Libertarian my ass!

[FirstAscent]

Please explain to me how there is less violence in your fabled anarchy world.

It would be quite difficult for there to be more.

Explain two things:

1. Demonstrate why it would be difficult for there to be more.

2. Even if there was not more, that does not imply less. Explain why an equal amount is better.

[myrkul]

1. Demonstrate why it would be difficult for there to be more.

First, ask yourself who does most of the violence? The really large-scale stuff. Now imagine getting rid of them. Now, all that's left are the small-time guys, petty warlords and the like. One thing: they're seen for exactly what they are: thugs. and they're treated as such.

2. Even if there was not more, that does not imply less. Explain why an equal amount is better.

Because it will not be seen as legitimate.

[Richy_T]

Please explain to me how there is less violence in your fabled anarchy world.

It would be quite difficult for there to be more.

Explain two things:

1. Demonstrate why it would be difficult for there to be more.

2. Even if there was not more, that does not imply less. Explain why an equal amount is better.

Nearly every action in my waking life is regulated in some way backed by the threat of violence. 70% or more of my job is related to supporting regulations enforced, again, by threats of violent action for noncompliance.

Then we could talk literally of the millions upon millions dead upon the mantle of statism.

Statism *is* violence.

Non-statist violence in my life is typified by the occasional minor incident of road rage. That's it.

[FirstAscent]

Nearly every action in my waking life is regulated in some way backed by the threat of violence. 70% or more of my job is related to supporting regulations enforced, again, by threats of violent action for noncompliance.

Please provide one concrete example, and explain how it does not exist in anarchy.

Statism Anarchy *is* violence.

Fixed that for you.

[myrkul]

Nearly every action in my waking life is regulated in some way backed by the threat of violence. 70% or more of my job is related to supporting regulations enforced, again, by threats of violent action for noncompliance.

Please provide one concrete example, and explain how it does not exist in anarchy.

Well, since I know how you're all about the low-hanging fruit, I'll go for the easy one.

Taxation.

Taxation can't exist in anarchy, since it requires a state.

If you don't understand how taxation is backed by violence, tell the tax man "no," next time he comes asking for money, and he'll give you a demonstration.

[Richy_T]

Nearly every action in my waking life is regulated in some way backed by the threat of violence. 70% or more of my job is related to supporting regulations enforced, again, by threats of violent action for noncompliance.

Please provide one concrete example, and explain how it does not exist in anarchy.

Well, I think we know that first we'd have to get you to agree that fines backed by threat of imprisonment is violence for many of them. However, consider something like Sarbanes Oxley where penalties include imprisonment (sorry, that's not violence in your book either, I'm sure) for certain types of transgression.

Statism Anarchy *is* violence.

Fixed that for you.

In that whole "War is peace" kinda way.

[FirstAscent]

Nearly every action in my waking life is regulated in some way backed by the threat of violence. 70% or more of my job is related to supporting regulations enforced, again, by threats of violent action for noncompliance.

Please provide one concrete example, and explain how it does not exist in anarchy.

Well, since I know how you're all about the low-hanging fruit, I'll go for the easy one.

Taxation.

Taxation can't exist in anarchy, since it requires a state.

If you don't understand how taxation is backed by violence, tell the tax man "no," next time he comes asking for money, and he'll give you a demonstration.

Let's explore this.

Please explain to me what happened to you personally when you told the tax man no, presumably by not sending them money.

Then explain to me how there could not exist someone, or some group in an anarchic society which would demand money from you.

[FirstAscent]

Nearly every action in my waking life is regulated in some way backed by the threat of violence. 70% or more of my job is related to supporting regulations enforced, again, by threats of violent action for noncompliance.

Please provide one concrete example, and explain how it does not exist in anarchy.

Well, I think we know that first we'd have to get you to agree that fines backed by threat of imprisonment is violence for many of them. However, consider something like Sarbanes Oxley where penalties include imprisonment (sorry, that's not violence in your book either, I'm sure) for certain types of transgression.

Please explain to me how there cannot be undesirable ramifications of not paying money to individuals or entities in an anarchic society.

[Rampion]

I think we won't be able to to reach consensus on this one - for me anarcho-capitalism will always be an oxymoron, as per "heavy lightness" or "old youth".... Or "military intelligence"

Once you understand that "anarchy" refers to a political system (rather, the lack thereof), and "capitalism" refers to an economic one, this should clear up.

