Skip to content

On Anarcho-Capitalism

May 3, 2010

“Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare.” — Ayn Rand

A newbie to the weird realm of anarcho-capitalism, a system that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign

Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in term. It only exists in the minds of its irrational defenders.

Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in term. It only exists in the minds of its irrational defenders.

individual in a free market, asked me to comment on a particular article written by an unknown author. The article, which appeared on a Facebook group called Anarchy, defends this stateless political system by arguing that “government is not capitalist” and that a “government can only exist if it destroys the private ownership of capital. Therefore government does not equal capitalism.”

This anacho-capitalist article states in part:

There is only one irrefutable law. No person or group of people can harm or use force against another person or group of people. That is it.

The one law leads to negative rights. No one can kill you. No can can steal from you. No one can threaten you. Etc.

Positive rights are the right to something, such as the right to food, the right to health care, the right to shelter. Etc. However in order for a positive right to be enforced, a negative right has to be violated. This is why positive rights are wrong and misleading.

Here in lies all the arm waving and cynicism. People think we’d live in a cruel evil world if no one had a right to food or health care or shelter. It’s what is unseen that matters, not what is seen.

By enforcing negative rights, you enable a person to provide for themselves and trade and share with others, rather than steal from others through force or fraud. Stealing and fraud is what governments use to provide people with positive rights.

If a group of people want to “place the ownership and control of capital, land, and means of production in the community as a whole” then they first need to already own the capital, land, and means of production. How do they own it first? Through capitalism where “the ownership is private” otherwise it must be taken by force.

To form such a group is their right to do so, but they can not force that on anyone else.

People need to stop thinking of profit, and money, and guns, and businesses as evil and wrong. They are merely objects and things. It is what the evil people do with them to wield power that gives them a negative connotation.

Thinking all corporations are evil is like thinking all blacks are criminals. It’s prejudiced/racist. Just because a black man robbed a store does not make all black’s criminals. The same goes for corporations. Yes their are corrupt evil corporations out there, but not all corporations are evil and corrupt.

Corporations/businesses arose out of capitalism because of people freely exchanging goods and services with each other. When a business profits by selling something the person buying the product also profits. Both sides in the transaction profit otherwise no transaction would take place. The more a business profits, not exploits, the more the consumer profits.

My personal observation is this: This article is a non-value, for it fails to present a valid argument against limited government and laissez-faire capitalism. It’s a non-value because it is simply attacking a straw man. Now here’s my take on this non-value anarcho-capitalist essay:

First, the definition of positive right above appears to have been deliberately contrived to justify an anarcho-capitalism premise. That premise is INVALID. Besides, there is no such thing as “POSITIVE RIGHTS.” The framers of the American constitution, which is obviously the basis of rights, did not envision what the author described or conceptualized as “positive right.” Observe that the American constitution does not provide that the Americans have the right to food, shelter, clothing, or material happiness. The author of that article is simply attacking a STRAW MAN, which means he set up a straw man or a false argument to attack, which does not in any way represent the original or real argument. Socialist Barack Obama knows this. He’s a lawyer and a communist. He described the American bill of rights as a collection of “NEGATIVE LIBERTIES.” He argued that it was time for the government to act for or in behalf of the people, and provide them their basic needs, such as health care, housing, among others. This means that he knows that the American Constitution is NOT speaking of POSITIVE RIGHTS! It does not provide that the American people have “the right to something, such as the right to food, the right to health care, the right to shelter.” This is an INVALID ARGUMENT, which is one of the trademarks of the anarcho-capitalists in order to justify their INVALID PREMISE. In a truly capitalist society, right means a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. It excludes the right of the government to rule your life. The basic political tenet in a capitalist society is this: no one may initiate the use of force against others.

The anonymous author said: “By enforcing negative rights, you enable a person to provide for themselves and trade and share

The anarchists contend that Somalia represents the beauty of statelessness. Well, Somalia is now being controlled by war lords, mafias, and gangs.

The anarchists contend that Somalia represents the beauty of statelessness. Well, Somalia is now being controlled by war lords, mafias, and gangs.

with others, rather than steal from others through force or fraud. Stealing and fraud is what governments use to provide people with positive rights.”

Again, this is an invalid argument since it was founded on an INVALID PREMISE. What is the author trying to attack? The answer is: the concept of positive rights, which is one of the dishonest concoctions of the advocates of anarcho-capitalism. The first question is: Does it exist? Yes, it does exist in a socialist, communist, or any statist government. However, it is clear that the American Constitution, which closely represents laissez-faire Capitalism, is not speaking of positive rights, as defined by the author of this article.

Here’s the distinction. The American Constitution, which is a representative of laissez-faire Capitalism:

  1. Does not speak of “positive rights” as defined by the author;
  2. Does not state that the government has the duty to provide all the needs of the people like food, shelter, clothing, etc. This means that the author’s definition of “Negative Rights” is what the US Constitution is talking about.
  3. Does provide that the government is the protector of the people’s individual rights. This is the only duty of the government.

In regard to anarcho-capitalism, this is not even a system; it is a LIE! Anarcho-capitalism is incompatible with Capitalism as it is incompatible with man’s freedom. Anarchism is a prelude to everything that man should fear, such as socialism, communism, fascism, and every derivative of collectivism. A rational man cannot survive in an anarchic society where there are no rational, objective rules and principles for man. You cannot put man’s fate at the mercy or generosity of a gang of savages who either harbor evil or altruistic agenda and who have mustered enough power to rule and enslave men who don’t have the capacity to protect themselves. In a free society, we need the aid and protection of a government with limited power. This is what Ayn Rand envisions, which is against anarcho-capitalism proposed by Murray Rothbard and his fellow anarchists. What we need is a separation of state and economy. In an anarchic society, there is no protection of contracts, intellectual property rights, individual rights, and mutual agreements between parties. This social system will only lead to barbarism and social chaos wherein power is within the reach of those who have the means to use force against other men.

Again, anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in term. It disregards the fundamental law of logic, namely, Aristotle’s law of identity: A is A. It’s a breach of reality and man’s nature. Individual rights is a rational concept based on the nature of man. That man has the right to his life, property, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Anarchism is a breach of all of these rights. It is the nature of man to live in an orderly society. Anarchism rejects order. And it is the dreadful scheme of the anarcho-capitalists to distort the meaning of words in order to alter man’s perception or understanding of reality. I call it a “1984 scheme.” They define freedom based on a floating abstraction that is anarchism. They shout that freedom is guaranteed under anarchism. They tied capitalism to anarchism to produce a soothing effect– to make it acceptable to unthinking men. Now, these Libertarian scholars are turning against one attribute of property right, which is intellectual property right or copyright. They believe that IP law creates artificial scarcity so it must be abolished. They claim that the abolition of IP law is pursuant to their defense of individual rights and capitalism. Now this is a clear example of semantic corruption.

One should understand that the function of IP rights is to protect the manufacture of creations, that is, of things that did not and would not otherwise come into existence.

With this quote Ayn Rand, one of the most passionate defenders of capitalism:

“Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.”

