Sobran - The Reluctant Anarchist

[The One and Only...]

http://www.sobran.com/reluctant.shtml

The Reluctant Anarchist
by Joe Sobran

(From SOBRAN'S, December 2002, pages 3-6)

{{ Material dropped or changed solely for reasons of
space appears in double curly brackets. Emphasis is
indicated by the presence of asterisks around the
emphasized words.}}

My arrival (very recently) at philosophical
anarchism has disturbed some of my conservative and
Christian friends. In fact, it surprises me, going as it
does against my own inclinations.

As a child I acquired a deep respect for authority
and a horror of chaos. In my case the two things were
blended by the uncertainty of my existence after my
parents divorced and I bounced from one home to another
for several years, often living with strangers. A stable
authority was something I yearned for.

Meanwhile, my public-school education imbued me with
the sort of patriotism encouraged in all children in
those days. I grew up feeling that if there was one thing
I could trust and rely on, it was my government. I knew
it was strong and benign, even if I didn't know much else
about it. The idea that some people -- Communists, for
example -- might want to overthrow the government filled
me with horror.

G.K. Chesterton, with his usual gentle audacity,
once criticized Rudyard Kipling for his "lack of
patriotism." Since Kipling was renowned for glorifying
the British Empire, this might have seemed one of
Chesterton's "paradoxes"; but it was no such thing,
except in the sense that it denied what most readers
thought was obvious and incontrovertible.

Chesterton, himself a "Little Englander" and
opponent of empire, explained what was wrong with
Kipling's view: "He admires England, but he does not love
her; for we admire things with reasons, but love them
without reason. He admires England because she is strong,
not because she is English." Which implies there would be
nothing to love her for if she were weak.

Of course Chesterton was right. You love your
country as you love your mother -- simply because it is
*yours,* not because of its superiority to others,
particularly superiority of power.

This seems axiomatic to me now, but it startled me
when I first read it. After all, I was an American, and
American patriotism typically expresses itself in
superlatives. America is the freest, the mightiest, the
richest, in short the *greatest* country in the world,
with the greatest form of government -- the most
democratic. Maybe the poor Finns or Peruvians love their
countries too, but heaven knows why -- they have so
little to be proud of, so few "reasons." America is also
the most *envied* country in the world. Don't all people
secretly wish they were Americans?

That was the kind of patriotism instilled in me as a
boy, and I was quite typical in this respect. It was the
patriotism of supremacy. For one thing, America had never
lost a war -- I was even proud that America had created
the atomic bomb (providentially, it seemed, just in time
to crush the Japs) -- and this is why the Vietnam war was
so bitterly frustrating. Not the dead, but the defeat!
The end of history's great winning streak!

As I grew up, my patriotism began to take another
form, which it took me a long time to realize was in
tension with the patriotism of power. I became a
philosophical conservative, with a strong libertarian
streak. I believed in government, but it had to be
"limited" government -- confined to a few legitimate
purposes, such as defense abroad and policing at home.
These functions, and hardly any others, I accepted, under
the influence of writers like Ayn Rand and Henry Hazlitt,
whose books I read in my college years.

Though I disliked Rand's atheism (at the time, I was
irreligious, but not anti-religious), she had an odd
appeal to my residual Catholicism. I had read enough
Aquinas to respond to her Aristotelian mantras.
Everything had to have its own nature and limitations,
including the state; the idea of a state continually
growing, knowing no boundaries, forever increasing its
claims on the citizen, offended and frightened me. It
could only end in tyranny.

I was also powerfully drawn to Bill Buckley, an
explicit Catholic, who struck the same Aristotelian note.
During his 1965 race for mayor of New York, he made a
sublime promise to the voter: he offered "the internal
composure that comes of knowing there are rational limits
to politics." This may have been the most futile campaign
promise of all time, but it would have won my vote!

It was really this Aristotelian sense of "rational
limits," rather than any particular doctrine, that made
me a conservative. I rejoiced to find it in certain
English writers who were remote from American
conservatism -- Chesterton, of course, Samuel Johnson,
Edmund Burke, George Orwell, C.S. Lewis, Michael
Oakeshott.

In fact I much preferred a literary, contemplative
conservatism to the activist sort that was preoccupied
with immediate political issues. During the Reagan years,
which I expected to find exciting, I found myself bored
to death by supply-side economics, enterprise zones,
"privatizing" welfare programs, and similar principle-
dodging gimmickry. I failed to see that "movement"
conservatives were less interested in principles than in
Republican victories. To the extent that I did see it, I
failed to grasp what it meant.

Still, the last thing I expected to become was an
anarchist. For many years I didn't even know that serious
philosophical anarchists existed. I'd never heard of
Lysander Spooner or Murray Rothbard. How could society
survive at all without a state?

Now I began to be critical of the U.S. Government,
though not very. I saw that the welfare state, chiefly
the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, violated the
principles of limited government and would eventually
have to go. But I agreed with other conservatives that in
the meantime the urgent global threat of Communism had to
be stopped. Since I viewed "defense" as one of the proper
tasks of government, I thought of the Cold War as a
necessity, the overhead, so to speak, of freedom. If the
Soviet threat ever ceased (the prospect seemed remote),
we could afford to slash the military budget and get back
to the job of dismantling the welfare state.

Somewhere, at the rainbow's end, America would
return to her founding principles. The Federal Government
would be shrunk, laws would be few, taxes minimal. That
was what I thought. Hoped, anyway.

I avidly read conservative and free-market
literature during those years with the sense that I was,
as a sort of late convert, catching up with the
conservative movement. I took it for granted that other
conservatives had already read the same books and had
taken them to heart. Surely we all wanted the same
things! At bottom, the knowledge that there were rational
limits to politics. Good old Aristotle. At the time, it
seemed a short hop from Aristotle to Barry Goldwater.

As is fairly well known by now, I went to work as a
young man for Buckley at NATIONAL REVIEW and later became
a syndicated columnist. I found my niche in conservative
journalism as a critic of liberal distortions of the U.S.
Constitution, particularly in the Supreme Court's rulings
on abortion, pornography, and "freedom of expression."

Gradually I came to see that the conservative
challenge to liberalism's jurisprudence of "loose
construction" was far too narrow. Nearly everything
liberals wanted the Federal Government to do was
unconstitutional. The key to it all, I thought, was the
Tenth Amendment, which forbids the Federal Government to
exercise any powers not specifically assigned to it in
the Constitution. But the Tenth Amendment had been
comatose since the New Deal, when Roosevelt's Court
virtually excised it.

This meant that nearly all Federal legislation from
the New Deal to the Great Society and beyond had been
unconstitutional. Instead of fighting liberal programs
piecemeal, conservatives could undermine the whole lot of
them by reviving the true (and, really, obvious) meaning
of the Constitution. Liberalism depended on a long series
of usurpations of power.

{{ Around the time of Judge Robert Bork's bitterly
contested (and defeated) nomination to the U.S. Supreme
Court, conservatives spent a lot of energy arguing that
the "original intent" of the Constitution must be
conclusive. But they applied this principle only to a few
ambiguous phrases and passages that bore on specific hot
issues of the day -- the death penalty, for instance.
About the *general* meaning of the Constitution there
could, I thought, be no doubt at all. The ruling
principle is that whatever the Federal Government isn't
authorized to do, it's forbidden to do.

{{ That alone would invalidate the Federal welfare
state and, in fact, nearly all liberal legislation. But I
found it hard to persuade most conservatives of this.
Bork himself took the view that the Tenth Amendment was
unenforceable. If he was right, then the whole
Constitution was in vain from the start. }}

I never thought a constitutional renaissance would
be easy, but I did think it could play an indispensable
role in subverting the legitimacy of liberalism. Movement
conservatives listened politely to my arguments, but
without much enthusiasm. They regarded appeals to the
Constitution as rather pedantic and, as a practical
matter, futile -- not much help in the political
struggle. Most Americans no longer even remembered what
"usurpation" meant. Conservatives themselves hardly knew.

Of course they were right, in an obvious sense. Even
conservative courts (if they could be captured) wouldn't
be bold enough to throw out the entire liberal legacy at
once. But I remained convinced that the conservative
movement had to attack liberalism at its constitutional
root.

In a way I had transferred my patriotism from
America as it then was to America as it had been when it
still honored the Constitution. And when had it crossed
the line? At first I thought the great corruption had
occurred when Franklin Roosevelt subverted the Federal
judiciary; later I came to see that the decisive event
had been the Civil War, which had effectively destroyed
the right of the states to secede from the Union. But
this was very much a minority view among conservatives,
particularly at NATIONAL REVIEW, where I was the only one
who held it.

I've written more than enough about my career at the
magazine, so I'll confine myself to saying that it was
only toward the end of more than two happy decades there
that I began to realize that we *didn't* all want the
same things after all. When it happened, it was like
learning, after a long and placid marriage, that your
spouse is in love with someone else, and has been all
along.

Not that I was betrayed. I was merely blind. I have
no one to blame but myself. The Buckley crowd, and the
conservative movement in general, no more tried to
deceive me than I tried to deceive them. We all assumed
we were on the same side, when we weren't. If there is
any fault for this misunderstanding, it is my own.

In the late 1980s I began mixing with Rothbardian
libertarians -- they called themselves by the
unprepossessing label "anarcho-capitalists" -- and even
met Rothbard himself. They were a brilliant, combative
lot, full of challenging ideas and surprising arguments.
Rothbard himself combined a profound theoretical
intelligence with a deep knowledge of history. His magnum
opus, MAN, ECONOMY, AND STATE, had received the most
unqualified praise of the usually reserved Henry Hazlitt
-- in NATIONAL REVIEW!

I can only say of Murray what so many others have
said: never in my life have I encountered such an
original and vigorous mind. A short, stocky New York Jew
with an explosive cackling laugh, he was always exciting
and cheerful company. Pouring out dozens of big books and
hundreds of articles, he also found time, heaven knows
how, to write (on the old electric typewriter he used to
the end) countless long, single-spaced, closely reasoned
letters to all sorts of people.

Murray's view of politics was shockingly blunt: the
state was nothing but a criminal gang writ large. Much as
I agreed with him in general, and fascinating though I
found his arguments, I resisted this conclusion. I still
wanted to believe in constitutional government.

Murray would have none of this. He insisted that the
Philadelphia convention at which the Constitution had
been drafted was nothing but a "coup d'etat,"
centralizing power and destroying the far more tolerable
arrangements of the Articles of Confederation. This was a
direct denial of everything I'd been taught. I'd never
heard anyone suggest that the Articles had been
preferable to the Constitution! But Murray didn't care
what anyone thought -- or what *everyone* thought. (He'd
been too radical for Ayn Rand.)

