The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

#602
#602
At the very core of AnCap is freedom. In all truth and candor, you own yourself, and no one has a right to rule you.
We can show you this stuff, but you won't understand it, until you sit down and figure it out for yourself. I was a minarchist for years until I figured out that anything our ruling class in government can do, the free market and human cooperation can do much, much better, and cheaper.
Anarchy is at the heart of our everyday lives, it's all around us, embrace it.

Here is a reading list you may find helpful.

Another reading list for anarcho-capitalists | On the Mark

Merry Christmas to you all.
 
#603
#603
n_huffhines said:
But it's not financially advantageous. If you refuse to pay, my protection agency will put you in a humane work camp until your debt is worked off. :good!:
Click to expand...
And my protection agency will shoot your skaggy azz because I have more money than you, and I can hire better trained guys with bigger more powerful weapons. Pizz on your "contract" and your protection agency.

But let's say that your guys take me to their "camp" What if I refuse to work? (which I would) They gonna starve me? Beat me? I won't work for your guys. If they starve me that is murder and even in this fantasy world you have built, I am pretty sure that is worse than contract breach. So in essence, it is more financially advantageous for you to write off the loss incurred on the contract breach rather than give me 3 hots and a cot in your welfare state... er... "camp".
 
Last edited:
#604
#604
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
At the very core of AnCap is freedom. In all truth and candor, you own yourself, and no one has a right to rule you.
We can show you this stuff, but you won't understand it, until you sit down and figure it out for yourself. I was a minarchist for years until I figured out that anything our ruling class in government can do, the free market and human cooperation can do much, much better, and cheaper.
Anarchy is at the heart of our everyday lives, it's all around us, embrace it.

Here is a reading list you may find helpful.

Another reading list for anarcho-capitalists | On the Mark

Merry Christmas to you all.
Click to expand...

Translation of bold: "we have a monopoly on the truth and you are beneath us until you believe exactly as we do"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#606
#606
MG1968 said:
Translation of bold: "we have a monopoly on the truth and you are beneath us until you believe exactly as we do"
Click to expand...

It's a lot better than "we know better than you and since we have a monopoly on force you have to do what we say."
 
#607
#607
SpaceCoastVol said:
And my protection agency will shoot your skaggy azz because I have more money than you, and I can hire better trained guys with bigger more powerful weapons. Pizz on your "contract" and your protection agency.

But let's say that your guys take me to their "camp" What if I refuse to work? (which I would) They gonna starve me? Beat me? I won't work for your guys. If they starve me that is murder and even in this fantasy world you have built, I am pretty sure that is worse than contract breach. So in essence, it is more financially advantageous for you to write off the loss incurred on the contract breach rather than give me 3 hots and a cot in your welfare state... er... "camp".
Click to expand...

Your protection agency is not going to risk their business for 1 customer.

Death is worse than breach of contract. It's also a made up scenario. We live in a reality where death is acceptable if someone sells loose cigarettes. What is So terrifying about a system where people actually pay their debts?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#609
#609
n_huffhines said:
Your protection agency is not going to risk their business for 1 customer.

Death is worse than breach of contract. It's also a made up scenario. We live in a reality where death is acceptable if someone sells loose cigarettes. What is So terrifying about a system where people actually pay their debts?
Click to expand...

Remember the 1880's? All that would happen is these security companies would get bigger than buy out other security companies whom are worse off. Then they would buy another company until there were no companies left to buy. Think of Rockefeller's oil refineries.
 
#610
#610
n_huffhines said:
Your protection agency is not going to risk their business for 1 customer.

Death is worse than breach of contract. It's also a made up scenario. We live in a reality where death is acceptable if someone sells loose cigarettes. What is So terrifying about a system where people actually pay their debts?
Click to expand...

That is where u are wrong....Garner didn't die from selling loosies....He died bc he couldn't handle hardly any physical exertion due to his poor physical condition that he was in. That's like saying it was acceptable that basketball killed Hank Gathers when in reality he died from a heart ailment.

