Topic: This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism - page 40. (Read 33901 times)

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

rig·or·ous 
/ˈrigərəs/
Adjective

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anarchy means there are no rulers.  It does not mean there are no laws.  There are laws.  They are immutable.  i.e., in -archy systems, the arch's try to abrogate laws (for example, by giving themselves permission to aggress against life, liberty, and property).  What they are doing is criminal, and illegal, but they declare it to be legal.

It's been awhile since 1999, but you might remember Palpatine/Darth Sidious: "I will make it legal."  Really chilling, when you think about it.

A great book regarding law is Whatever Happened to Justice by Richard Maybury.  Maybury posits that law is something which can be logically reasoned about and discovered, perfectly or imperfectly.

....

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

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

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

Here, a direct link to the pdf:
http://library.mises.org/books/Gustave%20de%20Molinari/The%20Production%20of%20Security.pdf
As I said, it's quite short, and you should be able to grasp the concepts in it.

I'll expect you to have read that booklet, at least, before discussing anything further about AnCap.

You caught me. I want to be the person dictating what I do with my life and property, instead of someone else. Of course, I recognize that I can't dictate what others do with their life and property, so I guess "dictator" might be a little off-base. Have you read de Molinari yet?

As we thought, you think Anarchy=lawlessness. You're wrong. Read my signature.
And when you're done with that, read this: http://mises.org/document/2716
It's short, and to the point. I suspect even you can grasp the concepts therein.

Very similar issue to the problem of arguing religion v.s. atheism. When told religion and god is not needed, very often religious types retort with, "But then where would you get your morals from?" thinking that without religion, people would all just go nuts and become immoral criminals. You don't need religion to have morals and be a decent person, and you don't need government to be a decent person, either. People can still figure out what is right and wrong, and can still be good people, and stop bad people.

I think the issue is that many equate anarchy with lawlessness, which is not the case.

I'm thinking there's some sort of language issue here. Yes, stealing is not allowed in AnCap. Did you not get that?

I only asserted it was a potential difficulty in AnCap.  I am well aware there are many potential solutions to this perceived difficulty, among these being voluntary militias, distributed security systems and large outfits with WMD's.

Sure, but if you want to look at it that way, then the "property" of all the states currently extant was largely stolen.

cool then ill have to check it out

What I really find amusing is that the government designed it that way! 

So... anyone else find it ironic that there are a bunch of statists here arguing against AnCap, on a system (internet) that is by design unregulated AnCap?

Not exactly.
It's available online from Baen (though I heartily recommend buying the entire book, it's got some great stories in it)
http://www.baenebooks.com/chapters/1416520724/1416520724___4.htm

if i may venture a guess what what this supposed flaw is, its probably the public funding problem in national defense, or what is sometimes called the freerider problem of national defense.

wouldnt you be willing to go to extreme (but non violent) measures to help to ensure that your society had defense against foreign invasion? I mean considering the fact that you are willing to go to violent measures i sure hope you would. I would be willing to go to my friend who was failing to contribute even a single dime and say "look dude im sure you have your reasons, im sure you have some good excuses, but if you dont put SOMETHING towards this i dont wanna be friends any more"

as "patriotic" and military supporting as the average american is i surely expect there are many others like me who would be personally willing to ostracize people who failed to contribute to this cause.

ill concede that it may be the case that only violence can solve the public funding problem of national defense, but i think you should also be willing to consider that it very well might be able to be funded through voluntary means.

anyway i made a video about how an entrepreneur could make a profit from solving the public funding problem check it out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHSTQ-Qyu50

also consider that even if violence was the only way to solve the public funding problem, that still doesnt mean you need one mopolistic organization to provide defense. Some sort of voucher system + a market in national defense would still probably be better than monopolistic provision, and would still be a pretty radical change.

i hope my guess was right, if it wasn't than i might just have to read this story.

Those crappy statist systems are defended by a great deal of military force, and don't seem to like to allow competition. I wonder why, if they're so sure they're better?

I've read both of those stories, in fact. Vinge is a great author.

There is a nice short story by a guy called Vernor Vinge called "The Ungoverned" which addresses the "flaw" of defense against invasion (or lack thereof) inherent in AnCap.  He also wrote a nice novel called "A Deepness in the Sky", which pitted free market interstellar traders against a brutal socialist regime.  Both very well written and well thought out, and with lots of food for thought.
I advise you not to go to torrent sites like isohunt or pirateproxy and download them, because you would be violating the publishers IP rights.