Is Anarcho-Capitalism Immoral?

Anarcho-Capitalism is NOT immoral!

Sure it is.

Brokor is a boobie.

Other/Undecided

[Non-Statist]

Quote
I see Anarchy as being self-destructive, and completely immoral for attempting to promote a far more volatile societal structure, one which actually has no real structure and is entirely dependent upon the supposition that all people will happily leave one another alone and function in a non forceful manner.


Does this drive anyone else crazy when they hear this?   

HELLOOO!!!! 200 MILLION PEOPLE MURDERED BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS IN THE 20TH CENTURY ALONE!!!  thats not counting soldiers or civilians killed in war.  thats not counting all of the wealth stolen- lives that have been ruined or human potential flushed down the drain in the far majorities of human lives.

And dont give me any crap about- "oh but i want limited government that plays nice"  Um, that was the point of this whole American Experiment we have going on here.  (and remember, this experiment aint done yet.  I think we're just warming up with 50% of net American wealth stolen every year and a militiary thats only killing hundreds of thousands of people in other countries.)

 It took LESS THAN 100 YEARS before this "limited government" MURDERED 300,000 people in the civil war not counting all the maimed and wealth stolen in that one.

With this in mind, youd think people would be grasping to replace government with any other system possible and keep an open mind.

I dont mean to be rude in pointing all this out because I use to make the same arguments until i was able to see these COMPLETELY OBVIOUS things after taking off the statist blinders and stopped defending the state like it was someone criticizing my mother.

[BKO]

Ack. Some people get childish and upset over what is supposed to be a reasoned debate. I don't mind opinions on this matter, as most everything presented on the side of anarchy is theory. Why must proponents of anarcho-capitalism insist that the current United States is the same as what was originally adopted? The difference between a Democracy and a republic are like night and day.

Thus far, some really great comments. I won't trouble "Jason Orr" and "Non Statist" with my rebuttal right now, but I can -and will respond in the fullness of time.

[cerpntaxt]

I just want less government.

You're living in a fantasy land. Wake up. This is teh real world.

[Non-Statist]

Hell yeah.  I want less government too.  It just seems that it is inevitable that less government will turn into bigger and bigger government that will take all your money and kill people here there or everywhere.

The thing about it is that government gives people a license to steal (if you agree that taxation is taking property without consent).  If you give them that ability, its kind of a no brainer that they're going to do this as much as they possibly can.  Why steal 1% when you can get 2%, or better yet 3, 4, 5...on and on until we are at the point we are at now.  And dont think its over where we're at right now.  They will continue to create problems and scare the shit out of people and the only solution is (to them and their lackees) is if they have more of your money. (think US foreign policy causing 9-11, drug war causing violence, etc.)

There are people out there that get rich beyond imagination (think of people in Halliburton, GE, ADM, etc.) off government being able to tax.  It is a 2.9 TRILLION dollar pot filled to the brim and they will stop at NOTHING to get their hands on that money and take even more.  The rewards for them are so great that they spend day and night thinking of new ways to get that AND MORE money. And this is just the money aspect.  Theres also the sick instinctual human perversion of gaining power and controlling others.   No wonder theres no way to keep a limited government.

So, the only solution, and i dont see ANY OTHER WAY around this, is to not give ANYONE that ability to use force on you or anyone else in the first place.  Anything less will lead us down that dark path discussed above.

Does this make sense or am i just babbling?

[Andy]

Hell yeah.  I want less government too.  It just seems that it is inevitable that less government will turn into bigger and bigger government that will take all your money and kill people here there or everywhere.

The thing about it is that government gives people a license to steal (if you agree that taxation is taking property without consent).  If you give them that ability, its kind of a no brainer that they're going to do this as much as they possibly can.  Why steal 1% when you can get 2%, or better yet 3, 4, 5...on and on until we are at the point we are at now.  And dont think its over where we're at right now.  They will continue to create problems and scare the shit out of people and the only solution is (to them and their lackees) is if they have more of your money. (think US foreign policy causing 9-11, drug war causing violence, etc.)

There are people out there that get rich beyond imagination (think of people in Halliburton, GE, ADM, etc.) off government being able to tax.  It is a 2.9 TRILLION dollar pot filled to the brim and they will stop at NOTHING to get their hands on that money and take even more.  The rewards for them are so great that they spend day and night thinking of new ways to get that AND MORE money. And this is just the money aspect.  Theres also the sick instinctual human perversion of gaining power and controlling others.   No wonder theres no way to keep a limited government.

So, the only solution, and i dont see ANY OTHER WAY around this, is to not give ANYONE that ability to use force on you or anyone else in the first place.  Anything less will lead us down that dark path discussed above.

Does this make sense or am i just babbling?

No government has ever been built to 'give someone force,' either someone has taken a country and its people by force, or the people have created a means to govern themselves. I'll grant the previous attempts have been somewhat short sighted and misconceived but the premise is sound.

Regardless, as I have said before, I'm a supporter of Nozick's notion that anarcho-capitalism would inevitably become a minarchist state simply by demand of the people (basic market force apply that a supply will be created to meet the demand) to have some degree of governance.

I tend to agree.

I'm not sure if the evolution from minarchism to big government is similarly inevitable.

[BKO]

Nozick has some good shit to say.

And on the subject of "governments" killing people...that's a complete fallacy, because it is generally only a few who get that ball rolling, and most people tend to support the tyrant in power. Take Stalin, Mao, Hitler, insert any president here if you choose. It is up to the PEOPLE themselves to throw off such government and establish a new, sensible one if necessary. Pointing a finger at "governments" doesn't help any, and it is extremely counterproductive. The PEOPLE themselves are to blame for falling asleep and demanding their servants to become leaders. The PEOPLE have spoken in this way, and they have what they deserve. A government only has as much force, power, and authority as the People will it to have.

