• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Ron Paul talks about Anarchy

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
The key is the Non-Aggression Principle. It doesn't matter what kind of government you have or even no government at all (like anarco-capitalists describe), aggression can be imposed at any time. I don't see a difference between something like eminent domain and a private road builder seizing your home at gun point because you refused to sell it to them.

IMO - anarchastic societies require everybody to abide by the "rule" of the non-aggression principle and a will to enforce proper behavior if that rule is violated. If everyone is on the same page, then it works. Somebody can come and impose their will at any time if they have the means and influence to do so.

To me if one follows the NAP principle logically there cannot be a state.

People are robbed of property all the time, the difference is right now if you are politically connected the declare it legal.

An armed society could easily thwart the actions of a rich man trying to steal your property with a gun.



Voluntaryism anyone?

Anarchy renamed....;)
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
To me if one follows the NAP principle logically there cannot be a state.

I think the proper function of the law is to uphold the NAP. To do so the law must have the right to use force. I believe criminal courts that have an end to an appeals process must exist. I think the state does some legitimate things. If there were a small, voluntary sales tax (say, 2-4%) I would collect it/pay it and I think many people would also to come under the protection of the law.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
It worked well in the west before it become "wild" with the movement of government intervention westward.

Yes there still can be common law courts. Private security, and responsibility for you and your belongings without having to ask the state to do protect us.
Officially sanctioned vigilantism, mob rule, even peaceful mob rule, is not what anachro-capitalism is calling for, if i understand the intentions of anachro-capitalists.

If I am wronged in a anachro-capitalist society, I must convince my fellow anachro-capitaists that I was in fact wronged, that the wrong is substantial enough to motivate them to assist me in gaining redress, and for them to refrain from taking my side only to protect the rights of the alleged aggrieving party. In essence, a impartial, ad hoc, and temporary "government" is a iffy thing at best. Individual rights must not subject to the whims of the mob.

I would rather have a remote and small government and then wait for the US Marshal to come along in two weeks to haul the criminal off to the territorial prison. Some small amount of government is better than no government at all in my view. I also have little faith that every one of my fellow anachro-capitalist will hold my rights, enumerated in the federal constitution, in high regard.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation

state hater

Banned
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
199
Location
new hampshire
Looks good on paper. Are you willing to bet your life, liberty, and property on every member of your society being on the same page? I am not.

I'll take competition over a coercive monopoly, and I'm sure that you would too, for the 95% or so of things that minarchists agree should be private. I just happen to think that it would work well in all areas.
 

state hater

Banned
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
199
Location
new hampshire
And yes, of course we can't have an anarcho-capitalist society until a certain threshold percentage of people in a given area are reasonably close to being on the same page (disbelief in the concept of authority, belief in self-ownership and the NAP, etc.).
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I'll take competition over a coercive monopoly, and I'm sure that you would too, for the 95% or so of things that minarchists agree should be private. I just happen to think that it would work well in all areas.

And yes, of course we can't have an anarcho-capitalist society until a certain threshold percentage of people in a given area are reasonably close to being on the same page (disbelief in the concept of authority, belief in self-ownership and the NAP, etc.).
Unfortunately it is a all or nothing proposition. Or, the "5%" would spoil the exercise. That 5% would need to be "addressed" by the 95% and, well, some number of the 95% would need to do what LE does today, full time.

Nope, some government is better than no government. Being selfish, I have little time to dedicate playing cop when there are no cops. I will be too busy trying to make a living and providing for my family in a voluntary manner with my fellow citizens.
 

state hater

Banned
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
199
Location
new hampshire
Unfortunately it is a all or nothing proposition. Or, the "5%" would spoil the exercise. That 5% would need to be "addressed" by the 95% and, well, some number of the 95% would need to do what LE does today, full time.

There will be competing, full time security that will do a better job for less than what you pay cops in taxes today.

Nope, some government is better than no government.

Government is a cancer, and so it's preferable to completely get rid of the cancer.

What do you think will happen if we were allowed to have your minarchist paradise tomorrow? There would be a tremendous economic boom. Who would feed off of that economic boom? Your night watchman, minarchist state, that's who. What would happen over the course of a few generations? The territory in question will be back to the Orwellian behemoth that we know and hate right now.

Being selfish, I have little time to dedicate playing cop when there are no cops. I will be too busy trying to make a living and providing for my family in a voluntary manner with my fellow citizens.

I think that all of us should interact in a voluntary manner.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
There will be competing, full time security that will do a better job for less than what you pay cops in taxes today.
What if I disagree with your full time security apparatus? What if I believe that your security apparatus is a threat to the social order? Or, a threat to mine own self interests. Corporate/private security apparatus can be, and have been, just as dangerous and a threat to society as the their state counterparts. At least I know that the threat is before me if it is only the state.

Government is a cancer, and so it's preferable to completely get rid of the cancer.
Cancer? Maybe. But, where humans gather differing opinions will manifest and some of those opinions will not be welcome.