Murray and I shared a love of gangster films, and he
once argued to me that the Mafia was preferable to the
state, because it survived by providing services people
actually wanted. I countered that the Mafia behaved like
the state, extorting its own "taxes" in protection
rackets directed at shopkeepers; its market was far from
"free." He admitted I had a point. I was proud to have
won a concession from him.

Murray died a few years ago without quite having
made an anarchist of me. It was left to his brilliant
disciple, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, to finish my conversion.
Hans argued that no constitution could restrain the
state. Once its monopoly of force was granted legitimacy,
constitutional limits became mere fictions it could
disregard; nobody could have the legal standing to
enforce those limits. The state itself would decide, by
force, what the constitution "meant," steadily ruling in
its own favor and increasing its own power. This was true
a priori, and American history bore it out.

What if the Federal Government grossly violated the
Constitution? Could states withdraw from the Union?
Lincoln said no. The Union was "indissoluble" unless all
the states agreed to dissolve it. As a practical matter,
the Civil War settled that. The United States, plural,
were really a single enormous state, as witness the new
habit of speaking of "it" rather than "them."

So the people are bound to obey the government even
when the rulers betray their oath to uphold the
Constitution. The door to escape is barred. Lincoln in
effect claimed that it is not our rights but the state
that is "unalienable." And he made it stick by force of
arms. No transgression of the Constitution can impair the
Union's inherited legitimacy. Once established on
specific and limited terms, the U.S. Government is
forever, even if it refuses to abide by those terms.

As Hoppe argues, this is the flaw in thinking the
state can be controlled by a constitution. Once granted,
state power naturally becomes absolute. Obedience is a
one-way street. Notionally, "We the People" create a
government and specify the powers it is allowed to
exercise over us; our rulers swear before God that they
will respect the limits we impose on them; but when they
trample down those limits, our duty to obey them remains.

Yet even after the Civil War, certain scruples
survived for a while. Americans still agreed in principle
that the Federal Government could acquire new powers only
by constitutional amendment. Hence the postwar amendments
included the words "Congress shall have power to" enact
such and such legislation.

But by the time of the New Deal, such scruples were
all but defunct. Franklin Roosevelt and his Supreme Court
interpreted the Commerce Clause so broadly as to
authorize virtually any Federal claim, and the Tenth
Amendment so narrowly as to deprive it of any inhibiting
force. Today these heresies are so firmly entrenched that
Congress rarely even asks itself whether a proposed law
is authorized or forbidden by the Constitution.

In short, the U.S. Constitution is a dead letter. It
was mortally wounded in 1865. The corpse can't be
revived. This remained hard for me to admit, and even now
it pains me to say it.

Other things have helped change my mind. R.J. Rummel
of the University of Hawaii calculates that in the
twentieth century alone, states murdered about
162,000,000 million of their own subjects. This figure
doesn't include the tens of millions of foreigners they
killed in war. How, then, can we speak of states
"protecting" their people? No amount of private crime
could have claimed such a toll. As for warfare, Paul
Fussell's book WARTIME portrays battle with such
horrifying vividness that, although this wasn't its
intention, I came to doubt whether any war could be
justified.

My fellow Christians have argued that the state's
authority is divinely given. They cite Christ's
injunction "Render unto Caesar the things that are
Caesar's" and St. Paul's words "The powers that be are
ordained of God." But Christ didn't say which things --
if any -- belong to Caesar; his ambiguous words are far
from a command to give Caesar whatever he claims. And
it's notable that Christ never told his disciples either
to establish a state or to engage in politics. They were
to preach the Gospel and, if rejected, to move on. He
seems never to have imagined the state as something they
could or should enlist on their side.

At first sight, St. Paul seems to be more positive
in affirming the authority of the state. But he himself,
like the other martyrs, died for *defying* the state, and
we honor him for it; to which we may add that he was on
one occasion a jailbreaker as well. Evidently the passage
in Romans has been misread. It was probably written
during the reign of Nero, not the most edifying of
rulers; but then Paul also counseled slaves to obey their
masters, and nobody construes this as an endorsement of
slavery. He may have meant that the state and slavery
were here for the foreseeable future, and that Christians
must abide them for the sake of peace. Never does he say
that either is here forever.

St. Augustine took a dim view of the state, as a
punishment for sin. He said that a state without justice
is nothing but a gang of robbers writ large, while
leaving doubt that any state could ever be otherwise. St.
Thomas Aquinas took a more benign view, arguing that the
state would be necessary even if man had never fallen
from grace; but he agreed with Augustine that an unjust
law is no law at all, a doctrine that would severely
diminish any known state.

The essence of the state is its legal monopoly of
force. But force is subhuman; in words I quote
incessantly, Simone Weil defined it as "that which turns
a person into a thing -- either corpse or slave." It may
sometimes be a necessary evil, in self-defense or defense
of the innocent, but nobody can have by right what the
state claims: an exclusive privilege of using it.

It's entirely possible that states -- organized
force -- will always rule this world, and that we will
have at best a choice among evils. And some states are
worse than others in important ways: anyone in his right
mind would prefer living in the United States to life
under a Stalin. But to say a thing is inevitable, or less
onerous than something else, is not to say it is good.

For most people, "anarchy" is a disturbing word,
suggesting chaos, violence, antinomianism -- things they
hope the state can control or prevent. The term "state,"
despite its bloody history, doesn't disturb them. Yet
it's the state that is truly chaotic, because it means
the rule of the strong and cunning. They imagine that
anarchy would naturally terminate in the rule of thugs.
But mere thugs can't assert a plausible *right* to rule.
Only the state, with its propaganda apparatus, can do
that. This is what "legitimacy" means. Anarchists
obviously need a more seductive label.

"But what would you replace the state with?" The
question reveals an inability to imagine human society
without the state. Yet it would seem that an institution
that can take 200,000,000 lives within a century hardly
needs to be "replaced."

Christians, and especially Americans, have long been
misled about all this by their good fortune. Since the
conversion of Rome, most Western rulers have been more or
less inhibited by Christian morality (though, often
enough, not so's you'd notice), and even warfare became
somewhat civilized for centuries; and this has bred the
assumption that the state isn't necessarily an evil at
all. But as that morality loses its cultural grip, as it
is rapidly doing, this confusion will dissipate. More and
more we can expect the state to show its nature nakedly.

For me this is anything but a happy conclusion. I
miss the serenity of believing I lived under a good
government, wisely designed and benevolent in its
operation. But, as St. Paul says, there comes a time to
put away childish things.

[Emu]

Only morons and teenagers take anarchism seriously.

[Spectre X]

Wow, a long post about anarchism. YES!

Wow, a glass of milk. Amazing.

Oh man, oh man oh MAN! A can opener.

Oh man, all these things. So exciting.

Well, except for the post.

Fuck this, I'm gonna listen to some Tom Jones.

I don't even care enough anymore to even try to mock you properly.

[Ant10708]

Only morons and teenagers take anarchism seriously. And people living in Somalia.

[Anonymouse]

only morons take democracy seriously

[AChimp]

In an anarchist society, I'd shoot posts like this IN THE FACE. >:

[AChimp]

http://abum.com/files/Pictures/780727902.gif

ANARCHY :eek

[Emu]

What the fuck is she jogging in those shoes for anyway?

[Spectre X]

amazing...

[The One and Only...]

Do you people even know who Sobran is?

And Somalia is the shit.

[glowbelly]

raise your hand if you bothered to read that whole article

[Anonymouse]

I do, but it doesn't give me any cash bonus or the letter A for my class. Therefore I choose to unknow him now.

[Emu]

I got about halfway through it when the whole conversion sap story got to me and I quit. This guy writes like he's talking to a bunch of idio--oh wait

[Anonymouse]

raise your hand if you bothered to read that whole article

Does that include poking your glowbelly?

[adept_ninja]

In my government class we watched a movie which was about anarachy and it had a large portion on Somalia. There were no jobs all the kids 5 years old up had AK 47's and robbed anyone without a weapon. No electricty, fresh water, no anything the only jobs there were was to rob people or dig up pipes and electric wire and strip them for valuble metals. It was great because it changed all those punk faggots minds

[Anonymouse]

are you a real ninja? :eek

[AChimp]

Two gay posts in five minutes earns you a time-out. And I wanted to ban somebody today.

[Dole]

Don't....don't you people even know who Sobran is??

[Dr. Boogie]

I know a Sobran, but not Joe Sobran.

[glowbelly]

Don't....don't you people even know who Sobran is??

anarchy! total anarchy!!

[The One and Only...]

In my government class we watched a movie which was about anarachy and it had a large portion on Somalia. There were no jobs all the kids 5 years old up had AK 47's and robbed anyone without a weapon. No electricty, fresh water, no anything the only jobs there were was to rob people or dig up pipes and electric wire and strip them for valuble metals. It was great because it changed all those punk faggots minds

I'm not going to go into depth here. Check out the anti-state forum's Somalia board.

[glowbelly]

if he doesn't, will you consider it...anarchy?

[Emu]

Certainly they won't be biased.

[The One and Only...]

There are several links to articles there which are not written by anarchists. Anything but.

Parts of Somalia now have growing private sectors and are doing well in comparison to their poverty-stricken neighbors.

[adept_ninja]

Sorry im not going to check out the fourms anarchy is the dumbest idea ever. Its against human habit to stay as loners if we did at some point go into anarchy the people would form warring factions and then the biggest group would eventully become a dictatorship type of government and from then the cycle would continue

[kellychaos]

There are several links to articles there which are not written by anarchists. Anything but.

Parts of Somalia now have growing private sectors and are doing well in comparison to their poverty-stricken neighbors.

And those improving private sectors will one day want to form something ... call it a state ... to protect their wealth against the robbing anarchists.

[Emu]

Well, anarchy is working now, it must be a great idea for the long term, right?!

[Big Papa Goat]

Private sector business isn't the same as anarchy. Just because they don't call themselves a government, doesn't mean there's no power centers or social order or control.

[AChimp]

I dunno about you guys, but today at my private sector job I took a 15 minute shit then surfed for porn all day. ANARCHY!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Do you people even know who Sobran is?

Oh good Lord, so he's a crusty old conservative pundit who had some big ordeal conversion to anarchism, or anarcho-capitalism, or whatever.