Consider this statement she made:

“A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called “competing governments.” Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists—who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business—the proponents of “competing governments” take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government. Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to “shop” and to patronize whatever government he chooses.

“Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean.”

“One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms “competition” and “government.” Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately. One illustration will be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.”

To all defenders and advocates of anarcho-capitalism, consider the following scenario:

“Since people are free to do whatever they want to under an anarcho-capitalist system, this only means that the radical religionists, the communists, socialists, islamofascists, gangs, mafias, and other radical collective groups may also take advantage of the evil benefits of anarchism or statelessness. Is there any guarantee to stop any collectivist-opportunist not to seek dictatorship or establish a collectivist enclave? How can the anarcho-capitalists reconcile the differences between many religions, cultures and traditions? What if Musim agencies wanted to impose sharia law, while the Scientologists sought to impose their own cultist whims and caprices? How can you reconcile these legal, polity, and cultural differences?”

Now check this wonderful commentary by Atty. Paul McKeever against anarcho-capitalism:

Advertisements
22 Comments leave one →
  1. KRT permalink
    May 4, 2010 3:38

    Hello sir, I am the author of the post you quoted above. I am flattered you took the time to read it, however I think you took it out of context. My post is on a page discussing whether or not Anarco-capitalism is an oxymoron. I felt the other people in the discussion had little understanding of what capitalism means, therefore I set out to correct their mistakes. They kept using supposed effects of capitalism to define it. Also, capitalists generally defend negative rights while socialists defend positive rights. So my aim was to clarify the two and explain why positive rights are not only wrong but unnecessary. It was by no means an attempt to prove anarchy = capitalism.

    Below is my post in its entirety:

    “Wow. First off I want to say we should all refrain from personal attacks. WE are not each others enemy, the government is our enemy. United we prevail, divided we fall.

    There is a lot of confusion and doublethink surrounding the difference between capitalism and socialism.

    Capitalism = an economic system based on private ownership of capital, land, and means of production.

    Socialism = system of social organization advocating placing the ownership and control of capital, land, and means of production in the community as a whole.

    To understand the effects of both, play this simple game and read the moral of the story.

    http://www.bunnygame.org/index.htm

    There is only one irrefutable law. No person or group of people can harm or use force against another person or group of people. That is it.

    The one law leads to negative rights. No one can kill you. No can can steal from you. No one can threaten you. Etc.

    Positive rights are the right to something, such as the right to food, the right to health care, the right to shelter. Etc. However in order for a positive right to be enforced, a negative right has to be violated. This is why positive rights are wrong and misleading.

    Here in lies all the arm waving and cynicism. People think we’d live in a cruel evil world if no one had a right to food or health care or shelter. It’s what is unseen that matters, not what is seen.

    By enforcing negative rights, you enable a person to provide for themselves and trade and share with others, rather than steal from others through force or fraud. Stealing and fraud is what governments use to provide people with positive rights.

    If a group of people want to “place the ownership and control of capital, land, and means of production in the community as a whole” then they first need to already own the capital, land, and means of production. How do they own it first? Through capitalism where “the ownership is private” otherwise it must be taken by force.

    To form such a group is their right to do so, but they can not force that on anyone else.

    People need to stop thinking of profit, and money, and guns, and businesses as evil and wrong. They are merely objects and things. It is what the evil people do with them to wield power that gives them a negative connotation.

    Thinking all corporations are evil is like thinking all blacks are criminals. It’s prejudiced/racist. Just because a black man robbed a store does not make all black’s criminals. The same goes for corporations. Yes their are corrupt evil corporations out there, but not all corporations are evil and corrupt.

    Corporations/businesses arose out of capitalism because of people freely exchanging goods and services with each other. When a business profits by selling something the person buying the product also profits. Both sides in the transaction profit otherwise no transaction would take place. The more a business profits, not exploits, the more the consumer profits.

    A business can only be successful if they offer a product the consumer needs/wants. The cheaper and better quality the product, the more the business will sell. And the consumer benefits by receiving a better product at a reduced price. This is the essence of competition. Competition benefits the consumer because businesses are always trying to profit, but the only way they can compete is to offer a better product and/or a cheaper price. If a business can’t compete, it goes bankrupt.

    The evil corporations everyone has in their mind are not capitalist. They seek to destroy competition through government granted monopolies. Competition is bad for businesses in the sense that it reduces their profits.

    Monopoly = Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service.

    When the evil corporations use the government to pass laws to reduce competition and provide them with a monopoly, they are not being capitalistic. The laws that empower monopolies negate the private ownership of capital, land, and means of production.

    This leads into why government is not capitalist. Governments only exist out of the barrel of a gun. They sustain themselves by stealing and fraud (taxes and fiat money). A government can only exist if it destroys the private ownership of capital. Therefore government does not equal capitalism.

    People need to stop using capitalism as a synonym for greed and evil. The greed and evil in this world strive to control you. The true capitalists of the world strive to be free and for their fellow human to also be free. Only when we’re all truly free do we all truly prosper.”

    After this we just got into a big discussion of capitalism vs. socialism, which was very frustrating…

    That cleared, I do say anarchism = capitalism however. In a purely free market it is next to impossible to have a monopoly formed, especially one of significant size. Monopolies can only exist through force. And government is simply a monopoly. Therefore in a society with no monopolies of law/police/courts, there are no governments as we know them today. Even a small government as Ayn Rand and Mr. McKeever suggest can only exist by dictating what others can and cannot do with their property, by force, which is exactly what you warn of in your post:

    “You cannot put man’s fate at the mercy or generosity of a gang of savages who either harbor evil or altruistic agenda and who have mustered enough power to rule and enslave men who don’t have the capacity to protect themselves.”

    This by the way, is exactly what we have today.

    Why will the one natural law suffice – Protection of negative rights and property? Because everyone knows it instinctively. It does not have to be taught or written down. It is bred into us (less the few psychopaths out there). The one natural law is all that’s needed for reference. Just like the laws of motion and thermodynamics are all that’s needed for all the creations of man, the one natural law is all we need to govern ourselves.

    I’ve spent several years in remote areas around the world with 100’s of people of different ethnic backgrounds in complete peace. Despite the countries I was in, the hand of the law was so far removed that any recourse for the victim would take hours if not days. In light of that, we still didn’t breakdown to killing and raping each other. We interacted peacefully and cooperatively because it was our own self interests and we benefited more from peaceful exchange rather than forceful exchange.

    Laws don’t dictate how people interact with each other, people dictate how they interact with each other. Even laws that exist today are only as good as the people who decide to follow them. In the end each individual chooses what laws he/she will follow. The idea that having all these laws makes us safe is ridiculous. What keeps us safe is each other mutually agreeing that it is in our best interests to do so. People have the false ideology that government is good therefore they will happily go along with all their laws because they believe it is in their own self interest to oblige. As soon as people start to think their government is bad, then there is revolt. They blatantly ignore the “law” and take justice into their own hands, because it is then in their self interest to do so.

