What'd you add to *your* version of the Anarcho-Capitalist flag?

[markuzick]

I would add fire to the flag.

Every flag can use a little fire.

I already said that I'd burn it.

[markuzick]

By sandm000 at 2007-08-27

What you need is a shark with a rocket up it's ass.

Actually this is my flag for liberty, the facial hair of emperor norton flag.

And you can be a non-coercive socialist and against the state and therefore and anarcho-socialist.

The state can be replaced by voluntary governments once enough people are ready for liberty and its requirement for discipline and responsibility.

markuzick is an anarcho-syndicalist, believing that a forced state is wrong, but people will voluntarily erect there own governing structures.

I'm not an anarcho anything. Anarchy means no government.

[markuzick]

Anarchists are just statists who reject the state, but accept the underlying premise of statism that governance is possible only through aggression.

What a load of bullshit.

I'm an anarcho-capitalist and I don't accept the underlying premise of statism.

If you're an anarcho-anything, then you must believe that governance is possible only through aggression.

That makes you a statist who hates the state, in the same way that a satanist accepts the premise of theism, that there is a God. That makes him a theist who hates God.

We both reject the state, but we are not coming from the same premise to reach our position. In the same way the atheist and the satanist both reject God, but are each coming from a different premise to reach their positions.

Just as atheists stand a much better chance of getting people to reject God than satanists do, so the advocates of voluntary government stand a much better chance of getting people to reject the state than anarchists do.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

If you're an anarcho-anything, then you must believe that governance is possible only through aggression.

That makes you a statist who hates the state, in the same way that a satanist accepts the premise of theism, that there is a God. That makes him a theist who hates God.

We both reject the state, but we are not coming from the same premise to reach our position. In the same way the atheist and the satanist both reject God, but are each coming from a different premise to reach their positions.

Just as atheists stand a much better chance of getting people to reject God than satanists do, so the advocates of voluntary government stand a much better chance of getting people to reject the state than anarchists do.

If I believe coercive rule is possible only through aggression how does that make me a statist?

[markuzick]

Anarchists are just statists who reject the state, but accept the underlying premise of statism that governance is possible only through aggression.

You're thinking of the black-and-red, black-and-green, black-and-pink, and other idiots who self-contradictingly call themselves socialist anarchists.  The black-and-gold Anarcho-Capitalists are nothing like them: we respect private property and all other aspects of self-ownership, and the natural order that it brings.  There's really no difference between the term "Anarcho-Capitalist" and "libertarian" (small-l), except the former is bolder and hasn't been soiled by single-issue LINO (Libertarian In Name Only) demagogues.  When Dennis Kucinich calls himself a Libertarian Democrat, you know you need a new term!  The word "Capitalism" would scare him away, and the word "Anarchy" would scare off right-wingers like Glenn Beck who're just trying to blend in with the cool kids.  And can you think of better colors to express each of those two terms than gold and black?

Anarchy means no government. Why would you reject the statist premise, that governance is possible only through aggression, only to reject government too? Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society.

Proof?

[Porcupine_in_MA]

See to me, voluntary interaction and exchange of goods is what is needed for a civilized society. Government, which I define as a group of individuals using coercive force to rule over other individuals, is exactly the anti-thesis of civilized society.

[markuzick]

If you're an anarcho-anything, then you must believe that governance is possible only through aggression.

No, it means you believe rule, (i.e. coercive government) is possible only through aggression, which is entirely accurate.

That is the statist premise in a nut shell.

I reject the statist premise.


Without government, there can be no civilization, only chaos and disorder.

A private and voluntary DRO is an example of voluntary political government and so is a private and voluntary enforcement agency, police agency, security company or voluntary militia.

Other forms of voluntary governmental agencies include non-profit social welfare government. They may be educational, charitable, environmental, scientific, philosophical, intellectual, artistic or cultural organizations.

Finally: The most common form of voluntary governmental organizations are mercantile government, which are for profit businesses that provide people with non-political goods and services.

All these forms of voluntary government are an extension of self government. Government means "to control". The right to self government is the right to have control over yourself. This is nothing more than the exercise of self ownership, which includes the right to contract with others to abide by voluntary laws.

[markuzick]

If you're an anarcho-anything, then you must believe that governance is possible only through aggression.

That makes you a statist who hates the state, in the same way that a satanist accepts the premise of theism, that there is a God. That makes him a theist who hates God.