Several won't be willing to pay their debts and they will have to get physical to force them to comply....Also in poor communities, no one will be paying for security companies.....what will happen in those communities?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#612
#612
Burger said:
Remember the 1880's? All that would happen is these security companies would get bigger than buy out other security companies whom are worse off. Then they would buy another company until there were no companies left to buy. Think of Rockefeller's oil refineries.
Click to expand...

We've already talked about this in this thread. Rockefeller is one of the most important people in world history. Everyone's standard of living skyrocketed because of him. Not a good argument against an unfettered market
 
#613
#613
volbeast33 said:
That is where u are wrong....Garner didn't die from selling loosies....He died bc he couldn't handle hardly any physical exertion due to his poor physical condition that he was in. That's like saying it was acceptable that basketball killed Hank Gathers when in reality he died from a heart ailment.

Several won't be willing to pay their debts and they will have to get physical to force them to comply....Also in poor communities, no one will be paying for security companies.....what will happen in those communities?
Click to expand...

The first paragraph makes me think responding to the 2nd paragraph is a complete waste of time.
 
#615
#615
Comparing Garner to Gathers is completely disingenuous and does not allow for a serious conversation. Maybe you want a serious conversation, but I thought you were trolling.

If you want to legitimately talk it out, maybe you can tell me why you assume people in poor communities won't pay?

And a follow-up question, do you support the welfare state?
 
Last edited:
#616
#616
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
At the very core of AnCap is freedom. In all truth and candor, you own yourself, and no one has a right to rule you.
Click to expand...

So isn't the above completely contrary to this:

n_huffhines said:
If you refuse to pay, my protection agency will put you in a humane work camp until your debt is worked off.
Click to expand...

Exactly how is forced labor to pay off a debt not indentured servitude at best? Or slavery at worst? Would keeping a person in a "humane work camp" not be contrary to the basic principle of freedom you listed above? How can An-Cap speak of freedom when one of the most ardent supporters of the principle on here makes comments they would use their protection agency to take away your freedom and force you to work off your debt?

I don't want to be there, hence my freedom is now limited because of a debt I owed. I am forced to work in your humane camp against my will. I have no freedom of choice to leave until my commitment is fulfilled. And yet this is "freedom?" Is this the true An-Cap?

And don't insult my intelligence by saying "you can't comprehend it." I understand this principle very well. You accused me the other day of attacking your beliefs. I have done no such thing. I just look at this land of unicorns and pots of gold you have and see something that just will not work. No matter which way you attempt to sell it, this entire principle is something that will eventually move towards tyranny. These "protection agencies" will eventually figure out just how powerful they are and will install a feudal system in place of your beloved An-Cap. You can say "well, we'll just stop paying them and go to someone else." Perhaps, but those with the guns will not go hungry. I can guarantee that. And the strongest will survive. The Mexicans have a saying of Plata O Plomo. Lead or silver. And it applies just as much in your An-Cap as it would anywhere else on the planet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#617
#617
Yeah, you own yourself but you don't have a right to someone else's labor/property. If you make a contract with someone, that obligates you to pay. That's basic.
 
#618
#618
n_huffhines said:
This is absurd. Tell that to people in Auschwitz.
Click to expand...

The people in Auschwitz were never forced to become something other than Jewish. Despite all the physical torture they were put through, survivors maintained their faith.

What you and Defendthishouse demand is ideological unanimity. "Believe as we do or you don't matter" is what I keep hearing from both of you. And, like BartW in the global warming thread, anybody who threatens your orthodoxy is marginalized as uneducated rabble.
 
#619
#619
MG1968 said:
The people in Auschwitz were never forced to become something other than Jewish. Despite all the physical torture they were put through, survivors maintained their faith.

What you and Defendthishouse demand is ideological unanimity. "Believe as we do or you don't matter" is what I keep hearing from both of you. And, like BartW in the global warming thread, anybody who threatens your orthodoxy is marginalized as uneducated rabble.
Click to expand...

I particularly couldn't care less what you, or anyone else believes. But, the current system you advocate for is a system of violence that only knows one thing, force.

