What will happen with anarchy?

Karma gets people in the end, truth doesn’t always win in the short term but the progress towards liberty is inevitable. Don’t be burned out by the defeatist pessimism of some. Keep radical liberty in your heart and libertarian ideals in your head. Remain ever an optimist and do not be faint of heart.

Hence why I say publish articles and provide lectures, the battlefield of ideas is not here. It’s in the lecture halls of academia. Its in the printing press rooms of national news providers. Get involved in writing articles for LRC and the Mises Daily. Do you see what I mean?

What a joke. This is bad historicism at best. By its very definition, the modern state has crippled the spread of world capitalism.

And here you’ve redefined ‘cooperation’ to mean ‘acting in a way in which I favor’. There is absolutely nothing ‘cooperative’ about an extortion racket.

I said no lies.

That’s simply a Rothbardian dream scenario; sorry, but respect for individual rights, and the resulting economic progress only comes with government - please actually read authors like Hayek.

I am not arguing to authority, I am simply elucidating the conclusions of your condemnation.

I am a classical liberal in the vein of Mises, Hayek, Acton, and J.S. Mill, the necessity of a limited state is one of the tenets of classical liberalism - read J.S. Mill’s On Liberty if you don’t believe me.

You narrowly define libertarianism as communion with the cult of Rothbard, and anarcho-capitalism.

Good thing nonsense like yours can only go defended on the internet. [:O]

There was a lot of content in that paragraph; sadly, Juan, you are too thick to understand it. In fact, the “content-free paragraph” completely answered your question, but, alas, you actually have to be willing to learn from history rather than attack yourself to a priori reasoning to understand the ramifications: there has never been civilization without some form of arbiter of justice, and government has been with civilization since its conception, playing an absolutely integral role in its first development.

Someone really needs to read Mises’ Theory, and History, and Popper’s The Poverty of Historicism, and The Open Society and Its Enemies. What I am discussing is not historicism, you are utterly mistaken for nowhere do I elucidate a theory of history. You, banned, are yet another ignorant, internet intellectual who thinks he understands a subject he does not even know.

Cooperation cannot exist outside of the realm of law; there are some form of antisocial behavior that simply need to be punished. I do not see behavior that is not conductive to social cooperation like rape, and murder to be social cooperation; rather, I see them as behaviors that must be punished.

Please read authors like Herbert Spencer and Frederic Bastiat. You might learn what classical liberalism is. Or maybe not.

At any rate, I suggest you stop pretending that any challenge to your morally bankrupt conservatism is ‘rothbardian’ heresy. It seems that anything you don’t like is rothbardian…

Too bad it’s a wrong tenet.

Read Molinari if you don’t believe me.

No Lam, you are too morally corrupt to admit that the state doesn’t create justice but actually destroys it.

@ laminustacitus Isn’t a limited state just as unlikely as you claim an anarchist society is? We certainly can’t find any limited governments that remained that way for any significant periods of time.

Both of them would agree with me that a small state is necessary for justice to flourish so I don’t understand the big fuss you make, neither of them were anarchists by any stretch of the term.

Not according to On Liberty.

J.S. Mill is a far more important figure in classical liberalism than Molinari; in fact, he was practically unknown before Rothbard resurrected him.

Justice isn’t created, it is only cultivated.

Would anarchy even cultivate justice?

If anarchy could not cultivate justice, how could government?

What can government do, that individuals cannot?

Would you even answer my question?

None of them were conservatives and/or moral nihilists like Hayek or Mises. Also, Herbert Spencer believed in the right to ignore the state. And if you read Bastiat’s La Loi you won’t find any claim that the state is necessary.

You think invoking wrong defenses or a wrong idea will turn a wrong idea into a correct one ?

Yeah, and according to Mises, Mill is important as the first classical liberal to stop being a classical liberal and embrace social democracy, go figure. He also was a british imperialist if I’m not mistaken.

Yes, but it’s not cultivated by the state. Also, I though that natural rights didn’t exist - unless your religious delusions were true - which they are not.

I don’t know why he keeps bringing it up. it’s just ad nauseam at this point, since ladyattis has debunked it in a few of his videos.

Frankly, Juan, I don’t know how to take your points seriously if you cannot be bothered to read the first couple of pages from a book before making absolute claims about it. Especially, after accusing me of intellectual dishonesty earlier today.

Lam dear, I read La Loi a couple of times, in English and French. Your quotes don’t show that Bastiat says that the state is necessary - he only says that the ‘collective’ self-defense that the state provides derives from individual self-defense. And, probably you don’t get it, but if you follow that premise to its logical conclusion you get no-government.

Furthermore, Bastiat makes it very clear that rights predate government…

One does not need to assert that the state is necessary for it to be understood that one’s theory is that the state is necessary, and the quotation I give from Bastiat is a solid endorsement of the state.

According to Bastiat, rights come from God, which is the position that I myself endorse.

No it is not. And a good deal of La Loi (which you probably didn’t read) is devoted to mock the idea that legislators, including people like montesquieu, have any sort of authority.

So what. Bastiat is more of an enlightenment’s deist than a deluded theist like you. And that point is irrelevant at any rate.

So you are a natural rights theorist. Interesting.