This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism

[Walter Rothbard]

And when you're done with that, read this: http://mises.org/document/2716
It's short, and to the point. I suspect even you can grasp the concepts therein.

That's not short at all! Even I'm not willing to read all that, and I'm into this stuff. How about actually defending the points here yourself instead of hiding behind a wall of authority?

....

That's very short, for the genre. Don't be fooled by the page count, the text is large, and the margins thick. If it takes you 30 minutes, I'll be very surprised.

And I have defended the points here, but he won't listen to me. I'm getting tired of running around in circles with him.

Maybe this would be more accessible:
http://mises.org/daily/2423

As for "hiding behind a wall of authority" -- acknowledging that there are better teachers than oneself is not the same as an appeal to authority fallacy.

[1714818769]

1714818769

[myrkul]

He offers no justification for those ideals, and implies that "they're obviously good, so let's just go along with it without question."

He doesn't need to provide justification: "If there is one well-established truth" These things are well-established. Unless you're going to dispute the laws of economics now?

Just claiming that something is "rigorous" does not make it so!

rig·or·ous 
/ˈrigərəs/
Adjective

    (of a rule, system, etc.) Strictly applied or adhered to

By strictly applying the principles already established, he arrives at that conclusion. Ergo: Rigorous.

I could pick apart all the fluff, but let's just focus on the security and its apparent 'production'.

What is this 'security'? It's really just a lack of crime, lack of violence, etc. He's taken (read: cherrypicked) assorted properties of civilisation, and packaged them up into a commodity he calls 'security'. If he were alive today, he'd be creating "collateralised debt obligations". He didn't even say where he got the definition from -- it's sort of assumed that the reader will be already familiar with their dogma. Then he claims that this commodity can be bought and paid for, and somehow consumed like for example: orange juice. Doesn't that strike any of the An-Cap supporters as a little bit odd?

If you require protection, you are a consumer of security. Our current producers call these people "citizens."

For one thing, his understanding of scarcity seems very limited. Why should more and more security be produced if it's already abundant (i.e.: not very scarce)? Why should the producers of these security "mind widgets" bother competing against each other... to make more of something that everyone already has and are happy with? He also completely avoids any discussion of production incentives. "Marauding by night and selling security by day" doesn't seem to cross his mind at all. Such childlike innocence...

Security is never really "abundant," even when there is little crime. If you stopped providing it, then crime would soon increase. As to "marauding by day and selling security by night," Is that not what many governments do today, and why those selfsame governments are seen as illegitimate? Why do you think it would be any different if those governments were in market competition?

No, he has only demonstrated that he bases all his 'reasoning' on principles/dogma.

What dogma? That market competition, in every other industry, has vastly improved the product? That security is no exception?

Conclusion
Molinari's 'security' is really 'uncrime' + an assortment of properties of civilisation that can only really be appreciated if they're threatened. He then grabs this definition and tries to use it in a positive sense like it's a commodity, but fails miserably. Rather than bolster a case for Anarcho-Capitalism, "The Production of Security" fails to provide any solid argument for private security firms. Disappointingly, Molinari didn't go into any deeper discussion of the nature of his 'security' either.

Then you argue that governments provide no service? Great! We can do away with them immediately.

[myrkul]

Whence it follows:
That no government should have
the right to prevent another govern-
ment from going into competition with
it, or to require consumers of secu-
rity to come exclusively to it for this
commodity.

So when you strip away the extraneous language, all he's got is a circular statement saying:

Capitalism that's free from government intervention is the best! Therefore, governments should not interfere with each other or prevent their customers from switching.

Fixed that for you. You left out an important part, that made it not circular.

Even if we assume that yes, the Capitalist principles are all fine, and governments usually only get in the way, then we can still debate whether Molinari's "private security" idea holds water. We can try a bit of inductive reasoning by attempting specific examples where private security might not work, and then seeing if it causes problems overall.
E.g.:

• The "marauding by night, selling security by day" example. It seems plausible that without a threat of force from higher powers, corruption is not only possible but financial incentives for it seem strong. So unless you can effectively nullify the 'corruption' argument, it seems that the whole private security system could break down. All this over-abundance of safety and harmoniousness seems bad for business! Surely Capitalists could just find a way to make it more profitable? E.g.: by making it more scarce?

What threat from higher powers keeps the US government from exploiting it's citizens in the way you describe?

If you require protection, you are a consumer of security. Our current producers call these people "citizens."

