Political Assessment

[grondilu]

I like anarcho-capitalism, but I don't believe in anarchy, for I can't ignore the paradoxical idea of forbidding the use of force without using force.  And to me, "no rule" is still a rule.

I could consider myself as a minarchist, since I think the state should not care about economy, and that it should only focus on the monopole of force.

I'm considering objectivism and individualism.  But it's kind of new for me, I still have to think it through.

[MoonShadow]

I like anarcho-capitalism, but I don't believe in anarchy, for I can't ignore the paradoxical idea of forbidding the use of force without using force.  And to me, "no rule" is still a rule.

I could consider myself as a minarchist, since I think the state should not care about economy, and that it should only focus on the monopole of force.

I'm considering objectivism and individualism.  But it's kind of new for me, I still have to think it through.

Once you have thought it through, you sound like you might be an agorist.

[MoonShadow]

I chose left-libertarian, but I'm thinking I'm really an anarcho-capitalist in practice. My understanding (incorrect perhaps?) is that they're basically the same thing, except that left-libertarians actively pursue counter-economics as their strategy for achieving anarchism. Am I confusing this with agorism?

Sounds like it.  An agorist is a 'revolutionary' libertarian who uses counter economics to undermine the government by starving it of it's sources of support, but largely without initiating violence.

[Immanuel]

I don't know how Anarchists expect their ideal societies to function without at least a minimal stable governing body enforcing property rights or lack of thereof. I'm a minarchist mainly because I believe liberty has to be enforced.

[kiba]

I don't know how Anarchists expect their ideal societies to function without at least a minimal stable governing body enforcing property rights or lack of thereof. I'm a minarchist mainly because I believe liberty has to be enforced.

Yes, it does sound hard to enforce property rights in an anarchy.

But, bitcoin is an economy that functions without central banks.

So, I have some hope that we can function without a coercive state apparatus.

[JohnDoe]

I don't know how Anarchists expect their ideal societies to function without at least a minimal stable governing body enforcing property rights or lack of thereof. I'm a minarchist mainly because I believe liberty has to be enforced.

I think that distributing the power to enforce property rights among everyone is better than giving that power to government and relying on them to take care of you. First, because the government does not care about your property as much as you do, so they will only do the minimal effort required to make people think that they are competent. Second, because since they hold a monopoly on force they can take away your property at will and there's nothing anybody can do about it. Basically (as it currently works) the government is the real owner of your property and it is just leasing it to you, until you do something that they don't like.

In my ideal society, everyone has the power of being police and judge, so keeping control of your property should be way easier. If say a couple of guys get in my house to burglarize, instead of calling the police and hope they come within the hour I'll call my neighbors because I know for a fact that they'll come immediately, not because we are friends but because it is in their self-interest to do so. Not coming to help would send the message that it is ok to come and steal from this neighborhood, and when thieves come to their house they won't have my help. So they'll come and they'll help me kill the burglars to send the exact opposite message: "You come to steal in this neighborhood, you die". This makes it safer than relying in police because in this setting the cost of stealing a piece of property is greater than the profit you can obtain from it, so no one with half a brain will try it.

[Immanuel]

I don't know how Anarchists expect their ideal societies to function without at least a minimal stable governing body enforcing property rights or lack of thereof. I'm a minarchist mainly because I believe liberty has to be enforced.

I think that distributing the power to enforce property rights among everyone is better than giving that power to government and relying on them to take care of you. First, because the government does not care about your property as much as you do, so they will only do the minimal effort required to make people think that they are competent. Second, because since they hold a monopoly on force they can take away your property at will and there's nothing anybody can do about it. Basically (as it currently works) the government is the real owner of your property and it is just leasing it to you, until you do something that they don't like.