What do you think will happen if we were allowed to have your minarchist paradise tomorrow? There would be a tremendous economic boom. Who would feed off of that economic boom? Your night watchman, minarchist state, that's who. What would happen over the course of a few generations? The territory in question will be back to the Orwellian behemoth that we know and hate right now.

I think that all of us should interact in a voluntary manner.
I suspect that the 47% that Romney mentioned would not be too happy that they would be required to voluntarily do anything that they were not doing yesterday.

I think that you should do what you want to do as long as your doing whatever does not affect me in a manner that I disagree with. If you do act in a manner that adversely affects me I would be compelled to take action to protect mine own self interests. Oh, you don't get to define what is mine own self interests.

Again, sounds good on paper. Reality is typically far different than the theory. As a concept a anachro-capitalist society would be great, but I reside in "Realville."
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Yet in the west before government it worked better the accusations against it are unfounded.

I disagree with the monopoly of force that is abused now, why wouldn't competition work? Seems to be working in Detroit for a private police force.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Yet in the west before government it worked better the accusations against it are unfounded.

I disagree with the monopoly of force that is abused now, why wouldn't competition work? Seems to be working in Detroit for a private police force.
There was always government it just wasn't near by and getting all up in their grilz. That is the goal I seek, government is there and I gotta work extra hard to interact with it, when I decide to interact with it.

Competition on the use of force? Really? :uhoh:

Ya do know that humans are involved in this exercise...right? Many humans, that hold opinions and also hold their individual liberty dear. Which, by the way, may not necessarily coincide with your view of liberty, or your opinion.
 

Lyndsy Simon

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
209
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Voluntaryism anyone?

They're different from AnCaps, but only slightly.

Voluntaryism centers around adherence to the Non-Aggression Principle. That naturally leads to Anarcho-Capitalism, because government cannot exist without violating the NAP.

On the other hand, an AnCap could arrive at the position by determining that the optimum system for human happiness is to allow private competition to rule all facets of life. Given this assertion, a utilitarian would then be compelled to support a system of private competition based on private property ownership. They would act in accordance with the NAP not because they saw it as a moral absolute, but because the consequences of breaking it would be placing one's self at a severe disadvantage in commerce.
 

Lyndsy Simon

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
209
Location
Charlottesville, VA
There was always government it just wasn't near by and getting all up in their grilz. That is the goal I seek, government is there and I gotta work extra hard to interact with it, when I decide to interact with it.

Competition on the use of force? Really? :uhoh:

Ya do know that humans are involved in this exercise...right? Many humans, that hold opinions and also hold their individual liberty dear. Which, by the way, may not necessarily coincide with your view of liberty, or your opinion.

Ayn Rand laid out a plan for government that does not violate NAP (thought she didn't call it that). The general idea was that it could fund itself through a voluntary contract fee - pay the fee in exchange for use of the state court system should the contract be broken. Don't pay the fee, and fend for yourself.

The problem with this is that it is impossible in practice. Government must grow - it's inherent to its very nature. Consider that in 1777, the US Federal Government was a ghost of what it is today. Two hundred thirty seven years have passed, the charter itself has be rewritten once, and a bloody war was fought to forcibly prevent its disintegration. The government was have today is orders of magnitude larger than it was intended, and undeniably larger and more onerous than any King George III could have ever imagined.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Ayn Rand laid out a plan for government that does not violate NAP (thought she didn't call it that). The general idea was that it could fund itself through a voluntary contract fee - pay the fee in exchange for use of the state court system should the contract be broken. Don't pay the fee, and fend for yourself.

The problem with this is that it is impossible in practice. Government must grow - it's inherent to its very nature. Consider that in 1777, the US Federal Government was a ghost of what it is today. Two hundred thirty seven years have passed, the charter itself has be rewritten once, and a bloody war was fought to forcibly prevent its disintegration. The government was have today is orders of magnitude larger than it was intended, and undeniably larger and more onerous than any King George III could have ever imagined.
All true. The federal government is mandated by the federal constitution to protect our individual rights and to not infringe upon those rights. anachro-capitalism is antithetical to a document we all work to have held in the highest regard by all participants in this constitutional republic.

Either you want the constitution or you do not.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I find anarcho-capitalist theory fascinating but, as a voluntaryist, I have come to the conclusion that "anarchism without adjectives" is the more encompassing, realistic approach.

In a voluntary society, I fully expect folks to try (and occasionally fail at) every form of social organization. It seems to me that many (if not most) anarcho-captalists assume a widespread homogeneity which true freedom is unlikely to engender.

A common-law system of truly random, empowered juries utilizing a combination of amercement and outlawry (but otherwise with no real "enforcement" mechanism as we know it via the state) has ample precedent, little need for well-developed market "institutions", and certainly no need for the trappings of a State enforcement apparatus. It also is likely to develop a degree of "local flavor".
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
OC for ME, I don't see how any of the theoretical issues you are raising are solved simply by having a State, no matter the size of that State... All of the "what if" questions are somewhat irrelevant, in my opinion, when the small government you advocate for doesn't relieve a person of having to ask any of those exact same questions...
 
Top