We both reject the state, but we are not coming from the same premise to reach our position. In the same way the atheist and the satanist both reject God, but are each coming from a different premise to reach their positions.

Just as atheists stand a much better chance of getting people to reject God than satanists do, so the advocates of voluntary government stand a much better chance of getting people to reject the state than anarchists do.

If I believe coercive rule is possible only through aggression how does that make me a statist?

If you believe the premise of statism, even though you hate the state, you do so from a statist perspective. Statists who love the state are idealistic or possibly Utopian statists. Statists who hate the state are sceptical, cynical or possibly Dystopian statists.

Is it possible that you misunderstand the meaning of "coercion"? Coercion means to use force or the threat of force to gain compliance. It's a morally neutral word, in that the morality of coercion depends upon whether it is used defensively or aggressively. Voluntary governments may use coercion only for defence against aggression.

[Blackie]

I vote for the unwashed masses to kill the intellectuals.

[markuzick]

Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society.

Proof?

A just society requires the institution of civilized order. Institutions of civilized order are the political form of governments. Even good intentioned people, who mean no aggression toward one-another will get into honest disputes. That's not even to mention common criminals and power seekers.

To avoid anarchy, chaos and war, there must be courts for dispute resolution, enforcement agencies with police for the enforcement of laws, security companies with guards for protection and security and defense agencies as well as militias with soldiers for defence against invaders and rouge police agencies.

Only a statist would claim that these governmental agencies could only be instituted through aggression. There's no reason that they could not be instituted through the voluntary consent of their owners, employees and clients.

[markuzick]

See to me, voluntary interaction and exchange of goods is what is needed for a civilized society.

Voluntary interaction and exchange of goods, except on the most primitive level, requires organizational management, i.e., government.

Government, which I define as a group of individuals using coercive force to rule over other individuals, is exactly the anti-thesis of civilized society.

The term "coercive force" is redundant.

As I asked before:

Is it possible that you misunderstand the meaning of "coercion"? Coercion means to use force or the threat of force to gain compliance. It's a morally neutral word, in that the morality of coercion depends upon whether it is used defensively or aggressively. Voluntary governments may use coercion only for defense against aggression.

[markuzick]

I vote for the unwashed masses to kill the intellectuals.

We have a true anarchist here!

[theCelestrian]

Proof?

I'll take a stab at this one:

Talk to a few anthropologists (I have, obviously or I wouldn't bring them up) and look at the "evolution" of human civilization from Hunter-gatherer in the caves to our present day society.  Two characteristics of our societal development have been key to our success, as opposed to say, Neanderthals.

• Centralization of Leadership
  
  
• Specialization of Tasks within a communal group
  
  

BTW, the former led to the later.

This isn't that hard to see: look at your favorite Completely Private, Voluntary organization.  Someone's "in Charge."  Always.  Maybe "some people" are in charge, but there is always a clear chain of authority.  With private institutions, this chain of authority is voluntary; you don't like the company or the decisions of the chain of authority, you find yourself a different place to work.  Currrently with our coercive governments, (the "state" for those who want to not sully the word "government"), you don't have that choice unless you wish to expatriate yourself from the country.

Also, if it weren't for item 2, then we would all still be "hunter gatherers" or "Jack of all trades, masters of none."  It was this development in our social behaviors ("Okay, I'm gonna do nothing but make the arrow-heads, and you're going to do nothing but hunt the meat while Betty and Wilma do nothing but make our clothes..."), that anthropologists observed a drastic increase in the sophistication and quality of the things that particular group produced.

...and again we see this today.  Not everyone is a car mechanic, or a programmer or a chef.  Our social behaviorism's have required us to specialize in a particular task within our social community.  There are those who are "masters of more" and they generally are paid more or rewarded, and there are those that are still "masters of none" and they tend to end up digging ditches... or throwing back to my pre-historic reference...scavenging the mammoth found dead a half day's walk from the tribal villiage.


So yes, centralization of leadership (amongst the one or many) is required.  The real question is, "does that centralization of leadership have to be forced, or will human beings recognize it's 'survival/efficiency benefit' on their own and come to the conclusion naturally?"[/list]

[Porcupine_in_MA]

So if I use force in defense of myself, that is also coercive? Not all force is coercive. Mark, all the examples you used for "voluntary" government are not government at all because they don't rule over anyone who doesn't choose to be a part of them. Government does not involve choice or it wouldn't be government.