And I am certainly not one to bitch and moan about people dying, so please excuse my stance on the subject. I firmly support population idiot reduction.

[Non-Statist]

The reasons of forming a government isnt really my point.  I think the reasons of forming a government are probably that there are people that are wiling to rule, and there are people that are willing to be ruled.  There is general legitimacy (unlike places like somalia and Iraq) so the game is on and the ruling begins.

Im saying that regardless of what the people believe that accept that governments legitimacy, and they go along with that game Im saying THEY SHOULDNT because it will lead to theft and DEATH on a HUGE SCALE all along the way and we shouldnt be surprised one bit because the people in power are benefiting all along the way taking more and more of our wealth and enjoying the murder in a sick way most normal people dont understand.

I think it is not a tenable position to talk about limited government and act as though with time it wont result in something far worse.  Common sense tells us that this is the case (again, how the rulers and their beneficiaries benefit from as large a state as possible), as well as history (The American Experiment along with pretty much every other state in history just by using MASS GRAVES as an indicator).

Now, the question of "will anarchy work" is another issue, but my point is that "limited government" wont so we better be grasping at anything else that shows a sliver of hope.

[BKO]

I have read your posts, Non Statist, and even though you seem to be reiterating the same points to the level of repeating yourself I understand your perspective. Your point is well taken from my end.

Even so, I disagree with you. If you fail at something, does that mean you should give up and walk away? Some of the greatest achievements of mankind have come about through trial and error. Learning from our mistakes and not repeating them is crucial in establishing success in the future.

You have your opinion that all governments equal death, and that is your own perception, I will not try to change your mind. Just try not to force your opinion on me, because I am a traditional, stubborn, relentless patriot who still believes that greatness can be achieved by never yielding and never making excuses. I will continue to learn from history's mistakes, and I will urge others to attempt the same.

[ladyattis]

Also, isn't your only question necessarily the one you consider most important?

It is necessarily important since all other questions that arise are found as genesis from it.

But to expand to questions, do you think that the fundamental status of morality is non-voluntary in that for all rational agents to exist in peace they must all submit to the reality of consistent action necessary to ensure that peace? This means, does morality reign over us all, just as the consequences of our actions reign over us in kind?


-- Brede

[Non-Statist]

And I am certainly not one to bitch and moan about people dying, so please excuse my stance on the subject. I firmly support population idiot reduction.


Wow Broker.  I have to say that I am pretty dismayed by your reply.  I almost dont even know how to reply.

200 MILLION!!! people in the 20th century wiped from the face of the earth, with friends and family and feelings just like you, deserve, or are not worth trying to prevent or whatever youre saying simply because lets say their worst offense was supporting someone who in the end, to their, im sure horror, decided to kill them.  (BTW you dont even know that a percentage of those MURDERED people truly supported the political structure in place.) 

Besides, WTF is Mr. Moy in some backward farming village in China supposed to do?  Take an axe and hack away at the local party official?  And Mr Moy, a peasant farmer who cant read or write, deserves to die if he doesnt organize an underground movement to overthrow the half a million man army of Red China?????  Pure suicide!  Mr. Moy has been fed the same garbage about government that everyone else nods and agrees with and he JUST WANTS TO PLOW THE FIELDS TO TRY TO FEED HIS FAMILY-  Not study the history and political consequences of "non-limited government" and then try to control the monster that has never been controlled before called government.

Get OFF THE IVORY TOWER.  THIS IDEA HONESTLY DISGUSTS ME!!!

[adamruth]

It's not a question of the absense of government, that's a misunderstanding of anarchy.  There will always be government.  Companies, clubs, families, charities, even individuals all "govern" themselves.  Anarchy is the absence of coercive government.  So, I would say that the absence of coercive government is not immoral (however you may define that term.)

[BKO]

Actually, Non Statist...

I kind of like the idea of killing innocent masses of people, provided that it is done with the hands of the masses themselves. Nothing is more intoxicating than to watch millions of people blindly and devoutly kill one another for no reason at all besides the mundane beliefs that they have adopted.

The best part is, through all of it, my hands are clean. Now...only a few billion left to go.

[BKO]

Anarchy is the absence of coercive government.

What happens when those private companies and villages group together? What happens when one or two or a dozen turn violent? What happens when nation states are created for protection? What happens when civil war breaks out?

You have just exchanged one form of force for another, no?

Anarchy is a dream of children, it is a myth, and it is a theory which I am proud to say Does. Not. Exist.

[Non-Statist]

BROKER YOU ARE SWEET!  have you ever thought that you might one day get caught up in governments net and murdered yourself? 

You are already getting how much of your money stolen every year in taxes that you would call "confiscatory"- whatever that means.  Wheres your rebellion? Hmm?  Are you rallying the troops or is it not time for that yet?

Anarchy is the absence of coercive government.

What happens when those private companies and villages group together? What happens when one or two or a dozen turn violent? What happens when nation states are created for protection? What happens when civil war breaks out?

You have just exchanged one form of force for another, no?

Anarchy is a dream of children, it is a myth, and it is a theory which I am proud to say Does. Not. Exist.

One form of force for another? Wheres the initial force and who's supporting it by paying for it? 

[BKO]

Huh?

I support the New World Order. I get my taxes back at the end of the year. I like supporting global stability and completely agree with population control. It is a wonderful means to an end, I must say.