I'll ask you a question,

Can someone delegate to someone else a right that he himself didn't have to begin with? Or, to put it another way, if someone does NOT have the moral right to commit a certain act, can he give someone ELSE the moral right to commit that act?
 
#620
#620
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Yeah, you own yourself but you don't have a right to someone else's labor/property. If you make a contract with someone, that obligates you to pay. That's basic.
Click to expand...

Obligates you to pay sure. But sending in the "protection forces" to pull someone in to work against their will doesn't exactly seem like freedom. I'm pretty certain such actions would lead to armed confrontation as well.
 
#621
#621
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I particularly couldn't care less what you, or anyone else believes. But, the current system you advocate for is a system of violence that only knows one thing, force.

I'll ask you a question,

Can someone delegate to someone else a right that he himself didn't have to begin with? Or, to put it another way, if someone does NOT have the moral right to commit a certain act, can he give someone ELSE the moral right to commit that act?
Click to expand...

first off, when have I ever advocated for the current system? I don't believe anarchy is the solution. That doesn't mean I believe that a police state is preferable.

as for your question, no and no.
 
#622
#622
MG1968 said:
first off, when have I ever advocated for the current system? I don't believe anarchy is the solution. That doesn't mean I believe that a police state is preferable.

as for your question, no and no.
Click to expand...

But, you do advocate for a government right?

So, I'll ask you a few more questions.

Can TWO people delegate to a third person a right that neither of the first two have? In other words, can two people, neither of whom had the moral right to commit a certain act, give to someone else the moral right to commit that act?

Can ANY number of people delegate to any person or persons a right which NONE of the people possessed to begin with? In other words, can any number of people who do NOT have the moral right to commit a certain act, give to someone else the moral right to commit that act?
 
#623
#623
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
But, you do advocate for a government right?

So, I'll ask you a few more questions.

Can TWO people delegate to a third person a right that neither of the first two have? In other words, can two people, neither of whom had the moral right to commit a certain act, give to someone else the moral right to commit that act?

Can ANY number of people delegate to any person or persons a right which NONE of the people possessed to begin with? In other words, can any number of people who do NOT have the moral right to commit a certain act, give to someone else the moral right to commit that act?
Click to expand...

I advocate for the government that was established by the US Constitution, not the bloated, corrupt, resource consuming leviathan that it has become.

I'm not going to bother answering any more of your hypothetical questions.

Let's deal with reality for a moment. Can you or Huff name one instance of an anarchic society that has succeeded?
 
#624
#624
MG1968 said:
I advocate for the government that was established by the US Constitution, not the bloated, corrupt, resource consuming leviathan that it has become.

I'm not going to bother answering any more of your hypothetical questions.

Let's deal with reality for a moment. Can you or Huff name one instance of an anarchic society that has succeeded?
Click to expand...

So you refuse to answer my questions, but I'm to answer yours? Fine.


This is from a Google search.
Yes, more or less. Since both anarchism and capitalism are theoretical models, it's hard to claim that any real situation is 100% stateless and 100% free market capitalist. But there are various societies that were, for all intents and purposes, stateless, and societies that implemented anarcho-capitalist "programs" such as private law. Here is a short list:
Celtic Ireland (650-1650)
In Celtic Irish society, the courts and the law were largely libertarian, and operated within a purely state-less manner. This society persisted in this libertarian path for roughly a thousand years until its brutal conquest by England in the seventeenth century. And, in contrast to many similarly functioning primitive tribes (such as the Ibos in West Africa, and many European tribes), preconquest Ireland was not in any sense a "primitive" society: it was a highly complex society that was, for centuries, the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe. A leading authority on ancient Irish law wrote, "There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justice... There was no trace of State-administered justice."
Icelandic Commonwealth (930 to 1262)
David Friedman has studied the legal system of this culture, and observes:
The legal and political institutions of Iceland from the tenth to the thirteenth centuries ... are of interest for two reasons. First, they are relatively well documented; the sagas were written by people who had lived under that set of institutions and provide a detailed inside view of their workings. Legal conflicts were of great interest to the medieval Icelanders: Njal, the eponymous hero of the most famous of the sagas, is not a warrior but a lawyer--"so skilled in law that no one was considered his equal." In the action of the sagas, law cases play as central a role as battles.
Second, medieval Icelandic institutions have several peculiar and interesting characteristics; they might almost have been invented by a mad economist to test the lengths to which market systems could supplant government in its most fundamental functions. Killing was a civil offense resulting in a fine paid to the survivors of the victim. Laws were made by a "parliament," seats in which were a marketable commodity. Enforcement of law was entirely a private affair. And yet these extraordinary institutions survived for over three hundred years, and the society in which they survived appears to have been in many ways an attractive one . Its citizens were, by medieval standards, free; differences in status based on rank or sex were relatively small; and its literary, output in relation to its size has been compared, with some justice, to that of Athens. - David Friedman, Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: A Historical Case

