I have noticed that anarchy seems popular here. I can’t really understand it. I think…it’s silly to imagine a world totally without government. Now, a world with minimum government I can imagine.
Again, note the difference between intent and opportunity.
Like what, war? I see State armies have solved that problem… err, wait, I thought they war was necessary.
I’m sure those people are all very happy that Hitler gave them the opportunity to recieve that honor.
-
I’m trying to say that odds are Hitler would have killed as many Jews as he could with or without a war. We can’t go back and replay everything to find out, but I think given his whole mission statement in Mein Kampf and how he explicitly talks about doing it…I think he would’ve done the death camps 9 times out of 10.
-
I was thinking more of like private wars. So like warfare where you’ve got factions against other factions, probably on home turf. Which would be scary. Not that that couldn’t happen with a public army where maybe the president declares martial law or something (which is certainly possible, don’t get me wrong) it just seems like private military lends itself to in state fighting in a way a public army does not. But let’s be honest here, armies are a dangerous thing, no matter who controls them. But they are necessary, in my opinion.
-
I can’t be sure how all those men felt about dying in that war. I’m sure a lot of them were unhappy about it. And I’m not trying to say I’m happy they died I’m just saying I think they died for the right things. But ultimately, that’s not my decision, just my opinion.
Next time you come across it think about this.
Everyone of us, at some point, felt the same way as you about the state vs voluntary society. We’ve internalized all the same pop culture, government educated myths about what government is and should be.
You are in the mainstream. Every objection you present, we have already considered and rejected.
But if you are open to new ideas, you will thoroughly enjoy your time here.
Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty by Murray Rothbard.
Lol, if there’s one word I WOULD NOT use to describe myself it would be: mainstream. I just don’t believe human beings are capable of living TOTALLY without rules. But I do think they are capable of living mostly without rules. If you think about it on a spectrum 1 being anarchy 10 being total state control, I’m like a 2 or 3. So mainstream is probably 6 to 8.
Civil War
I’d say the opposite.
James Madison, himself not even an anti-federalist, didn’t think so.
A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
Ding-Ding
Takes Jon to the red corner
You’re hitting him hard Rock! EYE OF THE TIGER SON!
Then why do you keep using the mainstream definition of anarchy as lawlessness?
It is government that is lawless, in that it holds it self above the law. Libertarianism is simply the belief that everyone has natural rights, and that no one, not even politicians, judges, policemen, tax collecors and soldiers are entitled to violate them.
Government is an assault on natural property, if you wish to defend property you must oppose government.
-
Civil wars seem…more likely with private armies. Because ya know…one group says “this is mine” and another group says “no it’s mine” and now you’ve got the seeds for a private war.
-
We’ll just have to agree to disagree here.
-
I think you make some really good points. That’s a good quote. But the problem with your position is that it’s idealistic. I’m a realist. I think what the quote doesn’t say is how a state without an army is very vulnerable to a state that has an army.
You still need some means of validating property. I mean…that’s what most of the law is about: who owns what. And you’re right, government has a tendency to overextend itself…but it doesn’t ALWAYS over extend itself. I didn’t join this website because I think governments shouldn’t exist. I joined this website because I wanted arguments for why LESS government was a good thing. I think you’ve taken it too far. And I think you’ve forgotten that if you can’t protect your property, it won’t be yours for long.
Well we do have natural law/rights.
It also occurs to me that our difference of opinion may be rooted in our different take on human nature. Which might lead one man to say “every man is capable of totally and completely governing himself” and another might say “every man is mostly capable of governing himself, but not completely.”
Yes, but those laws and rights require enforcement. A law without enforcement is no law at all.
Was Hitler more capable of killing Jews as a private citizen or as Dictator?
True, states are very vulnerable to invasion. A decentralized, or better yet stateless, region is much harder to conquer.
Your opinion leaves open arbitary definition. Like Jon pointed out, why is the military acceptable for taxation but not food, shelter, clothes? Certainly you feel these are as necessary to an army are they not?
And as Jon pointed out, law can be established without the state. The forums are well aware of such a matter.
There you are Jacob. A member named Sage put this list together and I think you will find it very interesting and a compelling argument as to the unnecessary nature of the state apparatus.
That’s where the Natural Rights come in.
You’ve yet to show how subjugating yourself makes you more secure in property.
-
I dunno, I guess it was easier for him as dictator.
-
So let’s say you’ve got your decentralized region. And I’ve got my state and my army. So basically, I can run you guys off your land anytime I want and take whatever you’ve produced and make it mine. And then I wait until you guys recollect or whatever. And then I run you guys off again. Eventually all the land is mine and now it’s checkmate. I mean…it would be like if we played chess and all you had were pawns to start out with and I had a full set of pieces. The odds are I’ll just run you around and eventually destroy you.
I think you’re right, I think they can be. But eventually you will need a means of arbitration. So you’ll set up a court.