Point a)
I would have thought that peace, safety and social harmony, all those other things that make up Molinari's 'security' are the ideal candidate for a kind of intellectual commons! I can have some security, but I can't own it. I can't withhold it from others who are near me -- if I tried (e.g.: disturbing the peace, starting a fight...), I would by necessity deprive myself of it, too!

By George, I think you may be starting to grasp the concept behind the Non-aggression Principle.

By living peacefully and harmoniously within some civilisation, I'm not consuming security. It's just there!

Again you seem to state that governments provide no service. Awesome! we can start dismantling them right away.

[kokjo]

myrkul, if you think that the state is evil, and have committed an act of aggression  against you or one else, why have you not asserted the NAP and gone on some crazy suicide mission against the wrongful and evil oppression done by the state?

[myrkul]

myrkul, if you think that the state is evil, and have committed an act of aggression  against you or one else, why have you not asserted the NAP and gone on some crazy suicide mission against the wrongful and evil oppression done by the state?

Because I'm neither crazy nor suicidal?

[kokjo]

myrkul, if you think that the state is evil, and have committed an act of aggression  against you or one else, why have you not asserted the NAP and gone on some crazy suicide mission against the wrongful and evil oppression done by the state?

Because I'm neither crazy nor suicidal?

the part about you not being crazy is debatable.

okay. have you made aggressions against the state, which you are allowed to by NAP, that are hard to trace back to you?

[myrkul]

have you made aggressions against the state, which you are allowed to by NAP, that are hard to trace back to you?

2 things:
1: If they are retributive strikes against an oppressive government, they are not, by definition, aggression.
2: If I had, do you honestly think I would be stupid enough to admit it on a public forum?

However, no, I've made no violent actions against the government. They would be counterproductive, and wasteful. No violent revolution has ever gained the revolutionaries lasting liberty.

[kokjo]

have you made aggressions against the state, which you are allowed to by NAP, that are hard to trace back to you?

2 things:
1: If they are retributive strikes against an oppressive government, they are not, by definition, aggression.
2: If I had, do you honestly think I would be stupid enough to admit it on a public forum?

However, no, I've made no violent actions against the government. They would be counterproductive, and wasteful. No violent revolution has ever gained the revolutionaries lasting liberty.

so, you sit in front of your computer, spreading libertarian propaganda on the internet, waiting for the ancap revolution to come.

good luck, bro!

[myrkul]

have you made aggressions against the state, which you are allowed to by NAP, that are hard to trace back to you?

2 things:
1: If they are retributive strikes against an oppressive government, they are not, by definition, aggression.
2: If I had, do you honestly think I would be stupid enough to admit it on a public forum?

However, no, I've made no violent actions against the government. They would be counterproductive, and wasteful. No violent revolution has ever gained the revolutionaries lasting liberty.

so, you sit in front of your computer, spreading libertarian propaganda on the internet, waiting for the ancap revolution to come.

good luck, bro!

So, in your mind the only actions I can take against the government are violent ones? Why would I want to play their game?

[Mike Christ]

so, you sit in front of your computer, spreading libertarian propaganda on the internet, waiting for the ancap revolution to come.

good luck, bro!

That's the idea.  Educate the masses, so a revolution can happen.  One or two guys planting bombs to "stick it to the man" would get labeled terrorists, and everybody would hate them.  Plus, they wouldn't teach anyone anything.

You ever hear the phrase, "The pen is mightier than the sword"?

[kokjo]

have you made aggressions against the state, which you are allowed to by NAP, that are hard to trace back to you?

2 things:
1: If they are retributive strikes against an oppressive government, they are not, by definition, aggression.
2: If I had, do you honestly think I would be stupid enough to admit it on a public forum?

However, no, I've made no violent actions against the government. They would be counterproductive, and wasteful. No violent revolution has ever gained the revolutionaries lasting liberty.

so, you sit in front of your computer, spreading libertarian propaganda on the internet, waiting for the ancap revolution to come.

good luck, bro!

So, in your mind the only actions I can take against the government are violent ones? Why would I want to play their game?

no, i did not say that. what i meant was that you are talking the a very small subset of the population that mostly agrees with you(well i don't, but im one of the few.).

go join a communist or statist forum and try to do a difference.

[kokjo]

so, you sit in front of your computer, spreading libertarian propaganda on the internet, waiting for the ancap revolution to come.

good luck, bro!

