U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 10:58 AM
 
Location: SGV
24,895 posts, read 9,691,589 times
Reputation: 9743

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BornintheSprings View Post
He seems like a reasonable philosopher. He even supported a modest social safety net it seems libertarians have drifted far from the likes of Hayek and Friedman. Friedman also supported a universal basic income.
I have come to one conclusion that is pretty set in my mind although I am open to an alternative if someone can provide it.

You either believe in the social contract or not. There is no halfway. There is no little bit pregnant. There is no big State or little State. A State is a State.

It's either

A. An individual is born into a social contract with the State that currently claims ownership over the geographic area in which he was born. At birth he cedes his natural rights to that State and that entity may give privileges back to the individual at its discretion over the course of his lifetime. We know this takes place, in theory, because if an individual doesn't have natural rights and they come from the State then that means the State came before man (statists need to stick to the chicken or the egg paradigm here because I'm quite certain man invented State and not vice versa).

OR

B. An individual is born free from all contractual obligations and can only alter his natural rights (which are tied to non-aggression and private property rights because those can only exist if someone doesn't have a higher claim on your life) in some form via a true contract (requires that both parties are free from duress and have the cognitive ability to enter into an agreement).

YOU MUST CHOOSE.

Well over 99% of the population believe in A. It's a tough starting point because I can't see any moral or logical consistency in it and if I'm being brutally honest and harsh with Group A I would say you are suffering from some form of delusion or brainwashing.

It's the lone time in a man's life that a contract is agreed to without the consent that you folks use in every other aspect of your life. I don't get to randomly pick a lone time in my life that I can rob or rape or kill another individual. There is no "one free pass" except when it comes to Group A's logic and morality.

Last edited by No_Recess; Yesterday at 11:12 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 11:08 AM
 
Location: SGV
24,895 posts, read 9,691,589 times
Reputation: 9743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
You're attempting to build a strawman, and none of the libertarian/AnCap/anarchist folks here are falling for it.

The straw man is as follows:
  • The assumption that Hayek and Friedman are the total basis of libertarian thought and that to be libertarian, one must adhere to the ideas of Hayek and Milton in totality.
  • The assumption that there are "How To Be Libertarian, Volume 1" type textbooks, and there is a grading scale for how well one follows the rules therein.
  • The assumption that libertarianism has a strict set of specific policy rules and guidelines, and adherence is absolutely binary, as in straying from one rule or the other negates your status in the club or something.
  • Finally, that your definition of how ALL libertarians think is what is applied to Hayek and Friedman, and you alone get to judge how well your definition of libertarians holds up to those two specific writers across all of their writing.
The only specifics to individualist, voluntaryist, minimal/zero state thinking are
  • property rights are absolute
  • You own you
  • Non-Aggression Principle
  • All associations are voluntary
  • No collective can have rights/powers that the individuals within said collective do not possess.
After that, there are all manner of discussion spaces, shades of grey on implementation and function, normative vs descriptive, ethical and moral dilemmas (aplenty), etc. I know that at least No_Recess and myself have frequently pointed out that properly consistent logic in the ideological and philosophical world is really tough. No easy logical/philosophical row to hoe, this whole anarchist thing. I've never argued otherwise. But at no point have any of us said "just do what Hayek and Freidman say, and it's all good."

If I was going to use specific writers as the How 2 Libertarian gurus, I'd start with Rothbard, Mises and Spooner. Rothbard in particular because he actually titled a book "For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto." If Marx/Hegel get to be the guidebook for communism because of their manifesto, we'll let Rothbard's manifesto be a decent starting point for books to read for a clue on at least the basic, generalized thinking.
There are so many fine points after you accept the fact that non-aggression and private property are the natural rights of an individual.

When is private property properly privatized?

When is private property abandoned?

How far can a private organization pursue restitution from an offending party of a contract without violating his natural rights?

And on and on.

It's a shame we still have over 99% of the population agreeing not to fish in a lake after sliding out of a vagina because honestly...I could use a few extra heads in the mix when it comes to hashing out such details.

But yeah, Trump is racist and AOC is the lone crook in Washington and blah blah blah.