    Western democracy’s are no different than the dictatorships of the world in how they rule. Both governments will only do so much they think they can get away with. If they go too far there is revolt, if they just take it slow and easy, they can still get what they want while still maintaining control.

    Eventually those in power, wielded by force, can only maintain it for so long until the people rebel. The sad part is people don’t understand cause and effect, so they replace the old regime with the “new and improved one.” Not realizing they’re simply re-planting the seeds for another totalitarian regime to eventually enslave their children or children’s children, or etc…

    In the end there is only the individual and how he/she chooses to lead their life. The individual is supreme; exactly the opposite of “1984.” (Excellent book by the way!) Big brother is created out of the idea that “everyone belongs to everyone else” – the complete denial and eradication of individuality.

    You say:

    “They shout that freedom is guaranteed under anarchism.”

    This is wholly untrue and I’d like to know where you’ve heard it. It is untrue because like property, only you can defend what is yours. Only you can defend your freedom. Like anything else in life, if you don’t take care of it, you will lose it. This is how anarcho-capitalism works. With each individual aware and responsible for their freedom. Only through this awareness and understanding could anarchy exist and succeed.

    Now getting to that point is a whole other story. Of course going straight from today’s society to pure anarchy would be chaos. The society that exists today has been shaped over decades, centuries even, along with a massive mis-allocation of resources because of arbitrary government placement. Unwinding this will cause great problems. But not only is it necessary, it is inevitable. The only question is how long will it take and how bad will it be. The longer we leave it, the worse it will be. No different than a drug addict going clean.

    When Mr. McKeever uses the example of a power outage and the chaos that ensues to attack anarchy, it is a STRAW MAN argument. And ironically enough, the power companies are state granted monopolies (like all utilities and essential services). Therefore it should be no surprise that when a sole provider of a service fails, we all suffer because there is no other participants in the market to fill the demand gap.

    Bottom line is we should not be debating whether anarchy would work or not. All we need to understand is that no person can violate your negative rights or property. From there everything falls into place. The world isn’t flat, the earth isn’t the center of the universe, horseless carriages do work, and man can fly. Just because you, Mr. McKeever, or Ayn Rand can’t rationalize how anarchy would work, doesn’t mean it can’t. The only debate is whether or not you agree with the one natural law. If you don’t then we’ll probably never agree, and if you do, then let’s leave it at that and work on implementing it.

    Personally, the best treatise I’ve read on anarcho-capitalism is “The Market for Liberty” by Linda & Morris Tannehill, perhaps you would be interested in checking it out.

    I’d like to leave you with this excerpt from section 2.3 page 19 of “Society Without Coercion” by Jarret B. Wollstein:

    “The belief that government is necessary to ensure social order is a pure superstition, based upon a psycho-epistemological process different in no important respect from the belief in goblins and witches….

    At the outset, let it be made clear that government is nothing but men acting in concert. The morality and value of government, like any other association of men, will be no greater and no less than the morality and value of the men comprising it. Since government is nothing but men, its inherent authority to act is in no way greater or different than the authority to act of individuals in isolation.

    If it is moral for government policemen to arrest suspect criminals, it is also moral for “private policemen” to do so. If it is moral for government to try and imprison men, then it is also moral for nongovernmental corporations to do so. Government has no magic powers or authority not possessed by private individuals. Let he who asserts that government may do that which the individual may not assume the onus of proof and demonstrate his contention.

    The basic reason why a social order could, and would, arise in the absence of governments (as they are known today) is the fact that man has an objective need for social order and protection from initiatory force. This objective need would create human associations producing order in society. The morality and permanence of these associations will be determined by the morality and rationality of the men creating and working in them, as is the case for any social institution.

    Perhaps the strongest attack on “anarchism” — certainly the most vitriolic — was made by Ayn Rand. In her article on “The Nature of Government,” she states the following:

    A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called “competing governments.” Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists — who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business — the proponents of “competing governments” take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business it should also be applied to government. Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to “shop” and to patronize whatever government he chooses.

    Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean.

    One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms “competition” and “government.” Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately. One illustration will be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.

    Once one gets past Miss Rand’s typically vitriolic rhetoric (which only indicates that Miss Rand is quite hostile to what she mislabels as “competing governments”) one finds that she has essentially one argument. Miss Rand asserts that what is properly designated as “competing agencies of retaliatory force” or a free market of justice would not work, because the competing agencies would end up protecting criminals and shooting it out with each other. One can only term this a straw man argument.

    The situation which Miss Rand “describes” is patently absurd. If competing agencies of retaliatory force protected criminals, they would not be competing agencies of retaliatory force at all. Rather, they would be criminal gangs, plain and simple.

    Further, it would be sheer insanity for individuals “subscribing” to competing criminal gangs to live on the same “turf.” In this respect, Miss Rand is correct. However, what I and every other advocate of a society without coercion are advocating are not “competing governments” (a misnomer) or “competing criminal gangs” (an ethical monstrosity), but “competing agencies of retaliatory force,” which Miss Rand has in fact not dealt with at all.

    In the situation described above, in which neighbors subscribed to competing police departments, what is certain (if they were in fact police departments operating on the basis of objective law, rather than criminal gangs operating on the basis of mob rule — which is what Miss Rand described) is that Police B would accept the validity of Police A, or in fact the validity of any reputable police department, and cooperate with them in the arrest of Mr. Jones. Police B certainly would not protect Mr. Jones from justice if there was objective evidence that Mr. Jones had committed a crime, nor would Police A proceed to attempt to arrest Mr. Jones unless there were such evidence. In this manner, objective law would eliminate coercive “shootouts.”

    Once competing police departments begin to function, standard operating procedures would be created to deal with such cases. At least two possible procedures come to mind: either by stipulation, the police department to which a man subscribed would be the only one which could incarcerate him; or, by stipulation, the police department where the complaint was filed would incarcerate him.

    In the extreme, there would be little motivation for policemen to put their lives on the line for a suspected thief, and if competing police departments operated as Miss Rand falsely pictures, then they would quickly go out of business due to the attrition rate of policemen killed in the “line of duty.”

    This is only one of the flaws of Miss Rand’s argument. Other problems include her failure to explain exactly how government can morally outlaw competing agencies of retaliatory force, or what it is that prevents the state police from shooting it out with the county police in similar situations. Clearly, both Miss Rand’s premises and logic are in error in this case.

    In an article appearing in the Spring 1969 issue of Innovator and entitled “The New Herbides as a Libertarian Retreat Area,” William Danks (SRI Local Representative for Hawaii) reports:

    The islands of the New Hebrides are administered by the world’s freest and most anti-statist form of government. Under the terms of a 1914 protocol a joint French and British Condominium was established, giving each government equal powers of administration, but denying sovereign territorial right to both. There are three court systems — British, French, and Joint — as well as both British and French police systems. Interestingly, there are no reports of murder or armed robbery with violence on record under either system. (p. 7-44)”

    • May 4, 2010 3:38

      First, I don’t believe in the libertarian concept of negative and positive rights. I was just concocted by the libertarians to justify their stupid claim that anarcho-capitalism is a moral political system.