That said, I understand your points - I hope you understand mine, and I also hope this post helped at least one or two people to understand the historical and philosophical roots of the words "libertarian" and "anarchism".

Oh, I understand your points perfectly. You feel that simply because a group of anarcho-syndicalists first used the term "anarchism" to describe their philosophy, then the term for ever and always will mean that philosophy.

For a long time, Anarcho-syndicalism was the only game in town, when it came to anarchy, so the terms were used interchangeably. But then a man named Gustave de Molinari came up with a different idea... he published  "De la production de la sécurité" in 1849. The text is available online in both French and English, but by far this is my favorite version, as it has an introduction by Rothbard.) This outlined a new kind of anarchy - one that would later come to be called "Anarcho-Capitalism."

I know Molinari quite well, but even if I have to admit that I did not read "De la production de la sécurité", I could bet all my BTC savings that he never used the term anarchism (or anarcho-capitalism) in any of his works. I beg you to prove me wrong if I am.

He didn't, but I fail to see why that's relevant. Go ahead and read it, it's not very long. Take you half an hour, tops.

Well, it is relevant because Molinari was contemporary to Bakunin, and I'm very sure that he would never have even dreamt of conceiving a "capitalist anarchism". In fact I'm sure that he conceived his free market laissez-faire contrapossed to anarchism.

Anyhow, we have been discussing facts. Now I would like to give you my humble opinion about WHY North Americans are not shocked by capitalist libertarians or anarcho-capitalists:

For americans, non-US history has not much relevance. So most of US citizens don't know much about "original" anarchism and his foundation, even though it had an enormous impact on history, and millions of people have died while defending (or fighting against) the anarchist ideals. You give much more relevance to a modern and relatively non-relevant intellectual (Rothbard), whose theory has been quite anecdotical in the history of politics. I will follow-up with my "silly as it gets", "godwin-like" example:

If you heard about a JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY, you would say it's ridicolous. I bet on that. You would laugh at their face, admit it. If they told you to look at the etymology of the NAZI word (National Socialist), insisting on the fact that etymologically nazism has nothing to do with antisemitism, you would just call them crazy. You would tell them that they know NOTHING about history. As an US citizen, you have written in your DNA that nazism is about intollerance, militarism and race, even if Nazionalsocialismus just means "Nationalist Socialism". They could tell you that they are: a) jewish, b) proud americans and c) socialists, but you would still fucking laugh at them for using JEWISH and NAZI in the same sentence.

Well, anarcho-capitalism is as ridiculous as jewish nazi, and insisting on etymology makes it even more ridiculous. Words does not mean what they mean only because of their etymology, that would be a logical fallacy. But from the other side I understand that US is founded on both capitalism and private property, and therefore in your short history you never seriously considered anti-capitalist anarchist theories, for you the "original" anarchism is something marginal that has no relevance at all. Therefore, you are not shocked by someone calling himself an "anarcho-capitalist", even if it's as silly as it can get.

[Rampion]

Nearly every action in my waking life is regulated in some way backed by the threat of violence. 70% or more of my job is related to supporting regulations enforced, again, by threats of violent action for noncompliance.

Please provide one concrete example, and explain how it does not exist in anarchy.

Well, I think we know that first we'd have to get you to agree that fines backed by threat of imprisonment is violence for many of them. However, consider something like Sarbanes Oxley where penalties include imprisonment (sorry, that's not violence in your book either, I'm sure) for certain types of transgression.

Please explain to me how there cannot be undesirable ramifications of not paying money to individuals or entities in an anarchic society.

In an anarchich society you would have less crimes because 99,99% of crimes are related to private property. That's pure statistics my friends. In an "anarcho-capitalist" (lol lol and lol) society I'm not so sure you will have less street violence - You will still need police, thus you are not looking at an anarchy: your are looking at a minarchy

[myrkul]

If you heard about a JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY, you would say it's ridicolous. I bet on that. You would laugh at their face, admit it. If they told you to look at the etymology of the NAZI word (National Socialist), insisting on the fact that etymologically nazism has nothing to do with antisemitism, you would just call them crazy. You would tell them that they know NOTHING about history. As an US citizen, you have written in your DNA that nazism is about intollerance, militarism and race, even if Nazionalsocialismus just means "Nationalist Socialism". They could tell you that they are: a) jewish, b) proud americans and c) socialists, but you would still fucking laugh at them for using JEWISH and NAZI in the same sentence.