In my ideal society, everyone has the power of being police and judge, so keeping control of your property should be way easier. If say a couple of guys get in my house to burglarize, instead of calling the police and hope they come within the hour I'll call my neighbors because I know for a fact that they'll come immediately, not because we are friends but because it is in their self-interest to do so. Not coming to help would send the message that it is ok to come and steal from this neighborhood, and when thieves come to their house they won't have my help. So they'll come and they'll help me kill the burglars to send the exact opposite message: "You come to steal in this neighborhood, you die". This makes it safer than relying in police because in this setting the cost of stealing a piece of property is greater than the profit you can obtain from it, so no one with half a brain will try it.

How can your ideal society possibly be stable though? What's preventing these people from forming coercive bodies that spawned the governments we have today?

[grondilu]

In my ideal society, everyone has the power of being police and judge, so keeping control of your property should be way easier. If say a couple of guys get in my house to burglarize, instead of calling the police and hope they come within the hour I'll call my neighbors because I know for a fact that they'll come immediately, not because we are friends but because it is in their self-interest to do so. Not coming to help would send the message that it is ok to come and steal from this neighborhood, and when thieves come to their house they won't have my help. So they'll come and they'll help me kill the burglars to send the exact opposite message: "You come to steal in this neighborhood, you die". This makes it safer than relying in police because in this setting the cost of stealing a piece of property is greater than the profit you can obtain from it, so no one with half a brain will try it.

In your ideal society you would soon realize how ineffective it is to sollicitate your direct neighbors for security.  You'll realise it's better to hire some people just for this task.  They would get some special training and, unlike your neighbors, they would be ready to act 24/7.  You'll give them some guns and a uniform.  And finally you'll call them "police".   Only difference with the current police, would be that your police would be a private organisation, founded by your neighborhood, in your neigborhood's interest.

[Immanuel]

In my ideal society, everyone has the power of being police and judge, so keeping control of your property should be way easier. If say a couple of guys get in my house to burglarize, instead of calling the police and hope they come within the hour I'll call my neighbors because I know for a fact that they'll come immediately, not because we are friends but because it is in their self-interest to do so. Not coming to help would send the message that it is ok to come and steal from this neighborhood, and when thieves come to their house they won't have my help. So they'll come and they'll help me kill the burglars to send the exact opposite message: "You come to steal in this neighborhood, you die". This makes it safer than relying in police because in this setting the cost of stealing a piece of property is greater than the profit you can obtain from it, so no one with half a brain will try it.

In your ideal society you would soon realize how ineffective it is to sollicitate your direct neighbors for security.  You'll realise it's better to hire some people just for this task.  They would get some special training and, unlike your neighbors, they would be ready to act 24/7.  You'll give them some guns and a uniform.  And finally you'll call them "police".   Only difference with the current police, would be that your police would be a private organisation, founded by your neighborhood, in your neigborhood's interest.

However, another group decides to create a competing police force and they start killing and harming your police force's clientele, thereby putting them at a risk of failure. How do you deal with this situation? You see, this is why I don't like Anarcho-Capitalism either.

[FreeMoney]

I like anarcho-capitalism, but I don't believe in anarchy, for I can't ignore the paradoxical idea of forbidding the use of force without using force.  And to me, "no rule" is still a rule.

I could consider myself as a minarchist, since I think the state should not care about economy, and that it should only focus on the monopole of force.

I'm considering objectivism and individualism.  But it's kind of new for me, I still have to think it through.

Anarchy doesn't mean "no rules" to me at all, but only "no rulers" or really "I rule myself". If the state dissolves I'm still not going to cheat at chess or act rudely in the supermarket.

If a group has a monopoly on force it doesn't matter that you don't want them messing about in the economy. They will still be people (a special subset of people who want physical control over you) who will do what they please in the economy. Maybe a better way to think of it is that there is no "economy" only people's bodies and that is what a monopoly of force allows them to control. Essentially control of the economy is a subset of a monopoly on force, not a separate thing.

[BioMike]

I voted Socialist (last few elections I voted the socialist party) although I like many of the communist ideologies as well (although they only work in an ideal world). IMHO the state should represent its people and take care of them. To bad our new government is right-winged and hopefully that will end soon.

[caveden]

I like anarcho-capitalism, but I don't believe in anarchy, for I can't ignore the paradoxical idea of forbidding the use of force without using force. 