      • KRT permalink
        May 5, 2010 3:38

        Beliefs can neither be proven nor dis-proven.

        The entire premise of anarcho-capitalism rests on the concept of the individual having negative rights.

        Everyone does not belong to everyone else. Nobody has the right to your body. Nobody has the right to violate you, the individual. Therefore the individual has the right not to be violated. Since property is merely an extension of the individual, his/her property also has the right not to be violated.

        This is what you must refute in order to refute anarcho-capitalism. Whether you think anarcho-capitalism can be implemented in society or not, is a RED HERRING.

      • May 5, 2010 3:38

        “Beliefs can neither be proven nor dis-proven.”

        — That’s very Kantian and Libertarian. If beliefs cannot be proven or refuted then there’s no absolute truth. I’d like to think that that’s a libertarian cop-out, or rather a strategy to destroy man’s cognition. It’s like Nancy Pelosi’s infamous, desperate remark” “We have to pass the bill so you can see what’s in it.”

        If belief cannot be refuted, then the Islamic belief of “honor killing” is neither true or false, moral or immoral, good or evil. It’s in between. If beliefs cannot be refuted, then the commies’ belief that man is the “means to the ends of others” or Karl Marx’s “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is neither true or false, moral or immoral, good or evil, practical or impractical.

        And if beliefs cannot be proven, then the fact that man must live according to his interest is also neither true or false, moral or immoral, good or evil, practical or impractical.

        “The entire premise of anarcho-capitalism rests on the concept of the individual having negative rights.”

        — No. It rests upon the puerile fantasy that man is moral and so rational enough that he should not be responsible for his actions. It is based upon non-objectivity and non-reason.

  2. KRT permalink
    May 4, 2010 3:38

    I apologize for the length of my response, but I think this excerpt from section 2.0 page 10 of “Society Without Coercion” is just as important:

    “Government is, by definition, a “social monopoly of force.” The greatest instrumentalities of force which have ever been assembled, the police forces and armies of the world, are at the disposal of governments. With these great agencies of force at their disposal, the potential ability of governments to violate the rights of the individual is accordingly great and indeed it is easy to see that they have done so.

    Whenever one thinks of the worst injustices in history — massive wastes, confiscatory taxes, purposeless wars, great depressions, slavery, concentration camps, and genocide — one inevitably finds that such injustices were either a direct or an indirect result of governmental action. At the same time, governments usually meet valid and basic needs of human society (although almost never in a valid way). Thus, governments also provide water power and roadways, prevent fraudulent business practices, combat air pollution, quell riots, protect patents and copyrights, capture criminals, and defend their citizens against foreign invaders.

    Yet even in doing so, governments also almost invariably violate the rights of their citizens. What is it, then, that differentiates the proper from the improper actions of governments?

    What determines what is proper and improper for governments to do are, in essence, the same principles which differentiate the proper from the improper actions of the individual. Despite the lofty pretensions of most governments, the fact remains that they, like any other group of men, are nothing more than a collection of individuals. The “rights of a government,” like the rights of any other association of men, can be morally no different than the rights of the men who comprise it. All that which is immoral for men acting individually is equally immoral for men acting in association. There is nothing a government can morally do, which individuals by themselves cannot morally do. The group is ethically no different from the individual.

    Consider the following situation: During the course of a day, one man approaches a second and demands of him that he surrender a portion of his income, on the grounds that the claimant needs the money more and knows better how to spend it than does the second man. If the second man refuses to surrender his money, then the first man attempts to take it by force. If the second man continues to protest and resist, the first man then shoots him.

    Now who would call the first man anything other than a thief and murderer? Who could regard the second man as anything but an innocent victim? The first man is clearly immoral and the second is clearly blameless.

    Now let us suppose that instead of being one man, the would-be thief is a part of a larger gang, which calls itself “the Mafia.” Now if the Mafia proceeds to rob the second man as did the lone criminal, would their actions be any the less criminal simply because there were five or ten of them instead of only one? The only rational answer is that their actions would not be any different, that robbery is robbery and murder is murder whether it is being committed by a single thief by himself, or by a thousand acting in concert.

    Finally, let us say that our original thief is a member of a very large gang, that he in fact claims to be a representative of a group called “the Internal Revenue Service” and that this group is further empowered to seize money and property by an even larger group which is called “the government.” Instead of calling himself a criminal, our thief calls himself a “tax collector,” and instead of saying that he is taking money and property for himself, he claims that he is collecting it for “the poor.”

    Now how, I ask, is this “tax collector” any different from the lone criminal or a member of the Mafia? Like the criminal, the so-called “tax collector” is taking money or property which does not belong to him, for a purpose which his victim does not choose to voluntarily support (for if the victim voluntarily supported the tax collector’s cause, there would be no need for him to forcibly seize his money or property). Like the criminal, the tax collector will seize the man’s property if he does not surrender it to him, and like the criminal the tax collector (or his agents) will kill the man if he attempts to protect his own property.

    It is irrelevant whether a man steals by his own authority or with the sanction of a million others, whether he takes money for himself or for “the poor,” or for any other group which did not earn it. Theft consists of taking a man’s property against his will, regardless of the beneficiary.

    If the individual has an inalienable right to his own life, liberty, and property, then morally his life and property are his own to do with as he pleases. It is just as immoral for a government to attempt to tax his earnings, regulate his business, or draft his sons as it would be for some isolated individual acting on his own authority to do so. The association of men into a group called “government” does not free them from morality or sanction actions otherwise immoral.

    It is also irrelevant whether the tax collector’s victim has some of his property returned to him in the form of road usage, postal services, police protection, etc., or not. Since it is government, rather than the individual, which is deciding what is to be taken and what is to be given, the individual’s control of his own property has still been lost. The return of the tax collector’s victim’s property in the form of certain governmental services is not trade but theft.

    In trade, exchange is conducted by the mutual consent of the individuals who wish to participate in it, according to their own terms. In taxation the individual’s property is taken from him without his consent and services may be returned to him according to the government’s decrees. For this reason, the only thing which one can call taxation, the foundation of modern governments, is theft.

    Now that it has been made clear that the same moral law applies to governments as applies to individuals, we can begin to enumerate the actions of governments which are clearly immoral.

    Firstly, any actions committed by governments which force the individual to act are immoral since they are violations of his human right to life and liberty. Thus, in modern times, forcible participation in social security or medical care programs, conscription, forced housing and public accommodations laws, and compulsory attendance at public schools is immoral.

    Secondly, any interference with actions conducted by the mutual consent of the individuals involved is immoral. Thus laws prohibiting certain forms of sexual intercourse, laws against drugs, and anti-abortion laws are immoral.

    Thirdly, any interference with free trade is a violation of man’s right to property. Thus antitrust laws, censorship, gun registration, and minimum-wage laws are immoral.

    Finally, the deprivation of the individual of any value, physical or mental, is immoral. Thus taxation, welfare programs, rent controls, the regulation of currency, zoning, subsidies and tariffs are immoral.

