Anti Statism (An Caps/mutualists)

Reporting in,
 also do any of you have any ideas on defense in a stateless society? The only convincing thing Ive heard is that people to be part of the society's law they have to subscribe to a PMC/PMF and that could solve the free rider problem for the most part.

It depends on the society. AnCaps totally disregard the ethics of anarchism by proposing an authoritarian force to protect private property.

Anarchism is an intellectual ideal which cannot be achieved in reality. No anarchist has ever presented a compelling case for how an anarchist society could ever exist.

>>3
The Conquest of Bread, by Peter Kroptokin, provided a pretty compelling case for anarchism in my opinion.

>>2
Its not really that they are Authoritarian for doing so but it is necessary until states finally break down.
Basically;"Its not authoritarian because we are authoritarian, its that way because states are authoritarian." Anti-statists are just responding to the state.
In the possible future when all states break down, then defense might not be a requirement anymore or if technology makes it obsolete but for now its necessary for the stateless society to survive.
>>3
Actually anarchy existed before states and religions did, religion then caused the first states to form and thus ultimately caused what we have today.

In a couple of hundreds of years from now when states have broken down i believe people will say the same thing about statism and how a state was an intellectual ideal that can never be achieved in reality.

>>5
Cont.
The only thing keeping the state alive is ignorance.

Anti-private property anarchists don't believe in renting or volcanoes.

Ancaps are the truest of bros.

>>7
Volcanoes?

>>5

Unfortunately, you can't roll technology back to the paleolithic era and make everyone hunter gatherers. The cat is out of the bag now. Farming is going to happen, and with farming there has always been surplus allowing for specialization and the state. Gods and Kings, Priests and Warriors. The State.

>>9
Im not saying we should go back to hunter gathering, and you assume that farming caused statism. How does farming cause people to believe in gods? Someone at some point in time assumed authority by claiming some kind of divine right and fooled the people into power. Gods and kings only exist as i said because of ignorance, by themselves they have no power, its only due to the ideological control they have that causes them to have "authority". Warriors? rulers cant rule by force alone they NEED an ideological structure or else the people just overthrow him.

>>10

See, I'm an anarchist in some sense, or at least anti-statist. However you're arguing that nothing need be in place to prevent statism and theism. Your argument relies on a magical 100% perfect education to your way of thinking with not one single dissenter who will exist at any point in time. It relies on no religion as a given, to prevent the rise of homicidal sectarian militias; it relies on no disputes over land or resources which might lead to war and then to conquest and enslavement and coercion; it relies on no hereditary wealth building up into inherited kingdoms.

Anarcho Capitalism is only the biggest mental diarrhea of anarchism. It's far from the only massive ideological failure. The communists tried to (and are STILL trying to in China) create a society of 'perfectly educated' citizens who will 'allow a transition to a socialist society,' and predictably they failed because even attempting to educate anyone to any idea, even if it is purely and completely benign in all senses, would require a malignant and statist entity to deprive people of their freedom in the process of educating.

Anarchism and socialism are completely impossible if they rely on education and good will to keep them from collapsing in on themselves, because then it just takes one troll to topple the whole mess. It seems that only the wicked machinations of corporatism and statism are stable enough to hold true to their ideologies. That doesn't make them right; wicked usually prevails in a world populated by wicked people, but I have yet to see a system proposed for either socialism or anti-statism that isn't completely lacking in reality.

>>11
>However you're arguing that nothing need be in place to prevent statism and theism.
Statism would be prevented because all the people in a stateless society at first would require some sort of idea of what it means to live in a stateless society. Theism is not a problem if the people are "liberal" in their religious beliefs and don't wish to impose those beliefs on others. In terms of defense, as i listed above at first a stateless society would need to keep a standing army from some sort of DRO/PMC/PMF to prevent invasion from a state.

>100% perfect education to your way of thinking
It doesnt take much to realize that the people ruling our current society dont have a legitimate claim over the things they claim they do.
In fact i think that NOT sending your kids to school or church helps them see this alot easier, because the only reason so many obey is because they get indoctrinated.

People wouldn't tolerate religious extremism BS and would get rid of it ASAP, remember these people are armed.
There would be DRO's to solve disputes and land would be defined as what the "intersubjective consensus" of people think property is. War is expensive and states are only able to wage it so easily is because they have a: Tax Base, Federal Reserve, ideological control over people, and can push those costs to the future generation.

