The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

#626
#626
MG1968 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ok then, I'll assume your answer is no to both, correct?

So if that's the case....

Does any king, or president, or parliament, or congress, or any other 'government' or ruling body, or any state agent or law enforcer, at any level, have the moral right to do anything which YOU do not have the moral right to do?

If your answer is yes, can you not see the glaring contradiction?
 
#627
#627
I don't have a "moral right" to lay and collect taxes. Government does, but I don't see a contradiction there.

I don't have a "moral right" to kill indiscriminately. Neither does government, so there is no contradiction.

I do have a "moral right" to self defense. So does government, so there is no contradiction.

I do not have a "moral right" to enslave another human. Neither does government, so there is no contradiction.

I suppose I could go on, but what would be the point?
 
#628
#628
MG1968 said:
I don't have a "moral right" to lay and collect taxes. Government does, but I don't see a contradiction there.

I don't have a "moral right" to kill indiscriminately. Neither does government, so there is no contradiction.

I do have a "moral right" to self defense. So does government, so there is no contradiction.

I do not have a "moral right" to enslave another human. Neither does government, so there is no contradiction.

I suppose I could go on, but what would be the point?
Click to expand...

HOW and FROM WHOM would those in power have acquired such rights, since you already conceded the fact that people cannot delegate rights they don't have? Or, to further elaborate: "If the average person has no right to "tax" his neighbor (demanding money under threat of force), or otherwise arbitrarily regulate and control what his neighbor may or may not do, then how could those in "government" have acquired the right to do such things?
 
#629
#629
Grand Vol said:
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?
Click to expand...

How is it different from breaking the social contract and going to prison? I'd rather go to a humane work camp to pay off a debt I agreed to, rather than go to prison for not paying taxes (something I never agreed to).
 
#630
#630
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 don't demand that at all. I don't have to "believe" in government to coexist in this current system, and the same thing is true of ancap. What makes you think I demand idealogical unanimity? I have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm very respectful of people who make reasoned arguments against me. Look how I talk to BHam. I don't think I get that same respect in return (not talking about BHam), so this comment is very confusing to me.
 
#631
#631
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
HOW and FROM WHOM would those in power have acquired such rights, since you already conceded the fact that people cannot delegate rights they don't have? Or, to further elaborate: "If the average person has no right to "tax" his neighbor (demanding money under threat of force), or otherwise arbitrarily regulate and control what his neighbor may or may not do, then how could those in "government" have acquired the right to do such things?
Click to expand...

Admittedly, I was going to go on about the social contract and the consent of the governed. However, given my earlier statement that I don't support what this government has become, means that whatever social contract I adhere to has been rendered null and void by a government that grows larger by the day.

Patterico's Pontifications » Do We Truly Consent to Be Governed?

The closest thing we ever had to a true social contract was the Constitution of the United States. That was a governing document that actually was signed by representatives of the People. True, the time came when all those signatories were dead, but the document did provide a mechanism for its alteration, which provided a way for the People themselves to have their say in what the Constitution means. But now, unelected judges say what the Constitution means — and their diktats bear no relationship to the words written in the document. What’s more, we are increasingly governed by a President who does not consider himself bound by the Constitution, but rather by his sense of what he can get away with. (I’m sure that formulation has been used by others, but it rings so true that I feel like it is original with me.)

More and more, I find myself wondering: what legitimacy does this government have? And, more and more, the answer seems to be: none.

What it does have, is power. If I run afoul of it, I can be locked in a cage. If I criticize it, I can be audited by the IRS.

But legitimacy? With a dead Constitution, tell me the source of this government’s legitimacy. I don’t see it.
Click to expand...

With all that said (and quoted), I still don't believe that anarchy is the answer.
 
Last edited:
#632
#632
The questions I asked you are from this book. Needless to say, it's a very interesting read.

Most Dangerous Superstition https://www.amazon.com/dp/145075063X/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_2dBNub17PYKRN

Lysander Spooner also had a lot of concerns about the growth of government way back in the 1800's. I'd like to recommend his book as well.
No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority https://www.amazon.com/dp/1938357000/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_UlBNub0CV7ANZ

Believe me, I respect your stance. You have a very healthy distrust of government.
 
Last edited:
#633
#633
n_huffhines said:
How is it different from breaking the social contract and going to prison? I'd rather go to a humane work camp to pay off a debt I agreed to, rather than go to prison for not paying taxes (something I never agreed to).
Click to expand...

You frame the response here in a matter of choice. Your choice to go voluntarily to said work camp. However, in your original post you stated you would send your protection agency to involuntarily take a person to the camp. So this is minus the free choice of the person on the other end. Hence your An-Cap is no different than the current system.

Don't pay your taxes, cops come get you and you go to jail. Don't pay your debt, be taken in by your contracted thugs and end up in a work camp.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#634
#634
Grand Vol said:
You frame the response here in a matter of choice. Your choice to go voluntarily to said work camp. However, in your original post you stated you would send your protection agency to involuntarily take a person to the camp. So this is minus the free choice of the person on the other end. Hence your An-Cap is no different than the current system.

Don't pay your taxes, cops come get you and you go to jail. Don't pay your debt, be taken in by your contracted thugs and end up in a work camp.
Click to expand...