    To put it on a more personal level, whatever else it should do, a government can not morally tell a middle class office worker that he must pay 20 percent of his income to feed unwed mothers and ship computers to the Soviet Union, send his children to a school that will teach them that their father is a member of a corrupt and sinful generation, contribute to socialized medicine, and censor his TV set.

    The government of a moral society could not tell a poor Negro willing to work for less than $1.60 an hour that he cannot work for that amount, even though his employer cannot afford to pay him more; tax his income to build space ships and to pay farmers not to work; force his children to fight in Vietnam; or destroy his home in the name of “urban renewal.”

    Government also cannot properly tell a corporation president that he must force his employees to join a union, cannot build a new factory without government approval, must pay 52 percent of his profits to subsidize Appalachia and build dams in the Tennessee Valley, cannot merge with GM, and cannot charge less than his competitors.

    In general, government can not morally coerce, threaten, harass, intimidate, investigate, conscript, regulate, censor, compete with, tax, subsidize, insure, license, inspect, indoctrinate, spy on, or murder its citizens. In other words, whatever else it does, the government of a free society does not itself act as a criminal in the name of its citizens, or try to judge and live their lives for them.

    What then are the functions left which government might conceivably engage in? The answer is those which deal exclusively with the use of retaliatory force, for government to essentially act as a “policeman of man’s rights.” This is exactly the limitation of functions which philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand proposes. Miss Rand defines what she considers to be a proper government as “an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area,” in essence, a social monopoly of retaliatory force. This is what we will call a limited government.

    It would seem that the limited government advocated by Miss Rand would restrict its functions to primarily those now conducted by the Judicial Division of the US government. Specifically, the primary functions of a limited government (and its associate implementary agencies) would be as follows:

    * the passage of laws defining and dealing with the use of initiatory and retaliatory force (the legislative branch)

    * the administration of such laws (the executive branch)

    * the registration of patents and copyrights (the Bureau of Patents and Copyrights)

    * the enforcement of contracts (Contract Enforcement Division of the Justice Department)

    * the prosecution of fraud (Anti-fraud Division of the Justice Department)

    * the investigation of crimes and the arrest of criminals (police forces)

    * the prosecution of criminals and the adjudication of the differences between men (court system)

    * the punishment of criminals (penal system)

    * the protection of the society from foreign invaders (armed forces)

    We will now consider the morality of such a limited government.

    The Morality of Limited Government

    Although such a limited government as described above would be a tremendous advancement over all of the political forms which man has ever known, there are still a number of questions which arise concerning its morality.

    First there is the question of how its national boundaries are properly determined and what makes its laws (e.g., its constitution and procedural rules) binding upon a society.

    Second, there is the question of whether a limited government can require men to patronize its services or participate in its activities.

    Lastly, there is the question of how a limited government can morally prevent competition with its own functions — i.e., how can it maintain its “social monopoly of retaliatory force?”

    Historically, national boundaries have been finally decided by force — the power of a ruling elite to maintain dominion over a given territory, against domestic and foreign challenges to their authority, by virtue of force of arms. If there was a dispute over which national group controlled a given piece of land, differences were settled by going to war, victor take all. Similarly, national laws were historically decided by force — the power of the ruling elite over its citizens. The state and its government then emerged, in general, not as the product of rational thought and voluntary agreements, but primarily as a consequence of simple brute force.

    The United States is only a partial exception to this rule. It is true that America originally offered groups, such as the Puritans or the Germans or the Catholics, if not individual members of such groups, a place where they could live according to their own beliefs. However, throughout its history, in the Indian Wars, in the Mexican-American War, in governmental sanctioning of slavery, and in hundreds of other instances, the boundaries and the laws of the United States have been based upon force. The most that can be said for the United States is that it was, in the 19th century, the freest country of the modern world, and is still, in the 20th century, among the freest.

    If one recognizes that the rights of the individual, including his property rights, are inalienable, then the only way in which social boundaries could be properly formed is by individual property owners voluntarily coming together to form a community whose boundaries are defined by their holdings. If within the perimeter formed by such holdings there existed an individual who did not wish to be a party to the community or consider himself a member of its “state,” then he morally would be free to do so; and the external community would not have a right to force him to pledge allegiance to their national territory, flag, or goals.

    In a free society, each individual is in fact an autonomous state in himself, free to associate or not with a larger group. In a free society, cooperation between men, and hence the geographical boundaries of social groups, is a product of voluntary association.

    Applying the social principle of voluntarism to an existent nation-state such as the United States, we find that its present political boundaries are essentially the arbitrary product of the coercive organization of the state, rather than the product of a voluntary association of men. Consequently, there is no reason to consider present US boundaries as either necessary, or as necessarily proper and just.

    In addition to having a right to associate himself with a larger group, in a free society any individual would also have the right to dissociate himself from a formal society at any time (so long as he did not in the process violate a prior agreement). At no time can it be assumed that simply because a present political boundary exists, men are morally obligated to respect it. It may be impractical and irrational not to respect existent political boundaries; but there is nothing sacred about them, especially not today when virtually all societies are coercive.

    Similarly, there is nothing sacrosanct about the laws of today’s societies. As we have already seen, most of the activities of the government of the United States are clearly immoral and in violation of the rights of the individual. Since the individual always has the right to retaliate against those who initiate force against him, there is no obligation on the part of the individual to obey most existent laws. Indeed, since the draft, censorship and a host of other laws threaten the very physical and intellectual existence of the individual, draft evasion, underground presses, and a host of other illegal acts are thoroughly moral and proper.[1]

    There is simply no obligation on the part of the individual to obey laws simply because the laws exist. If the individual’s rights are violated by laws, he is morally justified in regarding the unjust laws as a criminal invasion of his privacy and in retaliating accordingly.

    There is, however, one type of law which is morally binding on all men — objective law. An objective law is one which is based on the objective facts of reality and on principles derived from those facts. In general, objective social laws are those which prohibit the initiation of force and protect the rights of men. Laws against theft, rape, embezzlement, arson, larceny, assault, fraud, and murder are examples of objective social laws.

    The individual is bound to obey objective social laws in the same way in which he is bound to obey objective physical laws. Both are statements of facts of reality whose attempted evasion will be to the detriment of the individual. Just as an individual risks physical destruction when he tries to evade the law of gravity by attempting to fly by jumping off a cliff and flapping his arms, so an individual risks psychological destruction by attempting to build a fortune on stolen money.

    Both the would-be flier and the would-be “robber baron” are attempting to defy objective conditions of their environment. This can only result in the attainment of the opposite of what they seek. Thus, the would-be flyer falls to the ground rather than rises in the air, and the would-be entrepreneur finds that his property mocks him rather than gives him happiness.

    If the “constitution” of a society consists of a statement of objective law which prohibits the initiation of force, then it is objectively valid and morally binding on men — all men, in fact, and not just the men of the particular society for which it was written. However, if the constitution of any society attempts to do more — for example, to prescribe political forms for the society, such as elections, and a division of powers, then that constitution is not binding upon men in those aspects.