Imagine a Jewish fascist state that demonizes, oh, say, Arabs. There's your Jewish Nazis. Just because the German Nazis hated Jews doesn't mean that all national socialist groups necessarily do.

Please explain to me what happened to you personally when you told the tax man no, presumably by not sending them money.

Oh, you wanted a personal account? You should have said so. I'm afraid I don't have one for you. However, let me direct you to the tale of Ed and Elaine Brown.

Then explain to me how there could not exist someone, or some group in an anarchic society which would demand money from you.

Demand, in the same manner as taxation? Simply put, If I don't agree to an obligation, there isn't one. Nobody could come up to me, for instance, and say, "You owe me money for living here," without my previously agreeing to that arrangement.

[Rampion]

If you heard about a JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY, you would say it's ridicolous. I bet on that. You would laugh at their face, admit it. If they told you to look at the etymology of the NAZI word (National Socialist), insisting on the fact that etymologically nazism has nothing to do with antisemitism, you would just call them crazy. You would tell them that they know NOTHING about history. As an US citizen, you have written in your DNA that nazism is about intollerance, militarism and race, even if Nazionalsocialismus just means "Nationalist Socialism". They could tell you that they are: a) jewish, b) proud americans and c) socialists, but you would still fucking laugh at them for using JEWISH and NAZI in the same sentence.

Imagine a Jewish fascist state that demonizes, oh, say, Arabs. There's your Jewish Nazis. Just because the German Nazis hated Jews doesn't mean that all national socialist groups necessarily do.

Please myrkul, even if we disagree we had quite an interesting debate. That Israel government is in fact acting like nazis, does not mean that a "JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY" wouldnt be ridiculous.

[myrkul]

If you heard about a JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY, you would say it's ridicolous. I bet on that. You would laugh at their face, admit it. If they told you to look at the etymology of the NAZI word (National Socialist), insisting on the fact that etymologically nazism has nothing to do with antisemitism, you would just call them crazy. You would tell them that they know NOTHING about history. As an US citizen, you have written in your DNA that nazism is about intollerance, militarism and race, even if Nazionalsocialismus just means "Nationalist Socialism". They could tell you that they are: a) jewish, b) proud americans and c) socialists, but you would still fucking laugh at them for using JEWISH and NAZI in the same sentence.

Imagine a Jewish fascist state that demonizes, oh, say, Arabs. There's your Jewish Nazis. Just because the German Nazis hated Jews doesn't mean that all national socialist groups necessarily do.

Please myrkul, even if we disagree we had quite an interesting debate. That Israel government is in fact acting like nazis, does not mean that a "JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY" would be ridiculous.

Well, yes, because the word "NAZI" is all bound up in the holocaust.. They'd be fools to label it so blatantly.

Fortunately, "anarchy" doesn't have that level of stigma, and we can feel free to call any stateless system - however the economy is organized - an anarchy.

[herzmeister]

I think the American position of libertarianism is more market-oriented simply because they have much more land available and this was never really an issue, while Europe practically still lives in post-feudalism. Historically, land was under control by church and the kings and emperors because "by Grace of God".

[Rampion]

If you heard about a JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY, you would say it's ridicolous. I bet on that. You would laugh at their face, admit it. If they told you to look at the etymology of the NAZI word (National Socialist), insisting on the fact that etymologically nazism has nothing to do with antisemitism, you would just call them crazy. You would tell them that they know NOTHING about history. As an US citizen, you have written in your DNA that nazism is about intollerance, militarism and race, even if Nazionalsocialismus just means "Nationalist Socialism". They could tell you that they are: a) jewish, b) proud americans and c) socialists, but you would still fucking laugh at them for using JEWISH and NAZI in the same sentence.

Imagine a Jewish fascist state that demonizes, oh, say, Arabs. There's your Jewish Nazis. Just because the German Nazis hated Jews doesn't mean that all national socialist groups necessarily do.

Please myrkul, even if we disagree we had quite an interesting debate. That Israel government is in fact acting like nazis, does not mean that a "JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY" would be ridiculous.

Well, yes, because the word "NAZI" is all bound up in the holocaust.. They'd be fools to label it so blatantly.

Fortunately, "anarchy" doesn't have that level of stigma, and we can feel free to call any stateless system - however the economy is organized - an anarchy.

