sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
The main difference between libertarianism and anarchy, is that libertarianism allows the rich man to keep his money and power.
Seems like you don't understand one or the other.
The main difference between libertarianism and anarchy, is that libertarianism allows the rich man to keep his money and power.
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.
Voluntaryism anyone?
To me if one follows the NAP principle logically there cannot be a state.
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.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.
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 recently started a site about the nuts and bolts of how an anarcho-capitalist society could function: www.ancapfaq.com
For a detailed explanation of how security and arbitration could function in such a society, check out this page: http://www.ancapfaq.com/fundamentals-2.html
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.
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.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.
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.There will be competing, full time security that will do a better job for less than what you pay cops in taxes today.
Cancer? Maybe. But, where humans gather differing opinions will manifest and some of those opinions will not be welcome.Government is a cancer, and so it's preferable to completely get rid of the cancer.
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.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.
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.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.
The main difference between libertarianism and anarchy, is that libertarianism allows the rich man to keep his money and power.
Voluntaryism anyone?
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.
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.
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.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.