    The reason that a constitution is not binding upon men in those respects should be obvious. How for example, can some group of men, declaring themselves to be the “representatives of the people” require that men vote every four years, or indeed at all? What principle of objective justice requires men to pledge their allegiance to the national political structure simply because they were born in a land where the structure exists?

    This leads us to the second question about the morality of a limited government: to what extent, if any, can such a government require men to participate in its activities? Remember first, that a free society is a voluntary association of men, according to their own terms, for their own ends. Thus a free society cannot compel men to vote in its elections, register their inventions with its bureau of patents and copyrights, or make them patronize its courts (unless they have committed a crime). A free society can only prohibit initiatory force.

    In essence, a free society is one in which participation is also free. If an individual wishes to live in the territory of a given society, without participating in its institutions and programs, that is his right. So long as he respects the rights of others, he is totally free to do as he pleases. So long as he violates none of his past agreements, his future choices are his to make.

    Finally, we come to the crucial question of how a limited government can morally prevent competition with its own functions — i.e., how can it maintain its “social monopoly of retaliatory force?” Let us first consider this issue in terms of a specific case. What happens if, for example, a group of men living within a “limited government” United States of the future decide that the state’s police force is inefficient and that they could do a better job themselves. They then proceed to create their own “agency of retaliatory force” by hiring detectives and guards, and advertizing their services on TV and in the newspapers.

    Let us assume that they proceed unhampered by government for awhile and build up a sizable business through their competency. After a few months this private police force is serving thousands of citizens and is so competent at their task that they make fewer false arrests, catch more criminals, prevent more crimes, and charge less proportionately for their services than does the state police force.

    Eventually, the state of course notices this “private defense company.” What are they to do now? The state has two basic alternatives: it can either leave the new free market defense company alone to prosper or fail, as dictated by its future actions, or it can decree that the defense company has usurped a rightful function of the state and order it to cease operations under penalty of fine, imprisonment, or death of its managers and employees.

    Now if the state does the former, if the state adopts an attitude of laissez-faire toward the defense company, then the state’s monopoly of force will have been broken, and it will no longer be a government at all in the sense of a “social monopoly of retaliatory force.” However, if the state does the latter, if it attempts to intimidate or to physically destroy the new defense company, it has then initiated force against innocent victims (persons who have not initiated force themselves).

    It does no good to assert that the state’s action is moral since somewhere along the line the private defense company might have violated someone’s rights through an error on the part of one of its policemen. The state also makes such mistakes, yet the proponents of limited government do not advocate its dissolution for this reason. If policemen of a free market defense company err, they should be punished for their error, as should the policemen of a state police force. But unless that error is a matter of company policy, then the managers and the corporation itself cannot be morally prevented from doing future business by the state. In general, if a free market agency of retaliatory force obeys objective social laws, acts as a policeman of man’s rights, and gets its customers through their voluntary consent, it has just as much right to exist as do the agencies of retaliatory force of the nominal state.

    In short, the state has no moral right to prevent competitive agencies of retaliatory force from existing. In a free society, men are at liberty to form those agencies of retaliatory force which they wish to form in order to protect their rights. The form, number, and relationship between such agencies in any given geographical area can be variable. There may be one or many such agencies in any given area, and they may be functionally distinct or operationally integrated. What their form and number will be is for the free market to decide, which means it is for the voluntary judgment of each individual who participates in the market to decide. If the state intervenes, if it tells men that they cannot form such agencies under penalty of fine, imprisonment, or death, then the state is violating the rights of men to associate freely, and has in fact assumed the status of a coercive monopoly.

    In a truly free society there would then be nothing to prevent the formation of competing agencies of retaliatory force, nor would there be anything to fear from them so long as they operated on the basis of objective law. It is true that it is possible for such competing agencies of retaliatory force to violate the rights of the individual or to fight among themselves (as Miss Rand points out). However, it is not true that such possibilities are probable, or that the existence of such possibilities implies that competing agencies of retaliatory force are inherently immoral. The moral determines the practical, not vice-versa.

    The concept of “practicality” only has meaning in relationship to specific ends. Since morality is “a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions — the choices and actions which determine the purpose and the course of his life,” it is morality which enables man to select his ends; and because ends determine means, the moral determines the practical. Q.E.D.

    Competing agencies of retaliatory force are practical because they are moral; they are not “immoral” because they are “impractical.” Moreover, it is also possible for government to violate the rights of the individual, and in fact every government in history has done so on an incredibly vast scale. The gas chambers of Nazi Germany, and the rolls of Vietnamese dead of welfare-statist America are a mute and tragic testimony to the human destruction wrought by governments.

    There is no such evidence that competing defense agencies would wreak similar carnage. Governments also fight among themselves, as R.A. Childs points out, but when they do, what occurs is not termed a battle, but a war; and the victims are numbered in the millions rather than the hundreds.

    There is nothing innately necessary or moral about a limited government. What defines the morality and practicality of any organization of retaliatory force in a free society is not whether its agencies are one or many, but whether they are just and objective. A “social monopoly of retaliatory force” whose existence depends upon the initiation of force is worse than a contradiction in terms — it is an epistemological absurdity. Since a “limited government” cannot, by definition be limited to dealing solely in retaliatory force, we necessarily conclude that limited government is inherently immoral and must be rejected by any advocate of human freedom and justice in favor of competing agencies of retaliatory force.”

    • May 4, 2010 3:38

      If KRT, if you’re really that KRT, the best way is to watch Atty. Paul McKeever’s argument anarcho-capitalism. Educate yourself… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew-t0kuZRfg&feature=player_embedded

      • KRT permalink
        May 5, 2010 3:38

        I did watch it. Couldn’t you tell from my post? I’d also like to point out that you changed your original post to include another video by Mr. McKeever (the one of him driving). And as far as “educating myself,” what exactly is that supposed to mean? I interpret it as yet another unfounded attack on character, as if to say I am stupid? Does educating oneself mean learning and thinking everything you know and believe? Besides, the quality of ones education, intelligence, experience, age, etc. does not have any bearing on whether or not a statement supplied by that person is true or false. This is better known as AD HOMINEM.

        I agree with Mr. McKeever that “the law is the mind.” However he goes on to say “the law is the mind, and the law is what the government has a monopoly over, and it has to!” It’s around the 10.5min mark. I had to watch it a couple times to make sure I heard him right. He is saying:

        Law = Mind
        Government has monopoly over law
        Therefore, government has monopoly over mind

        This is the basis of my point. The individual is supreme. The be all and end all of authority is the individual. The individual is the law. The individual has the final say.

        But to have a monopoly over law or authority (as Mr. McKeever insists) is to have a monopoly over the individual. This is the state we live in right now. This is why everyone has such a hard time grasping no government, only individuals. You accept the reality you’re given, going beyond that is extremely difficult to understand, visualize, even entertain. From birth we are hammered with propaganda that without the state, there is mob rule and chaos. That the very notion of people taking care of themselves is impossible.