Well, exactly here is where we disagree: as I see it, anarchism is all bound to anti-capitalism, exactly as nazism is all bound to holocaust. Millions of people have died defending or fighting against anarchist ideals in the last two centuries, mainly in Spain and Russia, but also in Hungary and other eastern Europe countries. And the ones fighting anarchists where mainly capitalists and communists - they even joined forces to wipe out anarchists from Spain. But the fact is that anarchism didn't touch american history as nazism did - thus you feel the "level of stigma" is not the same.

[Rampion]

I think the American position of libertarianism is more market-oriented simply because they have much more land available and this was never really an issue, while Europe practically still lives in post-feudalism. Historically, land was under control by church and the kings and emperors because "by Grace of God".

And because a mutualist/cooperativist economy, not based on private property but on mutual aid, has never existed as a serious option in all American history. I would even say that that type of economy is against US foundational principles.

[myrkul]

Well, exactly here is where we disagree: as I see it, anarchism is all bound to anti-capitalism, exactly as nazism is all bound to holocaust. Millions of people have died defending or fighting against anarchist ideals in the last two centuries, mainly in Spain and Russia, but also in Hungary and other eastern Europe countries.

So, what you're saying is, that you're arguing out of emotion, not a rational examination of the facts.

And the ones fighting anarchists were mainly capitalists and communists - they even joined forces to wipe out anarchists from Spain.

State capitalists and State communists. Anti-state capitalists, you might not find so bad. We have more in common than we disagree on.

But the fact is that anarchism didn't touch american history as nazism did - thus you feel the "level of stigma" is not the same.

You might be surprised.

[Rampion]

Well, exactly here is where we disagree: as I see it, anarchism is all bound to anti-capitalism, exactly as nazism is all bound to holocaust. Millions of people have died defending or fighting against anarchist ideals in the last two centuries, mainly in Spain and Russia, but also in Hungary and other eastern Europe countries.

So, what you're saying is, that you're arguing out of emotion, not a rational examination of the facts.

Not really - I'm analyzing the facts that make the "level of stigma" higher or lower. Anarchism had a tremendous impact on history and on million of lives. Thousands of books have been written about anti-capitalist anarchism. "Anarcho-capitalism" is a relatively new theory, which had way less impact (if it had any) on both history and peoples lives.

And the ones fighting anarchists were mainly capitalists and communists - they even joined forces to wipe out anarchists from Spain.

State capitalists and State communists. Anti-state capitalists, you might not find so bad. We have more in common than we disagree on.

I do not disagree on that.

[myrkul]

Well, exactly here is where we disagree: as I see it, anarchism is all bound to anti-capitalism, exactly as nazism is all bound to holocaust. Millions of people have died defending or fighting against anarchist ideals in the last two centuries, mainly in Spain and Russia, but also in Hungary and other eastern Europe countries.

So, what you're saying is, that you're arguing out of emotion, not a rational examination of the facts.

Not really - I'm analyzing the facts that make the "level of stigma" higher or lower. Anarchism had a tremendous impact on history and on million of lives. Thousands of books have been written about anti-capitalist anarchism. "Anarcho-capitalism" is a relatively new theory, which had way less impact (if it had any) on both history and peoples lives.

Again, you might be very surprised. Medieval Iceland, and pre-conquest Ireland were very much anarcho-capitalistic societies. Just because the name is new doesn't mean the idea is.

[Rampion]

Well, exactly here is where we disagree: as I see it, anarchism is all bound to anti-capitalism, exactly as nazism is all bound to holocaust. Millions of people have died defending or fighting against anarchist ideals in the last two centuries, mainly in Spain and Russia, but also in Hungary and other eastern Europe countries.

So, what you're saying is, that you're arguing out of emotion, not a rational examination of the facts.

Not really - I'm analyzing the facts that make the "level of stigma" higher or lower. Anarchism had a tremendous impact on history and on million of lives. Thousands of books have been written about anti-capitalist anarchism. "Anarcho-capitalism" is a relatively new theory, which had way less impact (if it had any) on both history and peoples lives.

Again, you might be very surprised. Medieval Iceland, and pre-conquest Ireland were very much anarcho-capitalistic societies. Just because the name is new doesn't mean the idea is.

I admit I don't know much about medieval Iceland, but I could bet that rich people ruled de facto, just because Unfortunately that is the natural outcome of capitalism IMHO