George Lincoln Rockwell wrote for the National Review for a bit, too. I wonder what he later thought about democracy and conservatism and all that stuff....? I should really, really care, because clearly, it's very important that we make a big deal of people who change their mind about things.

[glowbelly]

sobran sounds like a type of cereal old people would eat with prune juice

[The One and Only...]

It should at least disturb some of you that Sobran's movement towards anarchism was made by the fact that he viewed both the Civil War and New Deal as trangressions of the Constitution.

[Emu]

So, is that the point you were trying to make?

Also, why would he think that the Civil War was caused by a transgression of the Constitution? States did and do have a right to secede from the Union, but I don't remember the Constitution saying the Union can't annex them back in. (Although I could be wrong about that.)

[The One and Only...]

Well, I think succession is kinda pointless if you're forced back in through military force.

[adept_ninja]

So, is that the point you were trying to make?

Also, why would he think that the Civil War was caused by a transgression of the Constitution? States did and do have a right to secede from the Union, but I don't remember the Constitution saying the Union can't annex them back in. (Although I could be wrong about that.)

If this guy ever went to school he would know that we had the civil war to free the slaves...duhhh :lol

[Zhukov]

OAO, what kind of anarchist are you? All this talk about private sectors and the wonders of somalia, what the fuck are you on about?

[kellychaos]

Dig it. The southern states wanted to secede based on the northern states moral objections to politics, economy, and general way of life. The north maintained these objections but didn't want the union to dissolve. The northern states won and; therefore, the union stayed intact. Grant it, it took military force to enforce this, but the same is true of any occupying force following a war (Re: Japan, Korea, Germany, ect). Often, there are insurgents following the war who disagree with the results (Re: Lincoln assasination). The freeing of the slaves was a by-product, not a reason, for the war. So, you see, this war is not much different than other wars with the Constitution notwithstanding. It really has no place here.

[ziggytrix]

Fascinating Fact: It is significant that no Confederate leader was ever brought to trial for treason. A trial would have brought a verdict on the constitutional legality of secession. Federal prosecutors were satisfied with the verdict that had been decided in battle.

http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secessioncrisis/890304.html

[The One and Only...]

OAO, what kind of anarchist are you? All this talk about private sectors and the wonders of somalia, what the fuck are you on about?

I'm an anarcho-capitalist. Most anarchists do not consider ourselves part of the anarchist movement; we consider ourselves an extension of both individualist anarchism and classical liberalism.

In other words, we support capitalism without the existence of a State.

And Kelly, what are you smoking? The fact that the US forced the Confederacy to rejoin the union shows that it did not recognize the succession.

[Dr. Boogie]

It should at least disturb some of you that Sobran's movement towards anarchism was made by the fact that he viewed both the Civil War and New Deal as trangressions of the Constitution.

:lol

[KevinTheOmnivore]

The fact that the US forced the Confederacy to rejoin the union shows that it did not recognize the succession.

Well, frankly a lot of people have a problem with Papal authority. :/

[Dole]

I'm an anarcho-capitalist.

'Do whatever you want, but pay me for the privilege'

[Emu]

Seriously, how can you be an 'anarcho-capitalist?' Those two views are fundamentally opposed.

I'm imagining someone trying to build their wealth in the absence of a state, and therefore, in the absence of money with definite value. What the hell do you measure your wealth in? Cows? Gold? Okay, maybe gold works. But where do you get the gold? Unless your country's already rich in it, you have to trade with other states, and I don't think other states are willing to trade much of their gold to you for your cows. And you can't trade it within your country, because, well, they have no reason not to demand outrageous prices of you, and since there are no state-mandated laws, he probably won't be punished for chopping your fucking head off and just TAKING what you have.

And when someone suddenly gets a hold of all of the wealth, he becomes a ruler, and can command people to work under him for pay, which just evolves into the feudal system all over again. I can't see any way how this philosophy could work.

[Helm]

Emu, shut up and go read a little about political and economical theory. Anarcho-capitalism exists well outside the mind of OAO.

EDIT: however, now checking, OAO somewhat misdefined it.

SECOND EDIT: And this will teach me to read posts carefully. Emu, you successfuly explain why anarcho-capitalism can't work: when there's free trade, semblances of authority ( read: state ) always come to exist purely through the inequalities that emerge, and the reactionary forces that maintain them to their benefit.

[kellychaos]

And Kelly, what are you smoking? The fact that the US forced the Confederacy to rejoin the union shows that it did not recognize the succession.

They respected it with the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives lost on both sides you disrespectul little twat. You're talking about one of our finest presidents trying to hold his country together throughout a crisis that was neither addressed nor defined in the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution gave the states rights to autonomy. He was basically making do as he went along the best way he knew how.

Fascinating Fact: It is significant that no Confederate leader was ever brought to trial for treason. A trial would have brought a verdict on the constitutional legality of secession. Federal prosecutors were satisfied with the verdict that had been decided in battle.


And to reiterate what Ziggytrix said (above), they were certainly treated better than most post-war military.

semblances of authority ( read: state ) always come to exist purely through the inequalities that emerge, and the reactionary forces that maintain them to their benefit.

Granted, those "semblance of authority" benefit most but aren't a lot more people benefiting from the order and security created by the "reactionary forces" than without even if they're at the bottom of the pyramid, so to speak?

[The One and Only...]

EDIT: however, now checking, OAO somewhat misdefined it.

Well, I did simplify it substantially. I didn't see the need to go into an in-depth explaination.

SECOND EDIT: And this will teach me to read posts carefully. Emu, you successfuly explain why anarcho-capitalism can't work: when there's free trade, semblances of authority ( read: state ) always come to exist purely through the inequalities that emerge, and the reactionary forces that maintain them to their benefit.

The inequalities that emerge wouldn't be that drastic in a true market economy. Monopolies are solely the result of the state, and what defines the state is its monopoly on force.

[ziggytrix]

So who guaruntees the equity in this imaginary "true market economy"? If there is no state, then you will have tribes - maybe corporations in this era - that end up holding all the force.

Tell me, what could prevent corporate dominance in the absence of the state? Or is that what you are advocating?

[Emu]

Emu, shut up and go read a little about political and economical theory. Anarcho-capitalism exists well outside the mind of OAO.

EDIT: however, now checking, OAO somewhat misdefined it.

SECOND EDIT: And this will teach me to read posts carefully. Emu, you successfuly explain why anarcho-capitalism can't work: when there's free trade, semblances of authority ( read: state ) always come to exist purely through the inequalities that emerge, and the reactionary forces that maintain them to their benefit.

Yeah, I just meant that the belief doesn't really work without some cognitive dissonance, not that it couldn't exist.

Well, I did simplify it substantially. I didn't see the need to go into an in-depth explaination.

Why not? I've been waiting for you to define it for a while now. I'm really not understanding how you can honestly believe this kind of society could function.

The inequalities that emerge wouldn't be that drastic in a true market economy. Monopolies are solely the result of the state, and what defines the state is its monopoly on force.

How are monopolies the result of the state, exactly? Here I was under the impression that monopolies were formed by businesses stamping out the competition in the absence of state mandate.

Edit: piece of shit quotes >:

[Helm]

The inequalities that emerge wouldn't be that drastic in a true market economy. Monopolies are solely the result of the state, and what defines the state is its monopoly on force.

OAO, look outside of your ass for a while. The combined force of more than one human working in concert (besides being a small state in themselves) can overpower nature, and also single humen working alone. There begins both civilization, and class inequality. The State, big or small, strong or weak comes in much later. Read some Marx or even the Kropotkin you like, or something, before loudly declaring yourself an anarchist, especially such a rediculous one as a anarcho-capitalist. The will to power, control and safety is hard-coded into men, and as animals they will seek it, in unison if they have to. True market economy isn't fair and never will be. Taking the regulator out ( the state ) will only serve to make things worse. People aren't fair. They will not go by the rainbow fairlyand rule of libertarian non-agression. People who are oppressed by a system, be it by it's inherent flaws or their OWN inability to keep up with it will revolt and destroy it. Therefore there are two options, either stick to the libertarian shit to the very end, and perish along with the foolish system that JUMPS STRAIGHT from capitalism to anarcho-capitalism, without taking into account that philosophically speaking, the modern man is still a swine, or take measures to contain and control the dissident masses. Enter fascism. Even the most basic understanding of human nature, politics and economics will lead you to these probable scenarios.

Anarchism (as Kropotkin will tell you) is a byproduct of a refined society. One that abolished classes through communism, and one which gradually evolves into non-agression. And therefore, we should be more concerned with the stepping stone (socialism) than with the end result because we cannot get from here to there.

[kellychaos]

That's a fucking humungous stepping stone.

[Helm]

I don't know a worthwhile step up that exists on a geopolitical scope that isn't. We just take small easy little steps down towards easy wars, simple stupidity and common greed.

[The One and Only...]

OAO, look outside of your ass for a while. The combined force of more than one human working in concert (besides being a small state in themselves) can overpower nature, and also single humen working alone. There begins both civilization, and class inequality. The State, big or small, strong or weak comes in much later. Read some Marx or even the Kropotkin you like, or something, before loudly declaring yourself an anarchist, especially such a rediculous one as a anarcho-capitalist. The will to power, control and safety is hard-coded into men, and as animals they will seek it, in unison if they have to. True market economy isn't fair and never will be. Taking the regulator out ( the state ) will only serve to make things worse. People aren't fair. They will not go by the rainbow fairlyand rule of libertarian non-agression. People who are oppressed by a system, be it by it's inherent flaws or their OWN inability to keep up with it will revolt and destroy it. Therefore there are two options, either stick to the libertarian shit to the very end, and perish along with the foolish system that JUMPS STRAIGHT from capitalism to anarcho-capitalism, without taking into account that philosophically speaking, the modern man is still a swine, or take measures to contain and control the dissident masses. Enter fascism. Even the most basic understanding of human nature, politics and economics will lead you to these probable scenarios.

The only job as "regulator" that the State truly has in our modern society is maintaining advantagous market conditions for favored actors (i.e. corporations). Other than that, it's just about throwing enough breadcrumbs to the common man to keep him from revolting, and also destroying opposition to the State. You, as a seemingly radical socialist, know this.

The thing you fail to understand is that measures are taken to control the masses. There is no utopian assumption that everyone will respect property; this is why private defense agencies (i.e. police) are contracted. They're even more effecient than the State, thanks to the subjection of force to competition. Furthermore, many anarcho-capitalists recognize the right of individuals to form collectivist societies... the point is that we shouldn't be forced to join them.

