Any libertarians here? (accuse, serial killers, stats, politician)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yup. Anarcho-capitalism and voluntaryism are largely synonymous as both hold as defining principles the supremacy of the individual sovereign, property rights, and the voluntary organization and funding of law.
Anarchy might work in a post nuclear war world where it is dog eat dog with lawlessness and not alot of people left anyway but I am a practical libertarian that realizes that government of some sort is needed.
Just like Democracy might work for a commune but it real applications it doesn't without trampling on a person's rights.
Anarchy might work in a post nuclear war world where it is dog eat dog
Why would the absence of institutionalized aggression mean people will be "dog eat dog"?
Human beings naturally want to cooperate.
You should think of anarchy less as something you initiate on the world, and just think about your own life and how often you have to use force to get your way.
I trust the laws of nature (i.e., the market) to promote peace and cooperation a lot better than I trust the laws of man.
Why would the absence of institutionalized aggression mean people will be "dog eat dog"?
Human beings naturally want to cooperate.
You should think of anarchy less as something you initiate on the world, and just think about your own life and how often you have to use force to get your way.
I trust the laws of nature (i.e., the market) to promote peace and cooperation a lot better than I trust the laws of man.
What's the contingency if someone doesn't subscribe to your "Initiation of Force" principle?
It's quite obvious from reading the comments in this thread that the Libertarian party is even more fragmented than the two major poltical parties. Some Libertarians are anarchists ... then there are those (like me) who want a substantial reduction in government interference, but still believe that government is necessary in some cases, specifically to defend our country against enemies, and keep society civil.
Libertarians seem to be very divided on the abortion issue. The general Libertarian philosophy is to keep government out of private matters like abortion. However, there are some who are strictly against abortion because of the Constitutional protection of life. Education is another topic that seems to divide Libertarians. The Libertarian party supports choice, and many (like me) want to see all schools privatized. Some Libertarians, however, still want local government to control education ... but I think we're all in agreement that the FEDERAL government should be eliminated from the schools entirely.
One basic principle that we're all in agreement on is that the size of the government is too big, and it spends too much of our tax money on pork barrel projects. Another very important principle which I think we can all agree on is that all of us love freedom, and we love America.
It's quite obvious from reading the comments in this thread that the Libertarian party is even more fragmented than the two major poltical parties.
Anarchy is not a fragment of the Libertarian Party. Anarchy is a philosophy separate from politics.
Some people who call themselves "anarchists" may believe it is good to work within the system for change. I think it would be fairer to say those people are not acting consistently on their stated philosophy (and thus aren't really anarchists) than to assume anarchy itself falls under a political party.
I subscribe to the idea of agorism: Agorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Economic action rather than political action is, I believe, the most consistent and effective way for an anarchist to act on his values.
Quote:
Another very important principle which I think we can all agree on is that all of us love freedom, and we love America.
What's the contingency if someone doesn't subscribe to your "Initiation of Force" principle?
You mean if someone thinks the initiation of force is appropriate?
First and foremost one has the right to defend themselves. If there are people coming on to your property on the premise that you either pay them the amount of money they are demanding or they are going to forcefully remove you and seize your property you have every right to defend yourself and your property by whatever means necessary.
Secondly it depends on what specific type of society this criminal is living in. In a pure and absolute voluntary society there is far less focus on punishing the criminal and more on making the victim whole. Imprisoning someone who has committed a crime against another simply punishes the victim twice as they are funding the imprisonment. Restitution, voluntary servitude, etc. are the more desirable methods of achieving balance. Placing people in cages as is practiced with such relentlessness today is obviously not an effective solution as it simply produces tougher more violent criminals. If a criminal found guilty by arbitration refuses to compensate the victim in the manner deemed appropriate they face social ostracism and a radical reduction in reputation. Banishment, if you will.
Secondly it depends on what specific type of society this criminal is living in. In a pure and absolute voluntary society there is far less focus on punishing the criminal and more on making the victim whole. Imprisoning someone who has committed a crime against another simply punishes the victim twice as they are funding the imprisonment. Restitution, voluntary servitude, etc. are the more desirable methods of achieving balance. Placing people in cages as is practiced with such relentlessness today is obviously not an effective solution as it simply produces tougher more violent criminals. If a criminal found guilty by arbitration refuses to compensate the victim in the manner deemed appropriate they face social ostracism and a radical reduction in reputation. Banishment, if you will.
Which to me sounds more practical in a small community where mobility is limited, as it would have been over 100 years ago. But if someone were a serial rapist or murderer, would giving them the cold shoulder or asking them to leave really keep society safe? They can pack up, drive 100 miles away, and start all over all in the same day.
Now in a society where low amounts of taxation aren't seen as theft, the victim isn't really punished twice. Sales taxes, property taxes, or excise taxes can fund the incarceration of all criminals, independent of the ability for the victim to fund the incarceration.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