The happiest slaves that have ever lived...here and now. Welcome to the show.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 11:15 AM
 
6,951 posts, read 2,539,407 times
Reputation: 3789
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
The happiest slaves that have ever lived...here and now. Welcome to the show.
And at least every other week, one of them has to start one of these "why the individualists are wrong" threads, employing at least a couple logical fallacies as the basis of their latest attempt t convince me that you can indeed be a "little pregnant."

Not only are they happy as larks to be enslaved, they spend time on a routine basis trying to convince me why I would be as happy as they were I simply to acquiesce to my enslavement. The plantation, you see, runs better when none of us uppity field slaves foment/sow discord among the other shackled.

Last edited by Volobjectitarian; Yesterday at 12:05 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 11:55 AM
 
Location: Manchester NH
9,650 posts, read 2,669,483 times
Reputation: 2565
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
No, you need to think harder about subjects (if they are important to you).

That's because no statist has ever come up with an answer to to one of their problems that didn't involve me.

I only wish to live and die by my own decisions based on non-aggression and respect for private property rights. That way when I decide to do something it only impacts me and not you.
Everything you do affects other people, indirectly or directly, even without intent.

But lets put that aside for a second.

What I think you want (and correct me if I'm wrong) is a society where individuals are free to pursue their own economic and social desires without mandatory infractions.

That is the basis of people's beliefs: what they want for society; its not about the means, but the end. Communists for example can hold ridged beliefs that they don't sway from because they're communists. Neo-liberals and free market economists can do the same.

As can ancaps.

But the more interesting question is why you believe those things. On one hand it can be easy to conform to a specific ideology to give oneself a clear world view. I think the world is more complicated than what one ideology can offer, but it is comforting having an easy lens to view politics.

For example a left wing anarchist (ancom) I know after buying into the politics adjusted some other of his previously held beliefs to fit in to the broader principles that guide anarcho-communists.

He was not Politically correct and pretty critical of left wing social values. Left wing anarchists are very socially liberal, they believe in non-traditional families, gay/lgbtq culture, and female professionalism as a way of eliminating capitalist hierarchies. Said person reformed their social opinions to fit in with the group.

But in that way it is hard to critically analyze positions individually and by their merits. It could be that someone thinks one position tied to another improves that positions merits moreso than it would by itself but I don't know.

The other and I think more relevant point for yourself is what you want. There was a CATO institute fellow on Fox Business I was listening to once.

He talks about freedom (meaning free markets to him) being the greatest force in reducing poverty and increasing prosperity. We can argue the truth of that matter or the definition of prosperity/poverty, but that's not the point.

The point is why that person believes in what he does. He made wealth act as an argument for freedom (or his definition of it). But does he support free markets because it increases the wealth of people, or does he support wealth because that is the consequence of free people competing in a deregulated market place?


So my question for you is what do you want? Is it like I said, a society where individuals are freest to pursue their own desires?

And what would that entail? Increases in development are what lead to greater organization and regulation. When more roads and housing are developed, and the population increases, property value goes up making access to the market harder. Lenders gain leverage over economic spending, and businesses end up regulating the usage of a finite amount of capital to keep the dense population sustainable (or state governance).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy

Its like New Hampshire vs. New Jersey. People in NH think that their conservative/libertarian tax policy makes it a better place to live.

But a lot of the benefits NH (less need of a social safety net, less traffic, cheaper land prices which lead to easier access to capital by small businesses, lower debt, etc.) has over NJ comes from the fact that it is less developed and less encumbered by large businesses over its economy (which is a consequence of higher development and population).


So say your perfected policies (total deregulation and actions of governance over a population) lead to lenders and equity firms buying up capital assets, off shore costs and labor in a business, and transfer debt on that new business they buy.

The labor market their goes down under for low wage workers, they become dependent on debt to afford basic needs, and they don't have the power to pursue their own social and economic desires as they have no ability to gain ownership of capital.


You can say that won't happen, but that is not my point. Everything above was voluntary by your definition, so what if it does happen?

That means your vision won't manifest itself in the way you may want. People are more dependent on a large source of power, and they don't have space or capital to build their own roads or homes.

What is more important to you, eliminating the state and having a free market society, or increasing individual freedom and entrepreneurship (capitalism)?

What do you believe, because it matters.


Edit: I add something about Lycurgus. He eliminated gold and silver currency (replaced by iron bars). The idea was to eliminate inequality since wealth couldn't be accumulated. People in Sparta couldn't carry iron bars around in excess, creating a sort of equal limit to the wealth of people. Lycurgus also devalued the iron bar so that the average Spartan would need a lot of them to achieve basic wealth.