        People also make the mistake of only changing one variable and keeping every thing else constant while talking about anarchy. They take today’s world and remove government. Like I said before, of course there would be chaos as the government slime is purged off the planet. But once the dust settled, and if anarchy was taking hold, I’m of the opinion that police and courts would be close to unnecessary. It would be such a free and peaceful society that nobody would be too concerned about it. Whatever need existed would easily be met by the market. The idea of muggers, gangs, mafias, boogie men, goblins, etc. coming out to get you are all scare tactics used by people who seek to control. People also use those tactics in their own minds to control themselves from enjoying life or stepping out of their comfort zone.

        What a peaceful world we would live in if everyone defended their own doorstep.

    • May 4, 2010 3:38

      Since I do believe that an-cap just exists in the little minds of the stupid an-caps, logically you have the burden to prove that anarcho-capitalism is the right system.

      You may start by answering the following questions since the discussion will definitely involve them:

      1. What are the metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, and political justifications of anarcho-capitalism?

      2. Suppose we’re in a anarcho-capitalist society, does it follow then the various groups like mafias, gangs, terrorists, radical Islamists, nazis, commies, religious groups, war lords, etc. can form their own agencies? It seems that the answer here is yes. Now How can the an-cap corporations or agencies stop these groups from perverting the system and establishing a dictatorship?

      3. What is the legal system under an anarcho-capitalist society? Since it is composed of various an-cap agencies or competing governments, it is only possible that there exists various kinds of legal systems and laws. For instance, the Islamic groups can establish their own shariah or Islamic legal systems; the Christian groups can establish their own Christian legal system; the corporations and various agencies can establish their own legal systems. Now how can private courts reconcile the legal differences of these competing agencies?

      4. Based on the example given above, since private courts are motivated by profits, is it not possible that they would protect their own markets, meaning that money would not influence their respective judgments?

      5. What will be the court of last resort in an anarchic society? How do we resolve conflict of laws cases? If you would argue that there will be a single Court of Last Resort, then who will establish it? What legal standards and principles does it comply with?

      6. Also in the example given in number 3, it is HIGHLY possible that corporations, agencies and groups would go to a COURT where they can get favorable judgment. For instance, in a breach of contract case between Corporation A and Corporation A, who will decide which court is going to settle their dispute? What are the legal standards and principles?

      7. In regard to the legal system, what will be the procedural and substantive laws , including the rules of evidence, of an anarcho-capitalist society? WHO WILL DECIDE THESE PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE LAWS, INCLUDING THE RULES OF EVIDENCE? By what standards and principles?

      8. In regard to PROPERTY RIGHTS, how is the property right of an individual protected. In you really understand the principles of anarcho-capitalism, you would know the LEGAL BASIS OF PROPERTY IS SCARCITY, now how can the property rights of individuals be protected?

      Consider the following illustration:

      – PERSON A discovers a CURE FOR AIDS. under an an-cap system, no single government agency will protect PERSON A’s intellectual property right.

      – Which means, BIGGER CORPORATIONS can steal the productive idea or discovery of PERSON A without due compensation.

      Also another illustration:

      PERSON B wrote a science fiction book. He’s IP rights is not protected under an an-cap system. He published the book.

      Now BIG PUBLICATIONS also published the book of PERSON B since SCARCITY if the basis of property in an an-cap society. Can PERSON B run after BIG PUBLICATIONS? If he decides to sue, he has to face more legal system problems, considering the fact that he is out to face BIG PUBLICATIONS.

      9. How about an anarcho-capitalist’s standing in an international community. Since an anarcho-capitalist is formed or composed by various COMPETING AGENCIES OR GOVERNMENT, does it not follow that it is open for grab or invasion? What if another country invades an anarcho-capitalist society? Who will represent this stateless society?

      Now you should be able to answer all these issues since these have not yet been properly addressed by the an-caps. I don’t have the burden to prove that laissez-faire capitalism is the best system. You have to prove your case.

      • KRT permalink
        May 5, 2010 3:38

        Again, beliefs can’t be proven or dis-proven.

        As far as defending why anarcho-capitalism is the best system and all your questions below, is another RED HERRING. The debate is whether or not anarchy = capitalism.

        The onus is on you to refute my claims and arguments, not bring up new ones.

        Also, I get the sense that your questions are posed more as way to “try and stump me.” As if to imply that if I can’t answer them, then anarcho-capitalism must be wrong. Again that is a STRAW MAN argument. If however you are sincerely seeking answers for questions that you feel have not be properly answered, then please read “The Market for Liberty.” It answers all your questions way better than I could hope to. It does not however address IP. I’m not well versed on it, but I think Stephan Kinsella has picked up the torch on that one with “Against Intellectual Property.”

      • May 5, 2010 3:38

        I repeat:

        “Beliefs can neither be proven nor dis-proven.”

        – That’s very Kantian and Libertarian. If beliefs cannot be proven or refuted then there’s no absolute truth. I’d like to think that that’s a libertarian cop-out, or rather a strategy to destroy man’s cognition. It’s like Nancy Pelosi’s infamous, desperate remark” “We have to pass the bill so you can see what’s in it.”

        If belief cannot be refuted, then the Islamic belief of “honor killing” is neither true or false, moral or immoral, good or evil. It’s in between. If beliefs cannot be refuted, then the commies’ belief that man is the “means to the ends of others” or Karl Marx’s “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is neither true or false, moral or immoral, good or evil, practical or impractical.

        And if beliefs cannot be proven, then the fact that man must live according to his interest is also neither true or false, moral or immoral, good or evil, practical or impractical.

    • May 6, 2010 3:38

      Oh my goodness! This one is really hilarious!!!

      These is the answer to that funny, outlandish Libertarian article:

      Anarcho-Capitalism: A Whim-Worship Political Ideology

      Anarchism Vs. Objectivism

  3. May 4, 2010 3:38

    @ KRT/Marvi Rafael Montecillo:

    First of all, it seems that you’re trying to punk me. Are you really KRT? If yes, then I will message you later. Or, you’re Mr. newbie anarchist Marvi Rafael Montecillo?
    Why am I saying this, because it appears that you try to pass this rip-of of various sourced entries as your own. Am I right? Is this reply your own concoction? I DON’T THINK SO…
    Now let me prove that this is not your own concoction.

    THIS IS THE SOURCE OF YOUR REPLY: http://mises.org/daily/4078

    Why do you have to copy-paste this article from Mises? I don’t want to argue that crap since the author did not directly deal with me. Provide your own answer.

    • KRT permalink
      May 4, 2010 3:38

      I hope you are satisfied that I am in fact KRT.

      Why do you use labels with negative connotations to try and discredit people? (ie) Mr. Newbie, and stupid an-caps? Not only does that detract from your credibility, it deters people from engaging in intelligent conversation if they think it’s just going to resort to name calling. I am interested in the truth and bringing freedom to my life and others. I suspect you are as well, so let’s leave out the attacks and engage in a friendly open dialogue.