But nobody says the use of force should be forbidden. Only the initiation of force against innocents should be.

[kiba]

I voted Socialist (last few elections I voted the socialist party) although I like many of the communist ideologies as well (although they only work in an ideal world). IMHO the state should represent its people and take care of them. To bad our new government is right-winged and hopefully that will end soon.

There is no difference between the majority and minority representation in government.

In the end, they PLUNDER.

Do you want rich people to plunder, or the regular poor people to plunder? That is the state.

[BrightAnarchist]

You see this is one more reason I like voluntaryism. U want to love in a communist society? Then find like minded people and do it. Just so long as I'm free to disagree and live the way I want to live. Nothing wrong with socialism provided that its voluntary. Insurance, for example, is a form of voluntary socialism to an extent.

[BioMike]

I voted Socialist (last few elections I voted the socialist party) although I like many of the communist ideologies as well (although they only work in an ideal world). IMHO the state should represent its people and take care of them. To bad our new government is right-winged and hopefully that will end soon.

There is no difference between the majority and minority representation in government.

In the end, they PLUNDER.

Do you want rich people to plunder, or the regular poor people to plunder? That is the state.

In transparent governments you should be able to track where money goes to. And here in the Netherlands we have relatively many ways to find these things out. If something isn't right, you can start asking questions. If money is spend wrongly you often see politicians turn their words in strange ways (and you know that they are wrong). Often not much happens, but it will get major media coverage. One recent example:
A minister had to fly back from her holiday in Italy because of a situation that was discovered by the House of Representatives and she had to explain it and answer questions. She took a private flight back (costs: around 10.000 euro's, normal flight would have cost a few 100 euro's) and send the bill for a refund to the ministry. The media found out and in the end she had to make apologies and pay the flight herself.

I think taxes aren't a bad thing, as long as they are spend again in a sane and good fashion, so that the whole society has profit of it.

[kiba]

I think taxes aren't a bad thing, as long as they are spend again in a sane and good fashion, so that the whole society has profit of it.

Everybody with half a brains know that the elderly had plundered the young with social security.

That is the fatal flaw of democracy. Nobody have the discipline to simply not vote themselves money.

[BioMike]

You see this is one more reason I like voluntaryism. U want to love in a communist society? Then find like minded people and do it. Just so long as I'm free to disagree and live the way I want to live. Nothing wrong with socialism provided that its voluntary. Insurance, for example, is a form of voluntary socialism to an extent.

You might be someone who can take care of himself right well. I've seen a lot of people who can't, sometimes they didn't choose for that, sometimes they made wrong choices or were ignorant. I think as a society you have the responsibility to take care of these people, else you fail as a humane society (a US friend of my wife got homeless recently (and as far as I could judge this wasn't their fault) and all the organisations that could help them, are very bureaucratic and often don't have the funds to help). Some people might not agree with your idea's, but if you have more people agree with you you can make them happen, that's democracy.

[BioMike]

I think taxes aren't a bad thing, as long as they are spend again in a sane and good fashion, so that the whole society has profit of it.

Everybody with half a brains know that the elderly had plundered the young with social security.

That is the fatal flaw of democracy. Nobody have the discipline to simply not vote themselves money.

Money isn't everything... you want good roads, public healthcare, good education, subsidy to start your own company, grants to do research (generate knowledge), good/reliable public transport, etc., etc.? That's worth something, right?

[Immanuel]

How I feel about democracy:

[Immanuel]

I think taxes aren't a bad thing, as long as they are spend again in a sane and good fashion, so that the whole society has profit of it.

Everybody with half a brains know that the elderly had plundered the young with social security.

That is the fatal flaw of democracy. Nobody have the discipline to simply not vote themselves money.

Money isn't everything... you want good roads, public healthcare, good education, subsidy to start your own company, grants to do research (generate knowledge), good/reliable public transport, etc., etc.? That's worth something, right?

I am willing to bet none of that would of be possible without the creation of currency. That's the most oxymoronic phrase I have ever read.