Furthermore, the very argument about the system being oppressive can be applied to socialism itself, be it in a statist or anti-statist tradition. The very inequalities of life that can result from ignoring preference in both the material and immaterial planes can lead to dissatisfaction, not to mention that people tend to desire individual ownership (as opposed to merely possession).

And finally, Marx's justification of egalitarian collectivism is flawed because it assumes a false theory of value.

Anarchism (as Kropotkin will tell you) is a byproduct of a refined society. One that abolished classes through communism, and one which gradually evolves into non-agression. And therefore, we should be more concerned with the stepping stone (socialism) than with the end result because we cannot get from here to there.

Kropotkin? What about individualist anarchists, like Tucker or Stirner? Even the ansocs don't deny their legitimacy.

[ziggytrix]

Furthermore, many anarcho-capitalists recognize the right of individuals to form collectivist societies... the point is that we shouldn't be forced to join them.


And when my collectivist society has the most guns and the best enforcers, the rest of you fuckers are going DOWN.

[Helm]

The only job as "regulator" that the State truly has in our modern society is maintaining advantagous market conditions for favored actors (i.e. corporations). Other than that, it's just about throwing enough breadcrumbs to the common man to keep him from revolting, and also destroying opposition to the State. You, as a seemingly radical socialist, know this.

You mean

The only job as "regulator" that the State SHOULD HAVE[...]

don't turn your demands into presuppositions.

I am not a radical socialist, whatever that means. I am not also of the opinion that a large, bloated state machine is a good idea. I believe the state should eventually be reduced to various applicative but mobile units that loosely co-relate to directly serve the People. I believe in direct democracy rather than representative, via technological means (a terminal in every house and the such) where the political parties are reduced to propaganda suppliers, and the citizen is called to examine all different viewpoints (via said propaganda) and make up his mind and vote for each and all issues partaining to his city - state - country. As you can see, I'm in a way, a libertarian myself.

However, you cannot get here from there. For such a system to work, there's an intermediate step where the state will have to possibly get a lot larger before it can become smaller. The People should be fed, first, and foremost. To that end, I agree with any cookie-cutter variety Red. The classes will have to go, and if that has to be done in a reactionary way (extreme taxation), then so be it! Just as long as it is the will of the people, as expressed through an elected party (on that level). Then the people should be educated, to be given the means to liberate themselves from themselves. Then, when this is achieved, the state will defuse into the aforementioned structure, as it will no longer be needed to guide, but rather serve. We should not need any more leaders. Hopefully, the next few generations of them will be the last.

Socialism isn't an end in itself, it's a necessary stepping stone to something greater. Even actual Socialists will tell you that.

The thing you fail to understand is that measures are taken to control the masses.

You think? I fail to understand this, how?

There is no utopian assumption that everyone will respect property; this is why private defense agencies (i.e. police) are contracted. They're even more effecient than the State, thanks to the subjection of force to competition.

This is laughable. Besides the actual examples of privatized policing forces (mercenaries, really) that have resulted to extremely unpleasant results, the fact and only that you're willing to put the interpretation of justice in the overzealous hands of competitive parties shows your utter lack of understanding of what justice, as a constant paradigm, is. I'll tell you what justice is not. It's not burgers. It's not different fast food joints competing for whom can make the biggest, fattest yet cheapest one. Idiot.

Furthermore, many anarcho-capitalists recognize the right of individuals to form collectivist societies... the point is that we shouldn't be forced to join them.

Is that before or after such societies (communes, really) either gradually overpower the solo guys, or the private police forces of the solo guys beat the crap out of the societies? Seriously, do you understand anything about the concept of POWER AS AN END IN ITSELF that has been the staple of human behaviour since day one? We can only outgrow this by examining human instinct and hopefully defeating it. This can only happen when people have the time to do this at their leasure, not when they're half-starving to death.


Furthermore, the very argument about the system being oppressive can be applied to socialism itself, be it in a statist or anti-statist tradition.

So is this "I know mine is, but so is yours" or what? Of course any large State construct will be oppressive. In the case of what I am describing, the idea is that you don't just end with socialism.

And finally, Marx's justification of egalitarian collectivism is flawed because it assumes a false theory of value.

I am not prepared to discuss economics, be them Marxist or not as I lack understanding of various aspects of the whole. Mainly because I find actual sterile economics very, very boring. I've read and understood parts of the Manifesto and Capital, but I haven't much looked into counterpoints and rebuttals. That Marxist politico-economical analysis is however, still very much applied in current discussions by people far more intelligent and well-read than me (be them Marxists like Hobsbawm or even complete opposite parties, everybody uses Marxist terminology) seems to suggest that you are also not exactly sure what you're talking about. But if you like regurgitating select catch phrases out of a silly primer textbook as you undoubtedly are, then go right on ahead.

Kropotkin? What about individualist anarchists, like Tucker or Stirner? Even the ansocs don't deny their legitimacy.

Haven't read these guys. Their legitimacy as to what? Anarchism comes in serveral different flavours (you've chosen the most rediculous and far-fetched one, anarchocommunism being the most possible, given communistic foundation), and most have either been tested to horrible results, or remain untested. I remain unconvinced there's a valid way to go from globalized capitalism to anarchism.

[The One and Only...]

You mean

The only job as "regulator" that the State SHOULD HAVE[...]

don't turn your demands into presuppositions.

You entirely misunderstand me. What I mean is that the State is dominated by corporations seeking to manipulate the market in ways that would be advantagous to them. That, my friend, is corporatism, and it's something I'm entirely opposed.

I am not a radical socialist, whatever that means. I am not also of the opinion that a large, bloated state machine is a good idea. I believe the state should eventually be reduced to various applicative but mobile units that loosely co-relate to directly serve the People. I believe in direct democracy rather than representative, via technological means (a terminal in every house and the such) where the political parties are reduced to propaganda suppliers, and the citizen is called to examine all different viewpoints (via said propaganda) and make up his mind and vote for each and all issues partaining to his city - state - country. As you can see, I'm in a way, a libertarian myself.

In the 8th grade, we all had to make a fictional country and design a system of government for it. I designed something similar, except that I advocated voting through the Internet rather than some seperate terminal (though that was brought up when my teacher asked about ensuring the poor can vote) and maintained a national Senate. Basically, the House of Representatives in American government was replaced with direct votes, with a few key differences as far as votes were required and a few tweaks - after all, without the Senate, the populace will be constantly bombared with too many propositions to keep up with at. I'm not bringing this up as any sort of an attack on your system, but merely to illustrate that I know what you're talking about.

My problem with such systems now is that there is still an abrogation of rights. People should not be forced to have restraints on their liberty just because the majority of people wills them. A better idea is to let people establish and join communities on a basis of free choice. Those communities can organize themselves democratically if they wish, but man should not have to adopt such a sytem out of force.

However, you cannot get here from there. For such a system to work, there's an intermediate step where the state will have to possibly get a lot larger before it can become smaller. The People should be fed, first, and foremost. To that end, I agree with any cookie-cutter variety Red. The classes will have to go, and if that has to be done in a reactionary way (extreme taxation), then so be it! Just as long as it is the will of the people, as expressed through an elected party (on that level). Then the people should be educated, to be given the means to liberate themselves from themselves. Then, when this is achieved, the state will defuse into the aforementioned structure, as it will no longer be needed to guide, but rather serve. We should not need any more leaders. Hopefully, the next few generations of them will be the last.

Aside from the economic inefficiency (which I realise you don't want to debate), the State will never permit this to occur. It invariably serves the existing hierarchy; it will certain not dissolve itself.

Socialism isn't an end in itself, it's a necessary stepping stone to something greater. Even actual Socialists will tell you that.

For some it's an end in itself.

You think? I fail to understand this, how?

You said that anarcho-capitalism would be smashed by those who weren't content with it.

This is laughable. Besides the actual examples of privatized policing forces (mercenaries, really) that have resulted to extremely unpleasant results, the fact and only that you're willing to put the interpretation of justice in the overzealous hands of competitive parties shows your utter lack of understanding of what justice, as a constant paradigm, is. I'll tell you what justice is not. It's not burgers. It's not different fast food joints competing for whom can make the biggest, fattest yet cheapest one. Idiot.

Actually, private defense forces in the context of a pseudo-ancap society have been fairly successful, such as in medieval Iceland.

You obviously don't understand how ancap conceptions of private defense is supposed to work if you think that each competiting firm represents a variety of justice. Justice is put into the context of human rights - nothing more, nothing less. Beyond that, polycentric legal codes and multiple defense agencies allow individuals to choose how to live their own lives. It's quite possible that a community of, say, hardcore Christians, might choose to hire Archangels Inc. to protect them from outside forces and hire the Shepards Corp. to bring offenders of the community laws to a private court.

Is that before or after such societies (communes, really) either gradually overpower the solo guys, or the private police forces of the solo guys beat the crap out of the societies? Seriously, do you understand anything about the concept of POWER AS AN END IN ITSELF that has been the staple of human behaviour since day one? We can only outgrow this by examining human instinct and hopefully defeating it. This can only happen when people have the time to do this at their leasure, not when they're half-starving to death.

Ya know, most people I know don't seek power so much as they seek a happy, enjoyable life. Funny how that goes. Regardless, I don't think that you can change human instinct, and I think that ancap is more than able to handle it. I seriously doubt communes would have the economic power necessary to defeat the "solos."


So is this "I know mine is, but so is yours" or what? Of course any large State construct will be oppressive. In the case of what I am describing, the idea is that you don't just end with socialism.

You're assumption is still that human nature can be changed to a great extent through socialist nurturing, something which I strongly disagree with.

I am not prepared to discuss economics, be them Marxist or not as I lack understanding of various aspects of the whole. Mainly because I find actual sterile economics very, very boring. I've read and understood parts of the Manifesto and Capital, but I haven't much looked into counterpoints and rebuttals. That Marxist politico-economical analysis is however, still very much applied in current discussions by people far more intelligent and well-read than me (be them Marxists like Hobsbawm or even complete opposite parties, everybody uses Marxist terminology) seems to suggest that you are also not exactly sure what you're talking about. But if you like regurgitating select catch phrases out of a silly primer textbook as you undoubtedly are, then go right on ahead.

All I'm going to say is look up the labor theory of value, and the subjective theory of value, and tell me which one makes more sense.

Haven't read these guys. Their legitimacy as to what? Anarchism comes in serveral different flavours (you've chosen the most rediculous and far-fetched one, anarchocommunism being the most possible, given communistic foundation), and most have either been tested to horrible results, or remain untested. I remain unconvinced there's a valid way to go from globalized capitalism to anarchism.