In fact many of the anarchist societies you talk about in Pagan Europe functioned on the basis of bartering and proto-money (cow bells, coins, etc.) that limited the accumulation of wealth through primitive consequences.

The creation of any system, monetary or otherwise, affects society regardless of whether it is government policy or not.

Policy is not a position ancaps can disregard as they support some policy one way or another.

Last edited by Winterfall8324; Yesterday at 12:23 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:48 PM
 
Location: SGV
24,895 posts, read 9,691,589 times
Reputation: 9743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
And at least every other week, one of them has to start one of these "why the individualists are wrong" threads, employing at least a couple logical fallacies as the basis of their latest attempt t convince me that you can indeed be a "little pregnant."

Not only are they happy as larks to be enslaved, they spend time on a routine basis trying to convince me why I would be as happy as they were I simply to acquiesce to my enslavement. The plantation, you see, runs better when none of us uppity field slaves foment/sow discord among the other shackled.
It's the State indoctrination centers and corporate media at work. They are anarchists in their daily lives and would espouse those ideals in all facets of living until we get to "society" and "government". Then none of those principles (non-aggression, private property rights, freedom of movement, freedom of association) all of sudden can't be upheld but more than that...are illogical and immoral.

Weird, wild stuff...to quote Carson.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:32 PM
 
Location: SGV
24,895 posts, read 9,691,589 times
Reputation: 9743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Everything you do affects other people, indirectly or directly, even without intent.

But lets put that aside for a second.
Intent is everything. You nonchalantly discounting that part is step #1 in the process of statism. Since X may happen due to Y an involuntary collective must ban/regulate X.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
What I think you want (and correct me if I'm wrong) is a society where individuals are free to pursue their own economic and social desires without mandatory infractions.
Nope. I don't want anything. Well, I want one thing. I'll get to that later.

I am simply saying that man is born free from contractual obligation to any State and with the natural rights of self-ownership which is manifested through the right of movement, right of free association, right of property, and right of self-defense.

If you infringe on that right of the individual, either as yourself or representing a collective, you've now lost your natural rights and may suffer consequences by the victim.

What I really want is an admission. I want an admission by any statist, including yourself, that what I've just said is morally and logically impermeable. If not, you will have to produce evidence to the contrary.

If the State came before man, prove it.

If rights exist for a collective (regardless if it's voluntary or involuntary) that are not divisible down to the man who enumerated them to said collective...prove it.

If consent into the social contract can be given via birth or physically being in a specific geographic area then how come consent for other things cannot?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
That is the basis of people's beliefs: what they want for society; its not about the means, but the end. Communists for example can hold ridged beliefs that they don't sway from because they're communists. Neo-liberals and free market economists can do the same.
I don't know what you mean by any of this. Society is a social construct that has no rights. The State did not exist before man. Man bore the State. If you can prove otherwise, show me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
But the more interesting question is why you believe those things. On one hand it can be easy to conform to a specific ideology to give oneself a clear world view. I think the world is more complicated than what one ideology can offer, but it is comforting having an easy lens to view politics.
I'm not believing in anything. I'm using logical consistency to arrive at a working conclusion. No anarchist was born this way. You reason and reason...then reason some more.

That's the interesting part about all this that statists just don't understand: I'm not telling you this with pride or prejudice or even comfort. I'm telling you this from reason which has not been successfully debunked by a statist.

