Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because in your dreamland, there will be dozens of courts filled with volunteer judges who will hand down completely impartial judgments, while people will cheerfully comply with the courts, and life will be a bed of roses.
I'm getting a little worn out and my responses are getting lazy, so I wanted to just take a step back and say a couple things.
This is obviously a big debate, and people have been arguing about how much government is necessary in society for a long time. I like putting my ideas to the test, because I want to find the truth, not just be the winner of the argument. That's how I ended up where I am in the first place. So, thanks for the challenge.
My mindset is to find any possible way that we can live without initiating force against each other and taking things from each other without consent. It's kind of tough to be a single person with the answers to every problem that might arise, but I've been doing my best. I just think people should spend more time legitimately looking for alternatives instead of looking for any way it won't work.
Technically, the burden of proof is on the people saying it's necessary to use force against peaceful people, not the ones trying to be left alone. It's like a religious debate...the burden would be on the believer to show that God exists, not on the unbeliever to prove he doesn't exist. If I make a positive claim, it's on me to back it up. If I say we should stop doing something evil, the burden is on others to prove why we need to do it.
I'm not saying that makes me correct...not at all...but I wanted to throw that out there. I usually take the defensive when I should be asking for the evidence of statism being the best way to go, and history kind of leaves a lot to be desired. I forget the numbers, but just in the last century alone, governments have murdered an unbelievable number of people, not even including war, in comparison to a significantly lower number killed by private citizens. I don't think people realize how bad it is because we're just used to it. History also shows a pattern of moving political power to a more local or individual level from the centralized powers of the past (democracy, Magna Carta, the experiment called the United States, etc.) and we've become better off for it. Just a few things to keep in mind.
Well it is hard to prove if an anarcho-capitalist community would work because it is just theory right now. It is in no way able to be tested without creating one to try it out and flesh it out. In a vacuum, any form of government even none, could work and does work. In practice, we see the true evils as oppose to perceived evils in any system. To date, there is no libertarian societies, let alone anarcho-capitalistic societies to show the true flaws as oppose to perceived flaws. The flaws can be exactly what we say, ones you thought of but don't state or ones neither of us have even considered. Don't get me wrong, no system will be fully perfect and we may see overlap of evils and goods.
It is hard to prove it is necessary to use force against people because no two cases are entirely similar.
Some may have vast similarities, but they may small differences that change things. What makes force necessary in one case, may not be relevant to another and yet another may make it unwarranted. One example is a man making money off of exploiting a youth they have guardianship over in non-violent means for money. It would be wrong to free them as it is not forced as is voluntary slavery but a similar case of involuntary or forced slavery is. All three are fairly similar but only one truly breaks the NAP, thus making force needed.
In a similar sense those looking at the issue may have differing ideas on what breaks the NAP. For some pollution is breaking the NAP, to others it isn't. To some noise pollution is breaking the NAP, to others it isn't. There's a lot of grey area in some cases that hurt the effectiveness of the NAP. The NAP is core to libertarianism and thus a problem.
These two are issues that make it hard to prove if the use of force is warranted. It's in no way cut and dry based on similar cases AND how people view the same exact case. There is no true general consensus to make it work. The legal system has cut and dry crimes and it is up to a jury to decide if it fits or not and if the person did it under mental duress to the point of prolonged imparedness or not. Libertarianism don't really have that.
This seems to me to be the core of your belief. Let me offer something for you to ponder.
If we can live without initiating force against each other, then we wouldn't need firearms.
Do you think that we don't need firearms?
I'm not saying we can ever stop people from doing it, so no, but right now we're doing it on a massive scale through the state...it just doesn't "feel" like we are, because everyone treats politics as if it's somehow different. The core of my belief is that force and violence (including threats) should only be socially acceptable if used in self-defense or the defense of others.
If we're trying to come to an agreement and I suddenly say "I'm done reasoning" and throw you on the ground and hold you down until you submit to my way, that's wrong. If you use force back to defend yourself, that's fine, and probably encouraged.
So my issue is that people use the state as a way to FORCE their opinions on others instead of reasoning and being respectful, as almost everyone does in their daily lives. People (including myself until it was actually explained to me) want the state/government to be the thing that gives them societal permission to do things they normally would feel ashamed of doing themselves. For example, taxing to fund a government program is not voluntary. They aren't asking you to donate money and respecting your decision if you decline...they're telling you to give them money or you'll be locked in a cage or possibly killed by police if you resist.
One thing I heard and liked was "People think I'm against government because I trust people too much, but I'm against it because I DONT trust them. I don't trust giving another human being permission to dictate my life by force." And the other one I like is when people say that we need government because people can be bad, but that applies to the people running the government as well, right? We're just giving them special rights and powers that make it even easier to do bad things and get away with it.
I'm not saying we can ever stop people from doing it, so no, but right now we're doing it on a massive scale through the state...it just doesn't "feel" like we are, because everyone treats politics as if it's somehow different. The core of my belief is that force and violence (including threats) should only be socially acceptable if used in self-defense or the defense of others.
If we're trying to come to an agreement and I suddenly say "I'm done reasoning" and throw you on the ground and hold you down until you submit to my way, that's wrong. If you use force back to defend yourself, that's fine, and probably encouraged.
It appears that we agree that because some people resort to force to achieve their ends, then force cannot be removed from the environment - the concept of a pacifistic anarcho-capitalistic society seems to me to founder upon the fact that there are those who will resort to force to achieve those ends.
I crossed a field and someone came running out with a gun and tried to dictate where I could go. They called this forcing me to go where they want me to go under force property.
It appears that we agree that because some people resort to force to achieve their ends, then force cannot be removed from the environment - the concept of a pacifistic anarcho-capitalistic society seems to me to founder upon the fact that there are those who will resort to force to achieve those ends.
It's far from pacifist. I'd even say that it's necessary to be able to use force to defend yourself and others. What I meant is that people already think it's wrong to initiate force and to steal in their own lives, but then they'll excuse it when done by the government. Larken Rose calls it the belief in authority...the belief that one person can have the right to rule over another, or that a person is allowed to do things that regular people can't do because they're "authority".
So yeah, people will still initiate force and steal, but we can at least stop acting like certain people have the right to do it because they're government.
It's far from pacifist. I'd even say that it's necessary to be able to use force to defend yourself and others. What I meant is that people already think it's wrong to initiate force and to steal in their own lives, but then they'll excuse it when done by the government. Larken Rose calls it the belief in authority...the belief that one person can have the right to rule over another, or that a person is allowed to do things that regular people can't do because they're "authority".
So yeah, people will still initiate force and steal, but we can at least stop acting like certain people have the right to do it because they're government.
If you believe that government steals from you, I think you need to check yourself. I don't get why people think it is theft. The only thing that could be theft is when cops seize property from you. Taxes aren't something I like paying but without them, I honestly fear what the U.S. and state of Arizona would be like. Even with them, Arizona is an anti-welfare state with people hating on welfare queens sucking on government's teet. I'm a lot of more pragmatic than the anarcho-capitalists we see on this thread and others in this forum and realize volunteerism could bring out charity in people but not enough for the problems we have.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