Their legitimacy as to being anarchists. Right now there is a huge debate with the socialists as to whether ancaps are truely anarchist at all; they view anarchism to be inherently anti-capitalist.

[Spectre X]

Human nature is malleable and therefore does not 'exist'.

It's a cultural thing, you see.

[Helm]

Whoa this changes everything


EDIT: okay, besides the sarcasm because you probably really ment that and think it was correct. In a (fairly generic and probably full of holes) nutshell: There's instinctual directives that exist in animals, mainly urging them to create progeny, protect it, protect themselves, exert control and dominance over their immediate surroundings, and so on. Life exerting control, natural selection, you know the drill. Don't ask me why, take your pick: because god intended it to be so, or because QM infinite fault emulation led to such a progressive universe randomly, because there's a universal design of non-deific origin, whatever. I don't really bother with ontology and 'the big start of everything' anymore.

As animals, we also have these instinctual directives, and we're urged to fulfill them as we can via our biochemistry (read: base feelings). There is nothing 'cultural' about the fear of death, the need to procreate and the avoidance of danger. In fact, culture is built around these primordial urges, fortifying their recurrence. It is those cultural fortifications that, through time transmutate into different shades (of essentially the same thing) as you correctly suggest, not the basic instinctual drives, which remain the same and unaltered. The way I deal with the fact that I get hard-ons and desire to make Helm babies might change, the mating rituals I have to go through might change, but the hard-on is ever-present through time.

All this is a completely different topic and thread, and if you feel like persuing it, make it and I'm there. Right here though, the point is to make OAO feel stupid

[ziggytrix]

You deny the existence of human instinct?! I should beat the crap out of you.

[Helm]

haha ziggy

[Emu]

Every psych and sociology class I've had denies the existence of human instinct (or called them "drives" or some such drivel), but every class and book I've read on biology, chemistry, etc. says that we do have instinct. I'm inclined to side with the latter. As humans, we hold ourselves to such a standard that separates us from the rest of life, like we're something special, exempt from the laws that apply to everything else, which is utterly retarded and big-headed of us.

I hope this thread goes on forever. I'm really fascinated by it. :x

[The One and Only...]

Helm, please read this. It articulates much of the anarcho-capitalist position better than I have.

http://www.explore-government.com/government/A/Anarcho%2Dcapitalism.html

A similar philosophy is that of agorism, which I am trying to find more information on as it has been appealing to me lately.

http://www.explore-dictionary.com/economics/A/Agorism.html

[Helm]

Helm, please read this. It articulates much of the anarcho-capitalist position better than I have.

http://www.explore-government.com/government/A/Anarcho%2Dcapitalism.html

No.

[AChimp]

A similar philosophy is that of agorism, which I am trying to find more information on as it has been appealing to me lately.
Ah, so this whole anarchy thing is just your teenage flavour of the month. You are filled with so much angst.

[Helm]

the fact that you fish out your flavour of the month from internet philosophy databases means if nothing else, that you definately aren't ready to call yourself anything that ends with an -ist, yet. The point of having a political and philosophical position is manyfold, but simply using them to impress people, or to fortify yourself against your cruel mom, or to divert your teenage angst isn't what I'd call valid.

Left libertarian, Anarchist Libertarian, Agorist, Anarcho-capitalist... whatever you think is cooler

[Emu]

Helm, please read this. It articulates much of the anarcho-capitalist position better than I have.

http://www.explore-government.com/government/A/Anarcho%2Dcapitalism.html

What's the point in reading this? I know that anarcho-capitalism is fundamentally flawed as a viable way of society. Within capitalism, power always becomes concentrated among the few--it's why a large percentage of the income in our coutry is managed by the top 1%. When power becomes concentrated, rulers emerge. It's a fact of human nature. In fact, without the necessary stepping stone of socialism, like Helm said, if our form of government moved from the democracy we have now to the anarchist state, the people who didn't already HAVE the wealth would never have a chance. I don't know about you, but even if wealth was no longer measured in capital but in possessions(since it COULDN'T be measured in capital, because capital requires a government agency, and even gold would have no definite value in an anarchic state), I think Bill Gates would still have a much better chance than Joe Blue down the street. But good ol' Bill needs workers, and if there's no law to stop him, what's going to keep him from annexing land and goods from the people around him, until he becomes the king of a serfdom?

It seems to me an anarchocapitalist is just someone who really, really doesn't want to pay taxes.

[Emu]

The difference between anarcho-capitalists and other libertarians is largely one of degree. Minarchist libertarians wish to reduce the size and intrusiveness of the state, but unlike anarcho-capitalists, retain vital functions that they believe the private sector cannot adequately provide, like police, courts and the military. Anarcho-capitalists believe these should be privately owned, operated and funded.

Even in that paragraph alone you should be able to see the flaw. If the police become privately owned, the owner can make them take down whoever the hell he wants until he becomes the (say it with me kids) government himself. And then there's no more capitalism -- only monopolies, to put it lightly.

Anarcho-capitalists differ from left anarchists in that they do not oppose private property (including private ownership of the means of production), they believe that contractual relationships between employers and employees are voluntary (including profit arrangements), and they are not motivated by egalitarian concerns. According to "mainstream" anarchists, the terms anarcho-capitalist and anarcho-capitalism are contradictions, because they claim capitalism is inherentially hierarchical and as such is opposed to anarchism. Anarcho-capitalists reject mainstream anarchism.

I like how the argument put against that is "Anarcho-capitliasts reject mainstream anarchism." Well, obviously.

Anarcho-capitalism IS a contradiction. It's true that capitalism works "better" with less government, but it doesn't work at all in the absence of it. The government is what sets the definite value of your capital. A dollar is worth the same amount of Ho-Hos no matter where you go. A chicken is not.

And if there IS no government, the capitalist nature of the society will produce one, whether you like it or not.

Anarcho-capitalists oppose coercion, which they (like other libertarians) commonly define as the act of preventing one from having the willful use of their person or property by employing physical force, the threat of such, or fraud. Any action that is made of one's own free will (i.e., not as a result of force or fraud) is considered by anarcho-capitalists to be "voluntary".

More contradictions. You oppose coercion, yet you don't want someone there to stop the coercion. You might say that the police will be there, but what if the person who owns the police is doing the coercion? Then what are you gonna do?

Private property and the idea of self-ownership are central to anarcho-capitalism. As a rule, anarcho-capitalists believe that property is not to be recognized as being legitimately-obtained unless it has been acquired through trade or gift.

In my social studies class, I think they called that "bartering," and it was characteristic of feudal societies.


Anarcho-capitalists recognize that there are few parcels of land left on Earth that have not been coerced from their original possessors (some who may have staked claims millions of years ago), but they do not believe that the past can be remedied by forcefully taking the property from someone today who has acquired it in a consensual transaction.

Why the hell not? It worked for the American settlers.

(Also, agriculture hasn't even existed for "millions of years"...Homo sapiens as a speices hasn't even existed a million years. If that's not a clue, then I don't know what is.)

[Spectre X]

I don't deny the existence of human instinct, I deny the existence of human nature as a fixed thing.

Helm summed it up pretty nicely. I didn't mean the instinctual urges we have, but the emphasis put on them by whichever culture one is a part of.

[Helm]

I actually missed the whole of your rebuttal before.


You entirely misunderstand me. What I mean is that the State is dominated by corporations seeking to manipulate the market in ways that would be advantagous to them. That, my friend, is corporatism, and it's something I'm entirely opposed.

I did not misunderstand you. What you posted was not what you had in your mind. To this newer point I agree wholeheartedly.


I'm not bringing this up as any sort of an attack on your system, but merely to illustrate that I know what you're talking about.

You know what you're talking about because in 8th grade you shared my opinion on how a properly democratic goverment would work?

My problem with such systems now is that there is still an abrogation of rights. People should not be forced to have restraints on their liberty just because the majority of people wills them. A better idea is to let people establish and join communities on a basis of free choice.

Absolutely nobody is stopping you from leaving such a democratic country and persuing your freedom in greener pastures.

Aside from the economic inefficiency (which I realise you don't want to debate), the State will never permit this to occur. It invariably serves the existing hierarchy; it will certain not dissolve itself.

Of course this will be economically inefficient. For a duration. Economy should serve man, not shackle him and be strawmanned into every political argument as "omg what would happen to the economy!". The disadvantage can be managed. As to the State not permitting it to occur, last time I checked, you control the various aspects of state through the power of voting. Wee. The State cannot 'stop' something from happening if it's the will of the people. In the case somebody tries, he's attempting a coup, and as is the usual case, the people go off with his head in a pinch.



I am prepared to align even with such people since we share the same intermediate goal.

[quote]You said that anarcho-capitalism would be smashed by those who weren't content with it.

Yes, and this displays my failure to understand what, how?

Actually, private defense forces in the context of a pseudo-ancap society have been fairly successful, such as in medieval Iceland.

medieval Iceland? Are you retarded?

Justice is put into the context of human rights - nothing more, nothing less.

Boy, are you completely unread. First of all a system of Justice a living, dynamic thing that changes with the times. New bills are suggested and passed every day. It's not just about 'human rights'. And justice is as much as to the actual constant word of the law as it is the interpretation of it. It is in the latter that privatized forces would fail completely. A private enterprize only has one goal, and that is to enmass the biggest amount of profit and cut back on it's losses. The model of the conglomerates that you yourself said have reached within the State and are wrestling control of in the name of profit. Are you sincerily telling me that you'd be happy with Policing Companies, that you'd entrust them with the duty of interpreting the law?

Beyond that, polycentric legal codes and multiple defense agencies allow individuals to choose how to live their own lives. It's quite possible that a community of, say, hardcore Christians, might choose to hire Archangels Inc. to protect them from outside forces and hire the Shepards Corp. to bring offenders of the community laws to a private court.

I'm sure your Paladin character will roll perfect twenties in his Divine Intuition rolls.

Ya know, most people I know don't seek power so much as they seek a happy, enjoyable life. Funny how that goes. Regardless, I don't think that you can change human instinct, and I think that ancap is more than able to handle it. I seriously doubt communes would have the economic power necessary to defeat the "solos."

Oh, proof by sincere doubt. Consider me covered.

You're assumption is still that human nature can be changed to a great extent through socialist nurturing, something which I strongly disagree with.

Whoa, proof by strong disagreement. Case closed!