Do I like the fact that people will suffer and die or that scarcity is a reality? Uh, no. But I ain't God. And no matter how hard I vote, no matter how much mental gymnastics I try to pull on my brain I can't deviate from
the framework without moral and logical consistency going down the drain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
For example a left wing anarchist (ancom) I know after buying into the politics adjusted some other of his previously held beliefs to fit in to the broader principles that guide anarcho-communists.
I don't know what this means. You're either a statist or an anarchist. Again, not my rules.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
He was not Politically correct and pretty critical of left wing social values. Left wing anarchists are very socially liberal, they believe in non-traditional families, gay/lgbtq culture, and female professionalism as a way of eliminating capitalist hierarchies. Said person reformed their social opinions to fit in with the group.
And this means what exactly? No clue of its relevance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
But in that way it is hard to critically analyze positions individually and by their merits. It could be that someone thinks one position tied to another improves that positions merits moreso than it would by itself but I don't know.
I don't have positions. I have principles (two whole whopping principles) that I came to understand. I accept them without pride or prejudice and they mostly cause discomfort. I don't even like them in practice a lot of the time. I've definitely lost more money than I've gained in my consulting work for having accepted the principles that I do. I wouldn't make much sense though lying to others. First, that would be fraud hence immoral and illogical. Secondly, I don't care enough to do so. And finally, I'm not smart enough to facilitate such a charade especially in a world full of statists who have no principles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
The other and I think more relevant point for yourself is what you want. There was a CATO institute fellow on Fox Business I was listening to once.
I don't want anything. I just went over that. I'm telling you what is. It's no great revelation nor is going to save the world. It just is. I don't know how else to say it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
So my question for you is what do you want? Is it like I said, a society where individuals are freest to pursue their own desires?

And what would that entail? Increases in development are what lead to greater organization and regulation. When more roads and housing are developed, and the population increases, property value goes up making access to the market harder. Lenders gain leverage over economic spending, and businesses end up regulating the usage of a finite amount of capital to keep the dense population sustainable (or state governance).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy

Its like New Hampshire vs. New Jersey. People in NH think that their conservative/libertarian tax policy makes it a better place to live.

But a lot of the benefits NH (less need of a social safety net, less traffic, cheaper land prices which lead to easier access to capital by small businesses, lower debt, etc.) has over NJ comes from the fact that it is less developed and less encumbered by large businesses over its economy (which is a consequence of higher development and population).


So say your perfected policies (total deregulation and actions of governance over a population) lead to lenders and equity firms buying up capital assets, off shore costs and labor in a business, and transfer debt on that new business they buy.

The labor market their goes down under for low wage workers, they become dependent on debt to afford basic needs, and they don't have the power to pursue their own social and economic desires as they have no ability to gain ownership of capital.


You can say that won't happen, but that is not my point. Everything above was voluntary by your definition, so what if it does happen?

That means your vision won't manifest itself in the way you may want. People are more dependent on a large source of power, and they don't have space or capital to build their own roads or homes.

What is more important to you, eliminating the state and having a free market society, or increasing individual freedom and entrepreneurship (capitalism)?

What do you believe, because it matters.


Edit: I add something about Lycurgus. He eliminated gold and silver currency (replaced by iron bars). The idea was to eliminate inequality since wealth couldn't be accumulated. People in Sparta couldn't carry iron bars around in excess, creating a sort of equal limit to the wealth of people. Lycurgus also devalued the iron bar so that the average Spartan would need a lot of them to achieve basic wealth.

In fact many of the anarchist societies you talk about in Pagan Europe functioned on the basis of bartering and proto-money (cow bells, coins, etc.) that limited the accumulation of wealth through primitive consequences.

The creation of any system, monetary or otherwise, affects society regardless of whether it is government policy or not.

Policy is not a position ancaps can disregard as they support some policy one way or another.
The rest of this is totally unintersting, unrelated and factually wrong. Either prove to me that State spawned man, a social contract exists, and a collective can exercise rights that it received from the individuals within it yet no individual within it has those rights on his own or you're wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:37 PM
 
Location: New York
1,422 posts, read 276,239 times
Reputation: 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by BornintheSprings View Post
He seems like a reasonable philosopher. He even supported a modest social safety net it seems libertarians have drifted far from the likes of Hayek and Friedman. Friedman also supported a universal basic income.
BS!

Libertarians have not drifted from anything!

The DEMS and PUBS sure have!

The Freedom Caucus is the only thing keeping the pubs honest. Otherwise, all politicians have become crony shills!


Look at how the completely racist freshman in the Dem party have taken control. The moderates are caving. The party is lost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:57 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
9,650 posts, read 2,669,483 times
Reputation: 2565
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
I have come to one conclusion that is pretty set in my mind although I am open to an alternative if someone can provide it.

You either believe in the social contract or not. There is no halfway. There is no little bit pregnant. There is no big State or little State. A State is a State.

It's either

A. An individual is born into a social contract with the State that currently claims ownership over the geographic area in which he was born. At birth he cedes his natural rights to that State and that entity may give privileges back to the individual at its discretion over the course of his lifetime. We know this takes place, in theory, because if an individual doesn't have natural rights and they come from the State then that means the State came before man (statists need to stick to the chicken or the egg paradigm here because I'm quite certain man invented State and not vice versa).

