Importantly, we have the means to correct these shortcomings by leveraging the system itself — as proof our political and civil BIll of Rights has resulted in improvements in these rights over time. Hence, we need to amend the COnstitution through peaceful means to protect our economic rights as vigorously as our political and civil rights have been protected.
In addition, I have challenged ancaps to a friendly wager regarding the peaceful dispostition that liberal democracies have toward each other — my $1000 bet that the 50 higher order democracies that I have listed will not have a war in the next ten years – amusingly no ancap has met this challenge.
Lastly, it is an amusing paradox that you claim on one hand that liberal democracy and coercive means are a failure, yet at the same time you acknowledge that this duopoly has power over you.
Centinel, answer my question. Do you think the military is a statist institution? Yes or no?
Either you didn’t read this post of mine in another thread or you’re outright lying here. Which is it?
If need be, I’ll gladly repost my argument from that post in this thread as well.
@ DarylLloydDavis
I disagree on your emphasis on govenment bureaucrats and regulatory powers based on my argument that government is always self-serving. Hence the problems that you depend on government to solve will actually get worse. Also, elected representatives are more accountable to the people then appointed bureaucrats in the departments of state, homeland security, defense, et al.
Indeed, can you name a government department or agency that solved the problem it was created to solve and close-up shop a success? SImilarly, can you name a government managed enterprise that is more efficient and productive than a private sector enterprise in the same industry ?
Moreover, the more power government has to regulate and collect taxes the more it is susciptable to corruption from cronies in the private and public sector. Indeed, much or our wealth is wasted in political machinations designed to curry favor from government officials instead of satisfying consumer preferences with increased productivity.
hence, my goal for government is not to solve problems, it is to create a political system that assembles all of these corrupt, self-serving statists in a central location where they can argue and compete among themselves for what little power we give them in a venue that we can monitor and attentuate as needed.
In sum, the best way to reduce government corruption is to reduce the amount of power that government possesses. At present, government has so much tax and regulatory power that it has become a market for corruption – you remove this power, you remove the incentives for corrupt, inefficient and wasteful actors in the private and public sectors to lobby and bribe government officials. Then these corrupt and inefficient cronies would have to gain wealth and power by satisfying consumer preferences in a free, voluntary, and competitive marketplace.
Nonetheless, the only thing rational, independent thinking and objective folks agree on is that we need substantive change in governance – and many of the changes you recommend are compelling, my favorite:
Usage fees levied upon foreign governments for involvement of United States military personnel, equipment or weaponry in operations outside the territory of the United States, at the request of said governments, which would otherwise be the responsibility of any sovereign nation to itself; (Obviously this provision enables the military to recover its costs for all overseas military bases from the countries within which they are situated, peacetime or otherwise. And it covers operations in which the U.S. shoulders the burden for nations that piggyback off of our role as the world’s police force.) – DLD
I’ll check out your book. I think that coming to the table with a plan for substantive change is half the battle. Hence, what needs to be done is
-
Outline potential changes in the Constitution
-
submit this document to the public for evaluation
-
redesign
-
gain approval and finalize
-
assemble 5 million citizens on the mall
-
nail our Constitution to the front door of the white house, supreme court, and capital.
I’m pretty sure almost everyone on this forum recognizes that statists are in power through aggression. The rest of your statement is only partially true. The state does control many aspects of society, however, most people find ways to get around the system that is in place. Interestingly, the more the state tries to control society, the less things actually go the way the state wants.
This is dishonest and false. I answered this in the other thread we were conversing in. For your benefit, I will repost what I said:
Mises, Hayek, Jefferson, and Madison never encountered anarcho-capitalism. Quite simply, they never talked about it. Therefore, they could never have refuted it.
Societal elites are largely socialists. However, most in academia do not even know what anarcho-capitalism even is. Most people do not know. How can someone be convinced of something they never heard of? The masses are a different story. The masses can be convinced of a lot of things. After all, look at the masses for the Arab Spring. They are markedly different than the masses during the Russian revolution of the early 1900’s. They are markedly different than the masses during the American revolution. Look at the masses of the American revolution versus the masses of America today. And of course, look at the masses in Japan during WWII versus today. The masses can believe a lot of different things. What they believe can change.
Who in this society is supposed to become violent when peaceful exchange is not possible? Please clarify.
When is violence less costly than peaceful exchange? It is true that a thief may find stealing to be less costly then working, but the last I checked, the American state is in massive debt largely because of the 10 years of war going on right now. Please clarify.
Please clarify your last statement. A net gain? To whom? The person stolen from loses. Does it only matter for the winning side? Please clarify.
For your benefit, I suggest you read Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections by Roderick T. Long.
You still have not clarified what you believe to be the difference between economic and civil rights. I will repost my question to you:
In addition to these questions. Is conscription a violation of economic or civil rights? Which is worse? To live 60 years as a slave on a plantation, or to live 18 years free and die at 19 as a slave to the state? They are both so horrible I can’t imagine which is worse.
So why do you keep bringing it up?
See above.
False and dishonest. I have never stated that liberal democracy and coercive means are a failure. A failure at what? Are you trying to trick me into saying they are a success? A success at what?
Centinel
I disagree on your emphasis on govenment bureaucrats and regulatory powers based on my argument that government is always self-serving.
I disagree with your disagreement, Sir. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress, which in many cases are indispensable to the operations of any government. Because Congress and its 535 members could not possibly handle all of these functions themselves, they delegated them to bureaucratic agencies. But perhaps you could devise a means of handing these functions over to the private sector without chaos ensuing.