Also, I never said human nature can be fundamentally altered. The jury's still out on that one, but probably, it can only happen naturally through many such 'nurtured' generations. I was/am saying that it's workings can and should be explored to the point where they're made transparent for all, and controlled. This is not happening right now. Nobody is trying. Everybody is being automatic. I had this discussion with the Apportioner in this forum 3 years ago and when he first suggested that man goes to war because of his instinctual leanings, I considered it absurd and fought the notion well into my following study of determinism before I decided to stop lying to myself. Most people, even to suggest that they're not IN COMPLETE CONTROL of themselves flinch and kneejerk all over the place. Nobody is trying. We have to try.


All I'm going to say is look up the labor theory of value, and the subjective theory of value, and tell me which one makes more sense.

I have a general understanding of both terms. Of course labour value is for most intents and purposes the most socially viable. Labour value should be constant for anyone more advanced economical framework (multinational trading, for example) to work. I can understand how subjective labour costs might make sense if you're living in a commune and you buy chickens for two sets of shoes, but clearly applying subjective values to labour in any level over that is retarded.

Their legitimacy as to being anarchists. Right now there is a huge debate with the socialists as to whether ancaps are truely anarchist at all; they view anarchism to be inherently anti-capitalist.

Of course 'ancaps' are not anarchists. They're 'ancaps'. Just as anarcho-communists are not communists. Names are just names. Trying to keep people from using the name of something you hold dear so they don't spoil it into their ( admittedly stupid, in this case) version is pointless. Things are better measured in examination of their parameters, not their names. Though, I'd choose a less misleading name for anarchocapitalism, personally, like 'hahaha'.

[The One and Only...]

the fact that you fish out your flavour of the month from internet philosophy databases means if nothing else, that you definately aren't ready to call yourself anything that ends with an -ist, yet. The point of having a political and philosophical position is manyfold, but simply using them to impress people, or to fortify yourself against your cruel mom, or to divert your teenage angst isn't what I'd call valid.

Left libertarian, Anarchist Libertarian, Agorist, Anarcho-capitalist... whatever you think is cooler

I've been an ancap for several months now. An agorist is essentially a type of ancap; agorism is basically a variation which opposes patents on that basis that it's an illegitimate form of monopoly, recognizes the possibility of some common property in a free-market society (think air), and views the key to establishing a market anarchist society in the practice of Counter-Economics. I don't see how coming across this type of philosophy and getting interested in it can be viewed as a "flavor of the month" given the positions I currently have.


What's the point in reading this? I know that anarcho-capitalism is fundamentally flawed as a viable way of society. Within capitalism, power always becomes concentrated among the few--it's why a large percentage of the income in our coutry is managed by the top 1%.When power becomes concentrated, rulers emerge. It's a fact of human nature. In fact, without the necessary stepping stone of socialism, like Helm said, if our form of government moved from the democracy we have now to the anarchist state, the people who didn't already HAVE the wealth would never have a chance. I don't know about you, but even if wealth was no longer measured in capital but in possessions(since it COULDN'T be measured in capital, because capital requires a government agency, and even gold would have no definite value in an anarchic state), I think Bill Gates would still have a much better chance than Joe Blue down the street. But good ol' Bill needs workers, and if there's no law to stop him, what's going to keep him from annexing land and goods from the people around him, until he becomes the king of a serfdom?


We don't live in a capitalist society. We live in a corporatist republic.

Oh, and as far as no one getting a chance - it's called fiat currency. With the abolition of government, state-sponsored currencies will become valueless.

It seems to me an anarchocapitalist is just someone who really, really doesn't want to pay taxes.

Theoretically, you can have a state without taxation. That is what I used to advocate.

Even in that paragraph alone you should be able to see the flaw. If the police become privately owned, the owner can make them take down whoever the hell he wants until he becomes the (say it with me kids) government himself. And then there's no more capitalism -- only monopolies, to put it lightly.

It isn't very profitable to engage in combat. Such an aggressive firm might face a joint beatdown from other firms concerned for their own safety, not to mention lose a few customers (read: all).

I like how the argument put against that is "Anarcho-capitliasts reject mainstream anarchism." Well, obviously.

Anarcho-capitalism IS a contradiction. It's true that capitalism works "better" with less government, but it doesn't work at all in the absence of it. The government is what sets the definite value of your capital. A dollar is worth the same amount of Ho-Hos no matter where you go. A chicken is not.

And if there IS no government, the capitalist nature of the society will produce one, whether you like it or not.

You realize that there is such a thing as commodity money, right?

More contradictions. You oppose coercion, yet you don't want someone there to stop the coercion. You might say that the police will be there, but what if the person who owns the police is doing the coercion? Then what are you gonna do?

A firm which extorts money from it's customers isn't going to get very far... unless that firm is a monopoly called the State.

Remember that these defense agencies do have to compete with one another.

In my social studies class, I think they called that "bartering," and it was characteristic of feudal societies.

Except for the fact that you can have currency in the absense of a Sate.

Why the hell not? It worked for the American settlers.

Isn't that a perfect example of why the hell not?

I did not misunderstand you. What you posted was not what you had in your mind. To this newer point I agree wholeheartedly.

Then I miscommunicated. Either way, it doesn't really matter now.

You know what you're talking about because in 8th grade you shared my opinion on how a properly democratic goverment would work?

I know what you're talking about. It was a statement meant to show you that I understood the system you proposed.

Absolutely nobody is stopping you from leaving such a democratic country and persuing your freedom in greener pastures.

There are rights violations virtually everyone. Even Somalia is subject to the will of the illegitimate multinationals, and governments generally won't allow you to succeed.

Of course this will be economically inefficient. For a duration. Economy should serve man, not shackle him and be strawmanned into every political argument as "omg what would happen to the economy!". The disadvantage can be managed. As to the State not permitting it to occur, last time I checked, you control the various aspects of state through the power of voting. Wee. The State cannot 'stop' something from happening if it's the will of the people. In the case somebody tries, he's attempting a coup, and as is the usual case, the people go off with his head in a pinch.

What is your basis for socialism if not for economic considerations? And can you not see how empowering the State would enable it to spread it's own propaganda and crush dissent? You are right to say that the people need to be educated, but I do not think that the State will educate the people in a manner which is anti-statist. Likewise, the State won't eliminate the classes which it serves.

I am prepared to align even with such people since we share the same intermediate goal.

You stated that all Socialists view socialism as a stepping stone. Now you admit that some view it as an end?

Yes, and this displays my failure to understand what, how?

It illustrates your failure to understand that anarcho-capitalist societies have mechanisms for defense and that anarcho-capitalism, by nature, is panarchic.

medieval Iceland? Are you retarded?

Do you have any idea to what I'm referring to?

Boy, are you completely unread. First of all a system of Justice a living, dynamic thing that changes with the times. New bills are suggested and passed every day. It's not just about 'human rights'. And justice is as much as to the actual constant word of the law as it is the interpretation of it. It is in the latter that privatized forces would fail completely. A private enterprize only has one goal, and that is to enmass the biggest amount of profit and cut back on it's losses. The model of the conglomerates that you yourself said have reached within the State and are wrestling control of in the name of profit. Are you sincerily telling me that you'd be happy with Policing Companies, that you'd entrust them with the duty of interpreting the law?

First of all, justice doesn't change with the times; perceptions of justice do. Second of all, a mutally-accepted court would have to be hired for disputes between two involved parties, something which would be done as fighting is undesireable on a multitude of levels. Due to the nature of the court system, I think it would be a better alternative to the current system in which there is no choice.

Oh, proof by sincere doubt. Consider me covered.

...

Whoa, proof by strong disagreement. Case closed!

You provided no proof of your own. You merely made assertions without giving them basis.

Also, I never said human nature can be fundamentally altered. The jury's still out on that one, but probably, it can only happen naturally through many such 'nurtured' generations. I was/am saying that it's workings can and should be explored to the point where they're made transparent for all, and controlled. This is not happening right now. Nobody is trying. Everybody is being automatic. I had this discussion with the Apportioner in this forum 3 years ago and when he first suggested that man goes to war because of his instinctual leanings, I considered it absurd and fought the notion well into my following study of determinism before I decided to stop lying to myself. Most people, even to suggest that they're not IN COMPLETE CONTROL of themselves flinch and kneejerk all over the place. Nobody is trying. We have to try.

1) Even assuming human nature can be altered, humanity is so complex that I don't see how you can find the right process to alter in a specified, exact manner.

2) Why would you want to alter human nature anyway? What real purpose does it serve without an objective moral basis?

I have a general understanding of both terms. Of course labour value is for most intents and purposes the most socially viable. Labour value should be constant for anyone more advanced economical framework (multinational trading, for example) to work. I can understand how subjective labour costs might make sense if you're living in a commune and you buy chickens for two sets of shoes, but clearly applying subjective values to labour in any level over that is retarded.

Well, your view is slightly off. The LTV and STV are both statements of value about the product of labor, not labor itself. The LTV asserts that the value of a given product is based on the amount of labor required to make it. The STV asserts that value can only be assigned to the products of labor in the human mind; there is no intrinsic value.

I think that the LTV is fundamentally disproven by the price system. Prices reflect, in part, the value that is given to products by human minds. Assuming that supply is the same, most people would pay more for a computer than a toothpick even if the amount of labor required to make them was the same. Thus, they are valued on a subjective level.

[kellychaos]

Is this becoming a nature versus nurture argument? Am I to be believe that people would behave differently sans the oppressive state? How could you, OAO, possibly know human nature in a stateless society with no successful examples ... least-wise, none that have run their developmental course? At best, it would be an educated guess. Moreover, it would be YOUR educated guess ... and that doesn't exactly build any condidence in me given that you're citing 8th grade political science projects.

[Chojin]

OAO, you're reading replies and then trying to figure out why they're wrong instead of actually considering anything. That makes you a psuedo-intellectual. And now you just had a knee-jerk reaction that I was threatening you, so you'll disregard everything I say. Likewise, I'm going to pick through part of your post and ignore all the supposed content while making fun of it - not because I'm a psuedo-intellectual seeking an intellectual victory, but because I am an asshole who sees derision as a means unto itself. Funny how that works, isn't it?

Oh, and as far as no one getting a chance - it's called fiat currency. With the abolition of government, state-sponsored currencies will become valueless.
So, great. Their guns won't be worth anything either, but they still fire bullets. Corporations wield incredible power without needing to spend money. Money is the means, not the process in and of itself.

Theoretically, you can have a state without taxation. That is what I used to advocate.
Theoretically, you can give everyone in the world a kitten without spending a dime. But it isn't too feasible, and it's stupid.