That's the idea.  Educate the masses, so a revolution can happen.  One or two guys planting bombs to "stick it to the man" would get labeled terrorists, and everybody would hate them.  Plus, they wouldn't teach anyone anything.

You ever hear the phrase, "The pen is mightier than the sword"?

circle jerking on this forum can not be considered education of the masses...

[Mike Christ]

circle jerking on this forum can not be considered education of the masses...

It's certainly educating me   Now I can educate others.

[myrkul]

have you made aggressions against the state, which you are allowed to by NAP, that are hard to trace back to you?

2 things:
1: If they are retributive strikes against an oppressive government, they are not, by definition, aggression.
2: If I had, do you honestly think I would be stupid enough to admit it on a public forum?

However, no, I've made no violent actions against the government. They would be counterproductive, and wasteful. No violent revolution has ever gained the revolutionaries lasting liberty.

so, you sit in front of your computer, spreading libertarian propaganda on the internet, waiting for the ancap revolution to come.

good luck, bro!

So, in your mind the only actions I can take against the government are violent ones? Why would I want to play their game?

no, i did not say that. what i meant was that you are talking the a very small subset of the population that mostly agrees with you(well i don't, but im one of the few.).

go join a communist or statist forum and try to do a difference.

Oh, I think I see what this is. You got pwned on the FDR forums, didn't you?

[kokjo]

have you made aggressions against the state, which you are allowed to by NAP, that are hard to trace back to you?

2 things:
1: If they are retributive strikes against an oppressive government, they are not, by definition, aggression.
2: If I had, do you honestly think I would be stupid enough to admit it on a public forum?

However, no, I've made no violent actions against the government. They would be counterproductive, and wasteful. No violent revolution has ever gained the revolutionaries lasting liberty.

so, you sit in front of your computer, spreading libertarian propaganda on the internet, waiting for the ancap revolution to come.

good luck, bro!

So, in your mind the only actions I can take against the government are violent ones? Why would I want to play their game?

no, i did not say that. what i meant was that you are talking the a very small subset of the population that mostly agrees with you(well i don't, but im one of the few.).

go join a communist or statist forum and try to do a difference.

Oh, I think I see what this is. You got pwned on the FDR forums, didn't you?

No, never been there. I have no reason to go there.

[myrkul]

Oh, I think I see what this is. You got pwned on the FDR forums, didn't you?

No, never been there. I have no reason to go there.

You don't say....

i should join their forum, and see how long before a ban. if i did said i supported communism...

[myrkul]

What threat from higher powers keeps the US government from exploiting it's citizens in the way you describe?

If you want the right answers, you have to ask the right questions!

If we go back to that analogy I used earlier where e.g.: each country = 1 person, the 'world' with 200-and-something inhabitants would basically be an An-Cap society.
So:
What stops the US -- as a person with some psychological issues -- from "cutting itself"? Charity.
What stops the US -- as a big fat bully -- from attacking other people? That super-effective arbitration and stuff (read: probably the UN and some think-tanks).

And the same mechanisms would prevent a non-state entity from abusing it's customers, with the additional disincentive of losing those customers to another entity.

And, of course, as I stated earlier, the "property" of the various states extant is mostly stolen, whereas the territory of the non-state entities would be voluntarily assigned.

[kokjo]

Oh, I think I see what this is. You got pwned on the FDR forums, didn't you?

No, never been there. I have no reason to go there.

You don't say....

i should join their forum, and see how long before a ban. if i did said i supported communism...

it was meant as a joke on the libertards. I don't want to fight a meaning less war, and im not a communist...

actually when im with some of my communistic friends i become a libertard, just for the fun of it.

[myrkul]

Oh, I think I see what this is. You got pwned on the FDR forums, didn't you?

No, never been there. I have no reason to go there.

You don't say....

i should join their forum, and see how long before a ban. if i did said i supported communism...

it was meant as a joke on the libertards. I don't want to fight a meaning less war, and im not a communist...

actually when im with some of my communistic friends i become a libertard, just for the fun of it.

And you call me crazy. That's rich.

[kokjo]

Oh, I think I see what this is. You got pwned on the FDR forums, didn't you?

No, never been there. I have no reason to go there.

You don't say....

i should join their forum, and see how long before a ban. if i did said i supported communism...

it was meant as a joke on the libertards. I don't want to fight a meaning less war, and im not a communist...

actually when im with some of my communistic friends i become a libertard, just for the fun of it.

And you call me crazy. That's rich.

but you are! you believe in a hallucination called "reality".