Also, elected representatives are more accountable to the people then appointed bureaucrats in the departments of state, homeland security, defense, et al.
This is due to their having to seek eventual re-election–to their fearing for their jobs at the hands of voters. And yet I have added even more fear to the lives of appointed bureaucrats; as they may now be voted out of their jobs every year, along with elected politicians.
Indeed, can you name a government department or agency that solved the problem it was created to solve and close-up shop a success?
They aren’t entrusted with solving, so much as regulating. How does one solve the national forest problem; or the international trade/monetary problem? And I believe you previously criticized a provision of mine for effectively ending most regulation by making regulators liable for their decisions. That reflected your correct grasp of my inclination toward freeing the markets to operate more efficiently.
SImilarly, can you name a government managed enterprise that is more efficient and productive than a private sector enterprise in the same industry ?
It does very little more efficiently. But some things it does because the private market, with its private interests, would have no incentive to be fair to all–like investigating other businesses’ safety standards. Then there’s the military, law enforcement, infrastructure, etc.
the more power government has to regulate and collect taxes the more it is susciptable to corruption from cronies in the private and public sector. Indeed, much or our wealth is wasted in political machinations designed to curry favor from government officials instead of satisfying consumer preferences with increased productivity.
I agree. Every step I took, every provision, particularly abolishing Congress, was a step toward making government smaller and more accountable to the People. Reread the first part of the provision about regulations, and ask yourself how one could justify favoritism for cronies. I suspect that you would prefer a document establishing nothing but a military and police force, little else; but I knew that such a work would be too radical too soon. The People have to learn to govern.
Then these corrupt and inefficient cronies would have to gain wealth and power by satisfying consumer preferences in a free, voluntary, and competitive marketplace.
In a direct democracy, where the People make the laws, lobbyists must convince them, not politicians, that this or that law must be passed. How do they bribe the voters? And for every misleading info campaign there will be an equal and opposite one. So the People will just have to learn enough to decide for themselves.
Remember the flipside of giving a Treasury Secretary unique responsibility for government regulation of the money supply is that if the right one gets in there–like a Ron Paul–then he has the power to single-handedly make major changes in the system, shrinking it, reforming it, etc.–if he can convince the President, the Attorney General, and 3/5 of the Governors to stand by and let him. What if the opposite happens? At some point you have to roll the dice. But a treasury department is necessary, if funding government is necessary. And right now we’re all losing our shirts.
I’ll check out your book. I think that coming to the table with a plan for substantive change is half the battle.
Thank you. Let me know what questions you have. Some of it requires explanation; but everything is there for a reason.
- nail our Constitution to the front door of the white house, supreme court, and capital.
See you there.
Are you kidding dude !!!
You bastardize a quote I cited from Mises by cutting and pasting in your version and you call my posts dishonest and false?!
Moreover, not all of the quotes I cited were critical of anarchism (either Left or Right), indeed several quotes spoke of government positively:
Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists… Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government
There are people who call government an evil, although a necessary evil. However, what is needed in order to attain a definite end must not be called an evil … Government may even be called the most beneficial of all earthly institutions as without it no peaceful human cooperation, no civilization and no moral life would be possible. --Mses, Economic Freedom and Interventionism
Mises was about as close to anarchism as you can get without calling himself one. – gotlucky !!!
This is like stating that a warm corpse is STILL ALIVE because it is about as close as you can get to living ?!!
Absurd.
Who in this society is supposed to become violent when peaceful exchange is not possible? Please clarify. – gotlucky
Private military agencies and their investors.
When is violence less costly than peaceful exchange? – gotlucky
When peaceful exchange is not possible because the owner refuses to sell or wants a ridiculously overpriced fee for his resources or property. Say a group of environmentalists own the Bakken reserve and refuse to sell it to preserve the pristine beauty of the region. WIthout a doubt, coercion will be used to acquire this resource since these reserves are vital to a prosperous energy market. Another example would be a group of socialist workers take control of the Panama Canal and refuse to allow ships to pass through. At some point a profit seeking PMA will take this resource by force and restore ocean going traffic.
IN these cases, the citizenry will welcome and benefit from these actions because mismanaged resources have been transferred to economically more efficient actors — thereby benefitting the public with lower prices and increased supply.
It is true that a thief may find stealing to be less costly then working, but the last I checked, the American state is in massive debt largely because of the 10 years of war going on right now. – gotlucky
The war is a fraction of the debt. Medicare, Medicaid, social security and the interest on the debt represent the bulk of the debt. MOreover, war spending is not open ended. Nonetheless, the US wastes money on warmaking precisely because it is a liberal democracy hence we spend hundreds of billions of dollars in advanced technology specifically designed to minimize casualties on BOTH sides.
In contrast, you can rest assured that PMA’s in anarchist society would use dumb iron bombs to destroy enemy targets since these are far less expensive and accomplish the same objective. Indeed, anarchist militaries would be far more cost effective and generate far more lethality per cost than either statist armies or liberal democracies.
A net gain? To whom? The person stolen from loses. Does it only matter for the winning side? Please clarify. – gotlucky
If a despotic Marxist regime is removed from power and control over vast resources by force then in virtually all cases this would benefit the aggressor and society at large. No objective, rational and independent thinking analyst would assert that removing the absolutists from power in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba, et al and replacing them with a capitalist system is damaging or results in a net loss in peace, prosperity stability and freedom.
Indeed, removing statist from power in the US and inserting a more capitalist system would represent a marked improvement in growth, standards of living, and life expectancy in the long run.
Thanks for the source from LOng I will read it tonight if I get the chance.