It isn't very profitable to engage in combat. Such an aggressive firm might face a joint beatdown from other firms concerned for their own safety, not to mention lose a few customers (read: all).
Yeah, because this is exactly what happens to the mafia.

You realize that there is such a thing as commodity money, right?
So, you prefer a system of currency that is dynamic, obsolete, complicated, and confusing. This is better than our current system of currency (which is only dynamic) how? Isn't this sort of shit what society has evolved past, anyway?

Why the hell not? It worked for the American settlers.

Isn't that a perfect example of why the hell not?
No?

I'd read and respond to the rest of it, but it's like arguing with a 5-year-old that insists he's tall enough to ride the rollercoaster. Only he uses the socratic method (Michael :tear).

[The One and Only...]

OAO, you're reading replies and then trying to figure out why they're wrong instead of actually considering anything.

I wasn't aware that you could read my mind.

So, great. Their guns won't be worth anything either, but they still fire bullets. Corporations wield incredible power without needing to spend money. Money is the means, not the process in and of itself.

Most corporate assets are at least indirectly tied to money. The actual amount of real material that it has is much smaller, especially ones that it can offer employees as payment for their services. No employees = no services to provide = collapse.

Theoretically, you can give everyone in the world a kitten without spending a dime. But it isn't too feasible, and it's stupid.

I fail to see how giving everyone a kitten for free is a good analogy to a state that sustains itself on the production of it's own currency, kept in line with population growth in an attempt to end inflationary booms and recessions.

It isn't very profitable to engage in combat. Such an aggressive firm might face a joint beatdown from other firms concerned for their own safety, not to mention lose a few customers (read: all).
Yeah, because this is exactly what happens to the mafia.

The mafia works in the underground crime scene. It's hardly analogous to PDAs, which would defend against extortion. It's all about the market - anywhere there is a high number of criminal activities, including extortion, the demand for a strong PDA will grow. All this works quickly; I don't see how a PDA would be any less able to handle a such an organization any less effectively than Statist police.

So, you prefer a system of currency that is dynamic, obsolete, complicated, and confusing. This is better than our current system of currency (which is only dynamic) how? Isn't this sort of shit what society has evolved past, anyway?

We didn't get rid of the gold standard until Nixon, and that was only because it was creating an economic problem. Do you really believe that currency would be liquidated for the commodity frequently in a stateless market economy?

No?

Am I correct in thinking that he was referring to when American settlers forced Native Americans off their land? Why would we want to repeat such an atrocity?

[Chojin]

Because this isn't a perfect society, and human nature will undo even the best-laid plans. "Why would we want to repeat that atrocity?" You would not control this society you propose. People would do it. All an AC system would do - provided you found enough simple-minded idiots to go along with it - is weaken people for predators to take advantage of them.

The rest of that post was either I DISAGREE or YOUR JOKE DOES NOT MAKE SENSE IN A REAL-WORLD CONTEXT.

Except for this line:

"Do you really believe that currency would be liquidated for the commodity frequently in a stateless market economy?"

...which just makes no sense, but slowly and sensually strokes your terribly oversized member.

I also enjoyed your bit about the Mafia falling against the forces of Public Displays of Affection. I think you should create a movie about that, or at least an anime.

At any rate, Spongebob, you're just a kid. You'll never make it to Shell City, let alone create an ANARCHO CAPITALIST SOCIETY THAT HAS FENCING AS THE NATIONAL SPORT ONLY THERE IS NO NATION SO THE TERM NATIONAL IS QUITE REDUNDANT PFAH PFAH HA HA YES OH DEAR HOW CLEVER OF ME

[Emu]

No?

Am I correct in thinking that he was referring to when American settlers forced Native Americans off their land? Why would we want to repeat such an atrocity?

It's not that we'd WANT to, it's just that it would happen. There's nothing to stop anyone from just TAKING anyone else's land. I said it worked for the settlers just to illustrate that "good" can come of it.

[FS]

sobran sounds like a type of cereal old people would eat with prune juice

haha

And I love how through his 'ideological changes', the core of OAO's view of the ideal world is still one where he doesn't have to be bothered by other people's misfortunes.

Didn't you ever see Robocop, OAO?

[Emu]

Anyone else find it ironic that he uses an Orwellian abbrevation for his social philosophy?

[Helm]

I've been an ancap for several months now. An agorist is essentially a type of ancap; agorism is basically a variation which opposes patents on that basis that it's an illegitimate form of monopoly, recognizes the possibility of some common property in a free-market society (think air), and views the key to establishing a market anarchist society in the practice of Counter-Economics. I don't see how coming across this type of philosophy and getting interested in it can be viewed as a "flavor of the month" given the positions I currently have.

You know my dad's a Marxist, right? Full-fledged and all. The house is littered with political and economical text. I've been reading parts of it since I was 12. You know when I told my dad for the first time that I was a whatever '-ist'? Last year. And I'm now 21. It wasn't "communist" by the way. You're rushing. You haven't considered everything in a more whole political context. You've grabbed on to something that initially seems to make sense and you're building your lego moonbase over it, adding extensions and towers and anarchocapitalist turrets that shoot flowers, in the hope that nobody will see the foundation of it is still moon-rock. What the hell is up with that analogy? Anyway, you need more rounded understanding of politics before you adopt a strong position. I can see you going "flavour of the month?! I'll show them! I'll be an anarcho-capitalist FOREVER!!" which, while hilarious, is really not the effect we're going for, here.

We don't live in a capitalist society. We live in a corporatist republic.

What YOU FAIL to understand is that a corporatist economic state is the natural progression of ANY capitalistic system. The State will always occur.

Oh, and as far as no one getting a chance - it's called fiat currency. With the abolition of government, state-sponsored currencies will become valueless.

How wonderful. To neutralize all the economical progression of the last 200 years sounds like a great idea.


It isn't very profitable to engage in combat.

To the contrary, the spoils make it very, very profitable to go to war. Also stop this 'engage in combat' shit, this isn't fencing, or d&d. Seriously, it's unnerving.

Except for the fact that you can have currency in the absense of a Sate.

No. At least, not multinationally. Currency can only exist if it is sponsored and accepted by all interested parties as of having a ( directly related to several factors, but accepted to be as such by all) value. Otherwise it's meaningless.

Then I miscommunicated. Either way, it doesn't really matter now.

Yes, yes it does matter because you do this all the time. You say :BARF and then you said the other person misunderstood you because you ment :GRAVY. You should pay attention to how you speak, and what room for construsion you leave. From how a man speaks you can understand a lot about his intellectual clarity, and furthermore, his reasons of going into discussion. The fact that you're being wrong a lot, and blaming others for misunderstanding you in this, paints you as somebody who is trying to WIN something in here.


I know what you're talking about. It was a statement meant to show you that I understood the system you proposed.

See, you do this here again.

What is your basis for socialism if not for economic considerations?

GOOD LORD. My basis for socialism is for SOCIAL considerations FOREMOST! The advancement of man! The eradication of violence and injustice! Progressive foundations of thinking!


And can you not see how empowering the State would enable it to spread it's own propaganda and crush dissent?

Because the state is controlled by the little safety trigger called VOTING. Now I know this might come as a shock to you as an american, where YOU have left democracy to deteriorate to choosing between two morons who have no real authority, but in other places of the world, there's still political parties, with programs and representatives. It's not perfect, but it's better than shit. Jesus, the State is not the methaphorical boogeyman. you need to consider alternate sources of information.

You are right to say that the people need to be educated, but I do not think that the State will educate the people in a manner which is anti-statist. Likewise, the State won't eliminate the classes which it serves.

Again, that is up to what party you vote for, and it's program concerning education. Do you think it's a coincidence that educational programs focus more and more into producing people who can readily be assimilated in the market, instead of producing educated, aware people, who can see methaphorically far being their cock and balls? That is what YOU'RE VOTING FOR.

You stated that all Socialists view socialism as a stepping stone. Now you admit that some view it as an end?

I said even socialists will agree socialism is not the end. You said 'for some people it is', and I said I am prepared to align even with such people (who are not really socialists) because of the agreement on step B.

It illustrates your failure to understand that anarcho-capitalist societies have mechanisms for defense and that anarcho-capitalism, by nature, is panarchic.

No. And there's no word 'panarchic'. I get you though, 'cause I'm greek and I know pan stands for all and archic stands for law, but you know... retarded, trying to impress people, blah blah. anarchocapitalism is not panarchic. The whole point of 'archis' is that it might be dynamic, but it's the same for all within a community. See, if that's not so, we're just discussing the might of power, and that's another shade of fascism.

Do you have any idea to what I'm referring to?

No, because medieval Iceland! Even the fact that you would suggest this in a modern context... retarded! Stop being! Retarded!

First of all, justice doesn't change with the times; perceptions of justice do.

What? Where's the difference between the two? Idiot.

Second of all, a mutally-accepted court would have to be hired for disputes between two involved parties, something which would be done as fighting is undesireable on a multitude of levels. Due to the nature of the court system, I think it would be a better alternative to the current system in which there is no choice.

The whole idea of a court is that it's ruling is respected by all. If you have private courts, there's no legal precidient that would suggest any reason to respect an infavourable result. This would suggest anarchocapitalists would very quickly become a bunch of violent crybabies, with a humonous set of different courts they go running to, suing their knee, whenever they fall down and hurt their knee.

THE POINT IS, OAO, THAT JUSTICE SERVES THE PUBLIC. THE WHOLE OF THE PUBLIC. It is there to create the necessary foundations of safety so that a whole community can prosper. Take the prosperity of the whole out of the equation, and there is no concept of justice that is applicable to this discussion. Make a new name for what you're talking about.

...

What, you jerk? Is that all?

You provided no proof of your own. You merely made assertions without giving them basis.

Oh, ok! If you cannot clearly see where the burden of proof lies in these case, I'll just continue to call you stupid.

1) Even assuming human nature can be altered, humanity is so complex that I don't see how you can find the right process to alter in a specified, exact manner.

Yet humanity's not complex enough to find loopholes around silly little private courts, right?*groan*


2) Why would you want to alter human nature anyway? What real purpose does it serve without an objective moral basis?

The real purpose it would serve would be for man to understand himself better, control himself more readily. If there's a more widely accepted moral basis than this, I cannot tell. Still not objective, because OAO, there ARE no objective moral bases.

So yeah, read some ethics while you're at it. I suggest Inventing Right and Wrong by H.Mackie as a good starting point.


there is no intrinsic value.