>Anarcho Capitalism is only the biggest mental diarrhea of anarchism.
Nice opinion there.
>The communists tried to (and are STILL trying to in China) create a society of 'perfectly educated' citizens who will 'allow a transition to a socialist society,' and predictably they failed because even attempting to educate anyone to any idea, even if it is purely and completely benign in all senses, would require a malignant and statist entity to deprive people of their freedom in the process of educating.
Only thing is that they arent educated and like i said before not much education is needed to realize what states are, in fact i bet some people could use "deeducation" even more.

>That doesn't make them right; wicked usually prevails in a world populated by wicked people, but I have yet to see a system proposed for either socialism or anti-statism that isn't completely lacking in reality.
Saying that it doesn't work in "the real world" is a retarded claim and only serves to avoid actually having to debate the topic itself. You aren't the only one living in "the real world" and just because you have an interpretation of what "real" is doesn't make it a fact.

"Appeal to “reality” which is common among stupid people. The first sign of a pseudo-intellectual is that they talk about being a “realist” and “living in the real world”. When arguing about stuff, you’re arguing about the real world, Everyone is trying to model the real world effectively."

And you're writing my arguments off by calling me a stupid person and a pseudo-intellectual. A worse demerit to you than your claims are to me.

By the way, do a > and then a space to quote on the BBS. Makes things easier to read.

Your arguments are admittedly relying upon the education of people, and their goodwill. You completely ignore the possibility of powerful people with malignant intentions. Your anarcho capitalist society guarantees the rise of billionaires who control vast quantities of property and employ vast numbers of people. In the absence of the state, a single wicked individual could cease to conquer by economic means and start conquering by direct theft and coercion.

Further, your "Dispute Resolution Organizations" are just a pretty new term for private police, AKA armies for hire to the wealthy who can then extort taxes and re-establish the state.

In your retarded AnCap society, the wealthy and the religious will take the reigns of power before breakfast the day after it's established. Priests and kings all over again.

Clearly, we have nothing to talk about since you are completely disconnected from the consequences of your ideology. You attempt to insulate yourself from this by calling anyone who calls you out on the obvious implications of your own solutions as pseudo-intellectual morons. And that is why AnCap being mental diarrhea is fact and not opinion.

You lose, sir. You get nothing. Good day. Etc.

>>13
>You lose, sir. You get nothing. Good day. Etc.
Oh so this is about winning to you, okay.

>>14

Sure, whatever floats your boat.

Anybody else here seeking to find truth rather than than play games?

>>16
There are winners and lowered in a debate. Guessed which one you are

>>17
>lowered

lol dyslexia

>>16
me

What's the truth then...

>>17
Thats why i dont debate, people only want to win and not seek the truth or they think winning is finding the truth. If you value winning so much then you are no better than a politician.

The examples that
>>13 provided are ignoring my main point that once people lose their ideology of the state or are born without one then the potential "monopolies or disasters" are mostly not possible. Even then sustaining the monopolies through force will not last, history has shown this through revolutions and even then people would be more skeptical after abandoning the state.
But of course he misses the point and assumes a new state ideological structure will emerge. I cant argue with someone that's that ignorant, arrogant, and wants to call a cat a dog.

>>19
The truth is that truth exists.

I was just fishing for some ideas for defense since the free rider problem in a stateless society does pose a problem.

>>21
free rider problem
You could look to the cotton plantations of the deep south in the early 19th century for inspiration.

>>21
People have many misunderstandings about the free market. The basis for the free market is not money, market forces and price mechanisms, the basis is individual freedom, the actual structure that forms is seperate from the free market, it is due to the very nature of the universe more than anything else.

So any planned economy shouldn't be afraid of using the tools that were invented in the free market, you could easily emulate the price mechanism, you can provide a bare minimum spartan but healthy existence for everyone and people can earn the luxuries and conveniences of life by working, with a small proportion deducted to pay for the spartan bare minimum.

>>17

I'm never posting from a phone again.  There's always some word which gets changed and I don't notice it >_<

>>20

Winning a debate is about seeking the truth.  Quit being a whiny bitch, who ever finds the most evidence and puts up the best argument is the closest the to truth.  If you still think your opponent is wrong it's up to you to prove it.