Rhode Island (1636-1648)
Religious dissenter Roger Williams, after being run out of theocratic puritan Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636, founded Providence, Rhode Island. Unlike the brutal Puritans, he scrupulously purchased land from local indians for his settlement. In political beliefs, Williams was close to the Levellers of England. He describes Rhode Island local "government" as follows: "The masters of families have ordinarily met once a fortnight and consulted about our common peace, watch and plenty; and mutual consent have finished all matters of speed and pace." While Roger Williams was not explicitly anarchist, another Rhode Islander was: Anne Hutchinson. Anne and her followers emigrated to Rhode Island in 1638. They bought Aquidneck Island from the Indians, and founded the town of Pocasset (now Portsmouth.) Another "Rogue Island" libertarian was Samuell Gorton. He and his followers were accused of being an "anarchists." Governor Winthrop of Massachusetts Bay called Gorton a "man not fit to live upon the face of the earth," Gorton and his followers were forced in late 1642 to found an entirely new settlement of their own: Shawomet (later Warwick). In the words of Gorton, for over five years the settlement "lived peaceably together, desiring and endeavoring to do wrong to no man, neither English nor Indian, ending all our differences in a neighborly and loving way of arbitration, mutually chosen amongst us."Pf
Albemarle (1640's-1663)
The coastal area north of Albemarle Sound in what is now northeastern North Carolina had a quasi-anarchistic society in the mid-17th century. Officially a part of the Virginia colony, in fact it was independent. It was a haven for political and religious refugees, such as Quakers and dissident Presbyterians. The libertarian society ended in 1663, when the King of England granted Carolina to eight feudal proprietors backed by military.Pf
Holy Experiment (Quaker) Pennsylvania (1681-1690)
When William Penn left his Quaker colony in Pennsylvania, the people stopped paying quitrent, and any semblance of formal government evaporated. The Quakers treated Indians with respect, bought land from them voluntarily, and had even representation of Indians and Whites on juries. According to Voltaire, the Shackamaxon treaty was "the only treaty between Indians and Christians that was never sworn to and that was never broken." The Quakers refused to provide any assistance to New England's Indian wars. Penn's attempt to impose government by appointing John Blackwell, a non-Quaker military man, as governor failed miserably.Pf
The American "Not so Wild" West - various locations
Most law for settlements in the American West was established long before US government agents arrived. Property law was generally defined by local custom and/or agreement among the settlers. Mining associations established orderly mining claims, cattlemen's associations handled property rights on the plains, local "regulators" and private citizens provided enforcement. Yet most movie-watching people are surprised to learn that crime rates were lower in the West than the "civilized" East. Cf: The American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not so Wild, Wild, West
Laissez Faire City
A more recent unsuccessful attempt to start a new country, LFC attempted to lease a hundred square miles of land from a third-world State in order to start an anarcho-capitalist society, taking Hong Kong as a guide. When that fell through, some members moved to Costa Rica, where the State is relatively weak, there is no standing army, and what little State interference there can usually be "bought off." There remain small libertarian communities in the central valley (Curridabat) and on the Pacific coast (Nosara).

Now, if you'll be so kind. Please answer my previous questions.
 
#625
#625
Your questions are pointless because you and I both know the answer. If I believe in government, I believe that law enforcement is a necessary part of that government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top