If you do not see how a set value of the product of labour based on the amount of effort required to produce it, is not an intrinsic value then you're uhh... stupid?

I think that the LTV is fundamentally disproven by the price system.

In micro-economics. And not disproven, just not paid enough mind to.

Prices reflect, in part, the value that is given to products by human minds. Assuming that supply is the same, most people would pay more for a computer than a toothpick even if the amount of labor required to make them was the same. Thus, they are valued on a subjective level.

No, you moron, they're not valued on a subjective level, the need of them in weighed on a subjective level. What you ARE saying is that let's say a nuclear power, India for example, when in great shortage of toothpicks, would rather spend 30 million dollars on a single toothpick than on another nuclear warhead. You are insane. It might NEED the toothpicks more, and spend 30 million dollars buying 30 gazillion toothpicks instead of one nuclear warhead. Can you see the distinction in this? Can you? PLEASE tell me you can.

[Emu]

Since Helm already responded to most of it, I'll just respond to a few choice quotes.


I've been an ancap for several months now. An agorist is essentially a type of ancap; agorism is basically a variation which opposes patents on that basis that it's an illegitimate form of monopoly, recognizes the possibility of some common property in a free-market society (think air), and views the key to establishing a market anarchist society in the practice of Counter-Economics. I don't see how coming across this type of philosophy and getting interested in it can be viewed as a "flavor of the month" given the positions I currently have.

I find that most people that give themselves -ist labels oftentimes do so because they agree with a few of the simple aspects of it and refuse to acknowlege contradictions -- exactly what you're doing here. You've had, what, 3 or 4 different people telling you quite explicitly about the inherent flaws in your system and you're STILL sticking to it? You don't even defend your positions with why they would work as opposed to what would, theoretically, make them work, like that "you know there's fiat currency, right?" thing you said below. I don't know what the hell fiat currency is, honestly. And you're not describing how 'fiat currency' would make the system work, you're just giving us vague allusions and links to websites that describe it better than you could. If you can't describe it as well or better than some website, you don't know enough about your political theory.

We don't live in a capitalist society. We live in a corporatist republic.

What Helm said. Capitalism ALWAYS evolves into corporatism. The only thing keeping Microsoft from being the only provider of computer software are things like anti-trust laws -- imposed on us by the government to protect consumer and entrepeneur rights. Notice: By the government.

Oh, and as far as no one getting a chance - it's called fiat currency. With the abolition of government, state-sponsored currencies will become valueless.

When you first said that, I'll admit, I immediately thought of this (http://www.math.lsu.edu/~bogdan/photo-albums/poland-poznan/fiat.jpg).
But I guess that's not what you mean.

But here's what dictionary dot com says a fiat is:

fi·at ( P )
n.

1. An arbitrary order or decree.
2. Authorization or sanction: government fiat.

This gives me the impression it has to be authorized...Authorized by WHOM, exactly? The people with the goods? Who won't want to give it up? Or would this be the last act of the government before you and your rough and tumble band of road warrior entrepeneurs overthrow it?

It isn't very profitable to engage in combat.

So what the fuck were all the fights for over the past TEN THOUSAND YEARS? Fun? They were for profit, and it worked pretty well, obviously, because now we have states -- a natural progression from a society of groups of people who are under the control of a person who has a lot of wealth who acquired it in the absence of a state.

What is your basis for socialism if not for economic considerations?

It's socialism, not capitalism. Capitalism is almost purely economic in nature, socialism is almost purely social in nature. Why do you think America was so frightened by the Communists during the 50s?

And can you not see how empowering the State would enable it to spread it's own propaganda and crush dissent?

The "state" is not an entity in any real sense. The state in America is controlled by a political party. The 'state' won't be spreading its own propaganda. The political party in control will use the state to spread its propaganda; look at what the Republicans are doing now.

You are right to say that the people need to be educated, but I do not think that the State will educate the people in a manner which is anti-statist. Likewise, the State won't eliminate the classes which it serves.

It's like what Helm said--it's who you vote for. Take the No Child Left Behind act, which focuses on reading, writing and math. Every other subject suffers: Science, social studies, history, the arts, and even P.E. for fuck's sake. The act is ridiculously diabolical, really. It's practically designed to produce not only work drones, but even the blue-collar workers in our country. The act is so ridiculously strict that even if say, three kids can't pass the test, the school doesn't get the funding. The entire school suffers for it. Not to mention the fact that the school spent MORE money than usual in order to bring the kids up to par, and if they fail anyway, it's as if they lost all the money they were going to be given PLUS what they spent. The school suffers, the children suffer, and they come out uneducated and without prospect for the future...and voila.

Consider that for a minute and ask yourself if a Democrat would ever pass a law like that. I believe one of Kerry's platform promises was that he'd reform and/or get rid of the NCLB.

First of all, justice doesn't change with the times; perceptions of justice do.

What's percieved as justice becomes justice. Justice is not a universal constant in any sense of the word.

You provided no proof of your own. You merely made assertions without giving them basis.

Doesn't the burden of proof rest on you for making the assertion that "ancap" would work?

[The One and Only...]

I don't have time to address all of this right now, though I hope to reply tomorrow. Needless to say I think you're wrong on several cases - the idea that the State will inevitably evolve from anarcho-capitalism is not new and has been dealt with several times before. Similiarly, the idea that PDAs will become no better the Mafia has been dealt with.

Just to clarify one point for Emu though. Practically every country in the world has fiat currency at the moment. The dollar, for example, has no value other than the value given to it by government decree.

[Helm]

Do us all a favour: don't reply. I might be wrong in some cases, and we can discuss that. You might be wrong in others and we can discuss that as well. But all this serves nothing at this point, other than making an ass out of you/me which while funny, isn't really something I wish to persue for more than I have to. Do something else instead: read actual books. By people. Stop reading the internet. It's better than nothing, but if you want to have an actual political opinion, read actual books. Read "The Age of Extremes", read "Principa Ethica" . Read stuff by people who are smarter than us directly, not in some internet summation site where you go "oh. So now I know what there's to know of Plato". You don't. This isn't knowledge you have, it's just information. It will not start making sense until it's orderly, in a linear framework where both your knowledge of history and your knowledge of philosophy/economics are on the same page. Right now you're just educated stupid (www.timecube.com).

[ItalianStereotype]

It's like what Helm said--it's who you vote for. Take the No Child Left Behind act, which focuses on reading, writing and math. Every other subject suffers: Science, social studies, history, the arts, and even P.E. for fuck's sake. The act is ridiculously diabolical, really. It's practically designed to produce not only work drones, but even the blue-collar workers in our country. The act is so ridiculously strict that even if say, three kids can't pass the test, the school doesn't get the funding. The entire school suffers for it. Not to mention the fact that the school spent MORE money than usual in order to bring the kids up to par, and if they fail anyway, it's as if they lost all the money they were going to be given PLUS what they spent. The school suffers, the children suffer, and they come out uneducated and without prospect for the future...and voila.

Consider that for a minute and ask yourself if a Democrat would ever pass a law like that. I believe one of Kerry's platform promises was that he'd reform and/or get rid of the NCLB.

just throwing something from off the top of my head here, but is that necessarily bad? in the past, one of the fundamental requirements for a successful society has been a large, happy middle class, right? it seems to me that, if that's really what NCLB is preparing people for, it's going to prepare the average student for middle class labor and leave only those with the drive and lofty ambitions to continue their education and acheive "white collar" work. dunno, maybe, maybe not.

[Emu]

I suppose it's not necessarily a "bad" thing in the economic sense of the word. But like I said, when a few kids can't pass the test, the whole school suffers. Even those who do have the aspirations to achieve the white collar jobs typically won't have the resources OR the encouragement. The NCLB act focuses on poor-to-lower-middle district schools who need the funding anyway; the kids there are the ones who most need the aspiration. It's as if the NCLB is literally damning the whole student body to mediocrity instead of helping them reach the middle class like it was intended to do.

[The One and Only...]

Do us all a favour: don't reply. I might be wrong in some cases, and we can discuss that. You might be wrong in others and we can discuss that as well. But all this serves nothing at this point, other than making an ass out of you/me which while funny, isn't really something I wish to persue for more than I have to. Do something else instead: read actual books. By people. Stop reading the internet. It's better than nothing, but if you want to have an actual political opinion, read actual books. Read "The Age of Extremes", read "Principa Ethica" . Read stuff by people who are smarter than us directly, not in some internet summation site where you go "oh. So now I know what there's to know of Plato". You don't. This isn't knowledge you have, it's just information. It will not start making sense until it's orderly, in a linear framework where both your knowledge of history and your knowledge of philosophy/economics are on the same page.

I already told you that I plan to read things like that this summer. I want to read out of a balance of political perspectivies; Marx is an obvious, as is Nozick and Rawls, and of course I'll have to read some Rothbard and possibly Samuel Edward Konkin. Does anyone else have some suggestions in the political philosophy realm (distinction made so as not to be a repeat of my other thread)?

...educated stupid (www.timecube.com).

Wow. I want to kill that guy.

[theapportioner]

If you want some contemporary stuff, how about Dworkin and Sandel?

[The One and Only...]

Haven't heard of them. I'll have to give them a try.

Also, if anyone here is interested in learning more about/debating over anarcho-capitalism, I would suggest visting the Anti-State forums at http://anti-state.com/. You may post as a guest without registering, and yes, there are a few critics who regularly visit. All that is asked is that you keep your posts in the Newbie/Antagonist board.

This thread has kinda devolved from it's purpose and I'd rather not flood I-Mock with discussions on market anarchism.

Edit: As an afterthought, you might want to check out the forum just to see more of the criticisms of the theory.

[Helm]

what rational person would go debate an ambivalent issue on an forum called 'anti-state'? What would I expect to learn from these people? You need to hang out with a less biased crowd, dude.

[The One and Only...]

Admittedly, my attempts at a balanced perspective are somewhat half-assed, but I do come over here, don't I?

That and I'm always debating my primitivist friend...

Edit: One other thing. I recall someone mentioning that they hold that there is no plausible way that a market anarchist society could arise from our current situation.

The New Libertarian Manifesto (http://www.blackcrayon.com/page.jsp/library/nlm/nlm1.html) is a good outline of how the black market can yield a market anarchist society. Quite an interesting read, although I would dispute some of the points.

[Zhukov]

OAO: read State and Revolution.

Also, try to pay attention to events unfoulding in Venezuela at the moment - something that you can follow as it evolves is just as imortant as reading books.