>>25
Presidents "win" debates all the time do they tell the truth?

Ad Hominem-abusive

I did prove it but sometimes i cant help it if my "opponent" doesn't want to play fair.

>>22
How do they relate?
>>23
Is that Anarcho-Communism/ Voluntary Communism?
Dont the "tools" of the market change all the time?

So, the consensus here is that anarcho-capitalism is moronic, right?

>>28
yeah

>>28
Is that the inter-subjective consensus or just a 51% vote consensus?

>>28
So the consensus in 1000 AD was that the Earth is flat, right?

>>31
No. The world as a whole knew the world was round for thousands of years before that. At least nations that had sailors understood this. The flat world theory is a romanticized view of our ancestors world view.

>>32
That doesn't affect the point I was making.

>>31
Awshitnigga5starpost.jpg

>>33
I wasn't addressing it.

>>1
it wouldn't work

libertarianism is fucking dumb

>>36
Statism is fucking dumb

Disagreements are inevitable, so we will always need a way of resolving disputes.

Anarchism is illogical for this simple reason.

>>38
Then what is logical then?
If you're a statist:

So your solution is to impose a contract BY FORCE on people that allows the majority to impose their preference on the minority, while the minority pays for the costs of the very laws they disagree with.

Yeah that sounds swell.

>>38
Also just because it "resolves disputes" doesn't give it automatic legitimacy over unused plots of land.

>>39


It's better than having an unhappy majority ruled by the minority.

>>39
Minority rule ftw.  Crush those filthy dogs, they will leave as I say and no other way!

>>39
>>40
My solution is to accept the reality of the situation and employ logic.

Nothing is perfect, in order to prevent all disagreements escalating to the use of force then anarchists would have to be both omnipotent and perfectly ethical, so under anarchism there would still be coercion even if anarchists happen to be perfect human beings. I think valuing liberty and recognizing the limitations of the state is great and should be employed, people should be encouraged to use force as a last resort, when this fails however in order to pick up the slack we still need a state, perhaps a constitutional direct democracy which preserves individual freedoms.

Reporting in, gonna point faggot statist comments:
>>38
>>28
>>29
>>25
Lots more, Murray is busy debunking Paul Krugman so wont waste more time: Man Economy and State I wrote in 1962 debunking Paul Krugman poser. It's free like 4chan but don't have statism faggots like Anonymous in it.

>>41
Who is talking about rulership? If the majority want something then that's fine but just let them pay for it. If they want universal healthcare, education, or other similar programs then that's fine, let them pay for it and not diffuse the costs over the minority who doesn't want it.
When the majority find that they have to put more money where their mouth is to support these things then less of them will be willing to support positive liberty and instead support negative liberty.

>>43
I never claimed that there wouldn't be force/coercion(subjective) at all all i said was that your "solution" to reduce conflict is inferior to a stateless society's form of dealing with this specifically a free market based one.

Statism is not logical because it assumes legitimacy over land that it cannot rightfully claim under most basic property rights, i know property rights are subjective but it doesn't seem logical to claim so much land that is not being used. When your philosophy is based upon an illogical premise like that then it does not matter what the benefits or consequences might be the fact of the matter is that it does not have legitimacy. We dont need a state, all the things provided in a state can be provided in a stateless society its just a matter of you not subsidizing the costs with democracy.

>>45
If Majority wants healthcare and education, taxation wont happen in Free Market society. They will buy a one-price-fits-all health insurance contract or get one from donator. If they really want it and Majority is stupid, because 50% would be axiomaticaly overpaying. Probably Pareto 80% would be overpaying, 20% paying overpaying 5 times their cost in other pricing type programs.