OR

B. An individual is born free from all contractual obligations and can only alter his natural rights (which are tied to non-aggression and private property rights because those can only exist if someone doesn't have a higher claim on your life) in some form via a true contract (requires that both parties are free from duress and have the cognitive ability to enter into an agreement).

YOU MUST CHOOSE.

Well over 99% of the population believe in A. It's a tough starting point because I can't see any moral or logical consistency in it and if I'm being brutally honest and harsh with Group A I would say you are suffering from some form of delusion or brainwashing.

It's the lone time in a man's life that a contract is agreed to without the consent that you folks use in every other aspect of your life. I don't get to randomly pick a lone time in my life that I can rob or rape or kill another individual. There is no "one free pass" except when it comes to Group A's logic and morality.
The concept of governance arose as a way to organize a group of people to some mutual benefit.

All states control their population by the needs of a productive society; meaning disorganization that affects the productivity of others must be done away with. Even bandits since 3000 BCE had some form of communication and organization.

Every group needs at the very least basic rule sets to follow; even in your ideal world productivity is promoted by mutual acceptance of property, trade value, and disproportionate action.

In fact anarcho-capitalists will still have to determine judgement for aggression as has been the case human society since the beginning of time.

If trespassing on property is a crime, what is the proportional response? And there is no easy answer to this question; even if you have an answer you will still have to deal with the fact there is no universal answer. The decision is made by some agreed upon set of rules or else the property sets ancaps already consider rule of law disintegrate.

So if one person thinks trespassing is equivalent to killing, or at least that being the max punishment, then that is a privileged that must be extended to all property owners.

Or does the individual forfeit their rights on another property, and can be kidnapped and tortured at will? In that case property is just a mini state, and property owners are the governors of that land.

And if it is the former that is still a rule set that is universally constructed by Human society, not natural law. Anarchism then becomes society with determined rule sets.

The one way pure none formulated life can be assessed is in a total primitive state. And the further society develops, the more freedoms, 'voluntarily' or not that will by consequence of economic transactions be depleted.

But I'll ask the question I made in my last post again: If deregulating society negatively impacts an individuals freedom to obtain capital and pursue their social/economic desires would you still support it.

The question is what do you want for society, is it the means or the end that make you an ancap.

If its the means then you could face a society of abject slaves (reliant on debt, and succumbed to price and property control) just for the principles of anarcho-capitalism.

If its the end then you should always consider the best policy to pursue that goal and critically look at the consequences of each as you are not obedient to one ideology, but in pursuit of an equilibrium.

In that case you could consider the affects of economic development and transaction on individual ownership, and the population growth made by industrialization and medical advancements.

You also have to ask what freedom means to you. If it is consumer choice or if it is ownership rights of an individual and then look at what policies can best make this outcome reality in the practical sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:16 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
9,650 posts, read 2,669,483 times
Reputation: 2565
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
Intent is everything. You nonchalantly discounting that part is step #1 in the process of statism. Since X may happen due to Y an involuntary collective must ban/regulate X.



Nope. I don't want anything. Well, I want one thing. I'll get to that later.

I am simply saying that man is born free from contractual obligation to any State and with the natural rights of self-ownership which is manifested through the right of movement, right of free association, right of property, and right of self-defense.

If you infringe on that right of the individual, either as yourself or representing a collective, you've now lost your natural rights and may suffer consequences by the victim.

What I really want is an admission. I want an admission by any statist, including yourself, that what I've just said is morally and logically impermeable. If not, you will have to produce evidence to the contrary.

If the State came before man, prove it.

If rights exist for a collective (regardless if it's voluntary or involuntary) that are not divisible down to the man who enumerated them to said collective...prove it.

If consent into the social contract can be given via birth or physically being in a specific geographic area then how come consent for other things cannot?



I don't know what you mean by any of this. Society is a social construct that has no rights. The State did not exist before man. Man bore the State. If you can prove otherwise, show me.



I'm not believing in anything. I'm using logical consistency to arrive at a working conclusion. No anarchist was born this way. You reason and reason...then reason some more.

That's the interesting part about all this that statists just don't understand: I'm not telling you this with pride or prejudice or even comfort. I'm telling you this from reason which has not been successfully debunked by a statist.