You are leaving out the fact that a contract will be voluntarily signed by both parties involved. Said contract will also have an arbitration agreement that would've been agreed to by both parties. Hence, if you don't pay, you'll face the penalty that you agreed to at the start of the contract.
There is nothing involuntary there, because they agreed to the contract.
 
#635
#635
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
You are leaving out the fact that a contract will be voluntarily signed by both parties involved. Said contract will also have an arbitration agreement that would've been agreed to by both parties. Hence, if you don't pay, you'll face the penalty that you agreed to at the start of the contract.
There is nothing involuntary there, because they agreed to the contract.
Click to expand...

And if I want to break the contract just because I can?
 
#636
#636
I'm suprised that nobody has put up an Anarcho-Syndicalist thread with some of the way left wing liberals on VolNation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#638
#638
n_huffhines said:
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?
Click to expand...

Maybe because they're poor.....and don't have anything to pay with?.....maybe
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#640
#640
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
You already agreed to the contract I.e. You signed the contract. It would be turned over to arbitration if you break the contract.
Click to expand...

Okay...

Either way, without getting too deep into the minutia of the processes, An-Cap is still just as close to tyranny as any other form of government.
 
#642
#642
Burger said:
Back when workers were being treated like they were less than dirt. There's a reason why the Pinkertons ( A security company ) shot a bunch of workers.
Click to expand...

Tom Horn, a former Pinkerton, shot and killed a 14 year old boy while working as a range detective for some wealthy ranchers.
 
#643
#643
Franklin Pierce said:
Tom Horn, a former Pinkerton, shot and killed a 14 year old boy while working as a range detective for some wealthy ranchers.
Click to expand...

Which is why I am wondering why people want to give groups like the Pinkertons so much power. We'd end up with a dictatorship then.
 
#644
#644
Burger said:
Which is why I am wondering why people want to give groups like the Pinkertons so much power. We'd end up with a dictatorship then.
Click to expand...

Which is something the An-Cap crowd doesn't want you to know. Any government can and eventually will become tyrannical over time. And when your have agencies not bound by law or do the bidding of the one that pays them the most, it will turn into a monster.

Even though I'm accused of being a statist, I do believe our government has way too much power these days. Dial it back to limited oversight like the Founding Fathers intended and a republic works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#645
#645
Grand Vol said:
You frame the response here in a matter of choice. Your choice to go voluntarily to said work camp. However, in your original post you stated you would send your protection agency to involuntarily take a person to the camp. So this is minus the free choice of the person on the other end. Hence your An-Cap is no different than the current system.

Don't pay your taxes, cops come get you and you go to jail. Don't pay your debt, be taken in by your contracted thugs and end up in a work camp.
Click to expand...

If you think that, why do you oppose it? Funny that you would say it's the same and call the ancap equivalent of cops "thugs".

The voluntary choice is in the act of taking on the debt. With taxes I have no choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#646
#646
Grand Vol said:
Which is something the An-Cap crowd doesn't want you to know. Any government can and eventually will become tyrannical over time. And when your have agencies not bound by law or do the bidding of the one that pays them the most, it will turn into a monster.

Even though I'm accused of being a statist, I do believe our government has way too much power these days. Dial it back to limited oversight like the Founding Fathers intended and a republic works.
Click to expand...

The best argument against ancap is that it could devolve into government.

Honestly there is little use in arguing anything at this point. In theory, ancap works because security firms will not maximize profit if they show favoritism to the highest bidder. Almost every argument against Ancap made here is contingent on agencies showing favoritism.

You either accept that companies care about long term profitability and thus will behave or you reject it.
 
#647
#647
As with many things I "like" a lot of the ideas presented here in theory. In application however the one thing that keeps me from considering it particularly viable is the weakest link in the system...people.

Simply stated I don't think humans are up to the task of working under this system on a scale remotely the size of this country, much less the world. There's simply too much riding on huge numbers of people over very large areas of land simply deciding to be civil. It's currently tricky business trying to keep people from burning down their own cities when their sports team wins a title.

Sorry if I come across as cynical but I simply don't think our species is currently up to the task of making this kind of thing work on a useful scale. Maybe some day something close to this will work. Maybe when we make first contact with the Vulcans?
 
#648
#648
n_huffhines said:
The best argument against ancap is that it could devolve into government.

Honestly there is little use in arguing anything at this point. In theory, ancap works because security firms will not maximize profit if they show favoritism to the highest bidder. Almost every argument against Ancap made here is contingent on agencies showing favoritism.

You either accept that companies care about long term profitability and thus will behave or you reject it.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt the security agencies will try to maximize profits which mean sticking it to anyone they can.
 
#649
#649
hndog609 said:
As with many things I "like" a lot of the ideas presented here in theory. In application however the one thing that keeps me from considering it particularly viable is the weakest link in the system...people.

Simply stated I don't think humans are up to the task of working under this system on a scale remotely the size of this country, much less the world. There's simply too much riding on huge numbers of people over very large areas of land simply deciding to be civil. It's currently tricky business trying to keep people from burning down their own cities when their sports team wins a title.

Sorry if I come across as cynical but I simply don't think our species is currently up to the task of making this kind of thing work on a useful scale. Maybe some day something close to this will work. Maybe when we make first contact with the Vulcans?
Click to expand...

It's funny cause that's why I reject government. People are mostly good, but the few bad seeds are dangerous and government puts those dangerous people in positions of power. So do businesses, but they don't have a monopoly on force and markets do a much better job of purging bad seeds than government does.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top