GONA CAP THIS BECAUSE OP MUST READ

MY BRO HANS-HERMAN HOPPE DEDICATES LOTS OF HIS GENIUS DESCRIBING VERY ELLABORATE AND THOUGH-OUT PRIVATE LAW SYSTEMS.
HE THEN DEBUNK ALL NAIVE AND ADVANCED CRITICISM. HE IS PRO MISESIAN AND KILL STATISTS WITH SINGLE SYLABLE UTTERANCES BEFORE HE WAKES UP FROM BED IN THE MORNING, LITTLE SAMPLE FROM BRAZIL CONFERENCE:
"State or Private Law Society?"- Hans-Hermann Hoppe - Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej6uqo2ugZM

More elaborate literature for people with classy education. Lots of criticism debunked:
Myth of National Defense, The: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production
Hans-Hermann Hoppe
http://mises.org/resources/1092/Myth-of-National-Defense-The-Essays-on-the-Theory-and-History-of-Security-Production

Ok so now statist is either curling in the corner on fetal position or he got so mad he needs 70s soviet aged vodka to forget intelectual shame.
What I really hope is they come back and repeat all the already answered criticisms by Mises, Hoppe, Bohm-Bawerk, Menger and killing crew.
They are though head and think their crappy little dicks are smart and sexy. Sorry statists, you are stupid, it´s praxeologically provable your whole philosophy turns you dumb by the page and even letter.
If you try to learn something thats against the very fiber of though processes you are going to turn those processes so twisted you will end up looking like 9/11 WTC before CIA cleaning teams came up.

>>12
>>>11
>>Anarcho Capitalism is only the biggest mental diarrhea of anarchism.
>Nice opinion there.
wtf AnarchistSage?! Do you mean an-cap is crap or is there some irony/joke I missed?
If you mean actual crap you are full of shit go read Mises. But what the fuck do you know by Federal Reserve and majority intersubjectivity that didnt Mises explain and Haik brought from Popper epistemoly?
You make me dizzy with that. Are you socialist anarchist and dont think next door comune is gonna import all mofo cheap "untouchable" indians and give them cushy jobs serving them nice drinks and cleaning toilets? Untouchable is gonna kiss american comune citizens feet and teach their children how awesome american anarchist is and should be treated as high authority of justice even though neighbor xenophobic comune prefer american serving drinks and cleaning toilets.

Anarchist...I don't think anarchist really understand what that word implies.

>>48
wtf AnarchistSage?! Do you mean an-cap is crap or is there some irony/joke I missed?
I was being sarcastic

>>49
I know the word has a connotation with Anti-Capitalism
I use it in the traditional sense of being antistate,
I really need to use precise definitions in order to avoid semantics
Instead of saying "capitalism" i should say free market
Instead of saying "Anarchism or anarcho-capitalism" i should say anti-statism.

Watched Hoppe lately AnarchistSage?

>>50
Anarchy is not just anti-state, though. It is also anti-authority. At the core of anarchism is an ideology that believes humans do not need police or courts or any authoritarian institutions. This is opposed to the anarcho-capitalist ideology in which police and courts are provided by private, competing businesses.

Then wouldn't there have to be laws supporting the private company's authority? Because otherwise courts couldn't exist. Isn't the concept of a court system exactly what anarchism isn't?

>>52
The word Authority is derived from the Latin word auctoritas, meaning invention, advice, opinion, influence, or command. In English, the word 'authority' can be used to mean power given by the state (in the form of Members of Parliament, Judges, Police Officers, etc.), by academic knowledge of an area (someone can be an authority on a subject).
What do you mean by authority because it seems here that its basically Anti Statism as well.
Authoritarian is a broad term, am i authoritarian for having control over my body and the things i build and produce?

>>53
The laws would be based on an inter-subjective consensus that about 95% of the population agree on. I imagine there would be laws allowing those companies to do their job and if there's any conflict then the matter could be settled by mediation or whatever the people agree on. Of course if people don't want to be part of the laws then they would be branded an outlaw. People can live as outlaws in a stateless society its just that they wont be protected by the laws.(They can still be punished if they break them though.)

>>52
>>53
Anonymous is ignorant of Hoppe, watch him in Brazil: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej6uqo2ugZM

Private companies are supported by clients not coercion. They provide clients safety from phisical agression or else they will be at war with the rest of the world.

Incentive to expand clients possible businesses partners will create a inter-agency contractual system with standardization and contractual convergence.

Security contracts stipulations (an analogue to Statist oppressive and aggressive "laws") will become more and more alike between different agencies.

“You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws….” ~John Adams

If this is what a well protected minority think, they can survive as a free people without any threat. If most people think this way, wars would be as short as terrorist attacks, 1, 2 days at most, probably terrorism would be contained to kindergarden levels.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psosLpDALuA

State or Private Law Society? (by Hans-Hermann Hoppe)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6V0XzJfm8U