Do I like the fact that people will suffer and die or that scarcity is a reality? Uh, no. But I ain't God. And no matter how hard I vote, no matter how much mental gymnastics I try to pull on my brain I can't deviate from
the framework without moral and logical consistency going down the drain.



I don't know what this means. You're either a statist or an anarchist. Again, not my rules.



And this means what exactly? No clue of its relevance.



I don't have positions. I have principles (two whole whopping principles) that I came to understand. I accept them without pride or prejudice and they mostly cause discomfort. I don't even like them in practice a lot of the time. I've definitely lost more money than I've gained in my consulting work for having accepted the principles that I do. I wouldn't make much sense though lying to others. First, that would be fraud hence immoral and illogical. Secondly, I don't care enough to do so. And finally, I'm not smart enough to facilitate such a charade especially in a world full of statists who have no principles.



I don't want anything. I just went over that. I'm telling you what is. It's no great revelation nor is going to save the world. It just is. I don't know how else to say it.





The rest of this is totally unintersting, unrelated and factually wrong. Either prove to me that State spawned man, a social contract exists, and a collective can exercise rights that it received from the individuals within it yet no individual within it has those rights on his own or you're wrong.









Intent does not matter in your case. If the actions of one individually negatively affect the individual rights of another, your concept of inalienable rights for individuals is no longer salable.

For example the judgment of aggressive behavior that you say happens with intent does in consequence withdraw that persons individual rights you deem naturally for consequence.

A voluntary example is debt, if by consequence of property prices and capital ownership an individual has no privilege to gain land or provide productive labor, are they not an abject slave?

And if so how does that fit with your ideology. I know you said the last part is "unintersting, unrelated and factually wrong" but I disagree.

In fact it is very important. Why are you an anarchist/capitalist? Its an important question because it determines the affects of what you want.

And you do want something, that is why you care about state enforcement. And anarcho-capitalism is a society like any other:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
The concept of governance arose as a way to organize a group of people to some mutual benefit.

All states control their population by the needs of a productive society; meaning disorganization that affects the productivity of others must be done away with. Even bandits since 3000 BCE had some form of communication and organization.

Every group needs at the very least basic rule sets to follow; even in your ideal world productivity is promoted by mutual acceptance of property, trade value, and disproportionate action.

In fact anarcho-capitalists will still have to determine judgement for aggression as has been the case human society since the beginning of time.

If trespassing on property is a crime, what is the proportional response? And there is no easy answer to this question; even if you have an answer you will still have to deal with the fact there is no universal answer. The decision is made by some agreed upon set of rules or else the property sets ancaps already consider rule of law disintegrate.

So if one person thinks trespassing is equivalent to killing, or at least that being the max punishment, then that is a privileged that must be extended to all property owners.

Or does the individual forfeit their rights on another property, and can be kidnapped and tortured at will? In that case property is just a mini state, and property owners are the governors of that land.

And if it is the former that is still a rule set that is universally constructed by Human society, not natural law. Anarchism then becomes society with determined rule sets.
So the question is are you an anarchist because you believe property owners should manage economic transactions, or are you an anarchist because you want the freest possible individual.

I think it is the latter in which case you have to consider what freedom means to you and the best policy to pursue it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:04 PM
 
Location: Madison, WI
4,824 posts, read 1,635,827 times
Reputation: 1060
I think Rothbard, Mises, and maybe Bastiat were better...but Hayek had a lot of good things to say.

Quote:
“The argument for liberty is not an argument against organization, which is one of the most powerful tools human reason can employ, but an argument against all exclusive, privileged, monopolistic organization, against the use of coercion to prevent others from doing better.”

“Emergencies” have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have eroded.”

“To act on behalf of a group seems to free people of many of the moral restraints which control their behaviour as individuals within the group.”

“The chief difference [between totalitarian and free countries] is that only the totalitarians appear clearly to know how they want to achieve that result, while the free world has only its past achievements to show, being by its very nature unable to offer any detailed "plan" for further growth.”

"Coercion is evil precisely because it thus eliminates an individual as a thinking and valuing person and makes him a bare tool in the achievement of the ends of another."

"“If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.”

"“The principle that the end justifies the means is in individualist ethics regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule.”

Last edited by T0103E; Yesterday at 08:14 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top