      As for the Mises quote, I don’t understand how that is a rip off? The Mises Institute quoted Jarrett Wollstein. Are you implying that I should have quoted the Mises Institute?? I did actually copy and past from the Mises website because I only have a crummy pdf copy of “Society Without Coercion” that wasn’t letting me copy and paste. All the spaces were being left out. There are multiple sources out there, but here is one for your reference:

  4. PirateRothbard permalink
    May 4, 2010 3:38

    It’s good to know you are so young, there is hope for you to grow out of this phase.

    • May 4, 2010 3:38

      Sad to know you’re old and yet you still embrace an evil, whim-worshiping political ideology… Roy Childs repudiated his anarchistic past before he died. I hope you’d do the same thing…

  5. KRT permalink
    May 5, 2010 3:38

    I still don’t think you understand where I’m coming from. I’m not interested in debating the practicality of anarcho-capitalism with you. I think its pretty clear you don’t think it’s practical, however I do. Ok, so we agree to disagree. But just because you don’t think it is practical, does not mean it is impossible or the concept can’t exist.

    Anarchy = the absence of an centralized form of authority.

    Capitalism = a system based on private ownership of capital, land, and means of production.

    If we ever have capitalism in its purest form, then it is impossible for there to be a centralized form of authority. Therefore anarchy results from capitalism. They go hand in hand. Hence anarcho-capitalism.

    Now, as far as the practicality of that happening… well it’s a completely different story. Just because you don’t think it is practical, it doesn’t mean that the concept is wrong.

    For example, flying cars exist because they obey the laws of science. However they are impractical to use, therefore they are not widespread. Just because flying cars are impractical, does not mean they can’t exist.

    Anarcho-capitalism obeys the natural law of man, therefore it is possible. I would argue that it is also practical because the majority of men are morally good. You argue that it is impractical for your reasons stated. Fine, we differ on the practicality of it. But that does not preclude the existence of the concept of anarcho-capitalism. The idea of anarcho-capitalism is sound.

    I hope that makes sense.

    I really hope you EDUCATE yourself and read “The Market for Liberty” as it answers pretty much all your questions. I’m still unclear why you capitalize EDUCATE when you refer someone to documents supporting your position.

    • May 6, 2010 3:38

      This is really funny: “For example, flying cars exist because they obey the laws of science. However they are impractical to use, therefore they are not widespread. Just because flying cars are impractical, does not mean they can’t exist.”

      — But of course. Those flying cars will still obey the laws of science under any kind of political system, whether it be communism, socialism, fascism, or any other kind of ‘ism.’ You must be kidding me. 1 + 1 will always will be equals 2 under any circumstances or political system.

      This reminds me of your “beliefs can’t be proven or dis-proven.” Where the hell you got this? And what made you say it?

      “Anarcho-capitalism obeys the natural law of man, therefore it is possible.”

      — How is this related to “flying cars.” What is your understanding of natural law with respect to an-cap?

      “I would argue that it is also practical because the majority of men are morally good.”

      — Who compose of this “morally good” majority? Again are you assuming that the entire United States or the world will have been converted to “libertarianism” before anarchism is established? Are you trying to assume that the radical Muslims will have to forget about their god-commanded plan to Islamize the world and embrace anarchism? Heck! They just planned to bomb New York City again. Are you not aware of the fact that the Muslim brotherhood and the dictators in the Middle East, particularly Iran, wanted to defeat America and destroy the Western Civilization in order to Islamize the world and impose shariah law? The Muslims nearly did it a few hundred years ago when the Ottoman Empire ruled some parts of the world because they believe IT IS THEIR DUTY TO SPREAD ISLAM AND IMPOSE THEIR BELIEFS ON THE INFIDELS! Wake up to reality, man!

      DO YOU EXPECT THAT THE COUNTRY AND THE PEOPLE WILL HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO LIBERTARIANISM BEFORE ANARCHISM IS INSTITUTED? Don’t you think that the Radical Islamists’ plan to ISLAMIZE America and the world should now OPEN YOUR MIND?
      Since you said you educated yourself, kindly answer these questions:

      1. How can an-cap protect individual rights?
      2. How can it protect property rights?
      3. Is there any copyright or intellectual property right under an an-cap system?
      4. What is the legal system and nature of laws under an an-cap system?
      5. How can corporations, groups, gangs, mafias, and religious resolve their legal disputes?
      6. How can the market protect the people from terrorism, any attempt to collectivize the society, and invasion?
      7. How can the market solve all social problems?
      These questions are necessary because the anarchists are trying to create parallel universe, and the answer to these issues can tell whether an-cap is anti-capitalism and is a form of collectivism. Marvi Rafael Montecillo, I expect your answer…

      No BS, ok?

      • May 6, 2010 3:38

        Also, kindly address what I stated here: Anarcho-Capitalism: A Whim-Worship Political Ideology.

        Excerpt:
        However, what the anarchists failed to grasp is that in order for a society to be free, it needs objective laws and objective legal system. In order for a society to be organized and free from social chaos and disorder, it must have objective, non-contradicting, and easy-to-understand legal procedure and rules of evidence. It needs both rational and objective substantive and procedural laws. The anarchists believe in private courts and private appellate courts where corporations, groups, and individuals file legal cases for the violation of their rights, breach of contract, or any kind of civil and criminal cases. In an anarchist society, courts are motivated by profits and the forces of the market. But that’s another problem.

        The existence of conflicting, clashing, contradictory laws is one big problem that the anarchists have not yet fully addressed. Just imagine a state, or a city, with different kinds of laws. For instance, whose law shall prevail in a breach of contract case or in a fraud case? What sort of standards or principles shall be applied for the determination of the applicable law that should govern a particular case? Who will decide? The market?

        It is also very possible that various religious, ethnic, social and political groups would establish their own laws and legal systems. For instance, in a criminal or civil case between a Muslim party and a Christian party, whose law or legal system would govern the case? The anarchists might say: “the parties can amicably choose the law that shall be applied to their case.” Suppose the petitioner here is the Muslim party, what if he/he chose to file his complaint in a Muslim court where Shariah law and legal system were applied and where he/she could get a favorable verdict and a harsher penalty? Can the Christian party petition for ‘change of jurisdiction’ on the ground that he/she is a Christian? And where can he/she file such a petition? Where can parties appeal their cases? Who may establish a court of last resort?- by what right? – by what standard?

        Anarchism, which rejects order and objectivity, is a form of collectivism for the fact that it is an invitation to organized gangs and collectivist groups to take advantage of the sheer weakness of the stateless social system in order to impose their own will, whims, and caprices, establish a monopoly, or worse create a dictatorship. In an anarchist society every group, gang, entity, or organization can have its own understanding of man’s rights, laws, and principles. It is very possible that in some cases some groups and gangs do not believe in individual rights, freedom of speech, or even the right to one’s life.

Trackbacks

  1. Tweets that mention On Anarcho-Capitalism « THE VINCENTON POST -- Topsy.com
  2. Anarcho-Capitalism: A Whim-Worship Ideology « THE VINCENTON POST
  3. Sen. Guingona III a Libertarian? « THE VINCENTON POST

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: