Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Polling Pit
| | |-+  Which is better? Minarchism or Anarcho-capitalism?

Poll

Which is better? Minarchism or Anarcho-capitalism?

Minarchism
- 10 (31.3%)
Anarcho-capitalism
- 17 (53.1%)
Torn between the 2!
- 5 (15.6%)

Total Members Voted: 12


Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Which is better? Minarchism or Anarcho-capitalism?  (Read 10900 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Taors

  • Guest
Re: Which is better? Minarchism or Anarcho-capitalism?
« Reply #15 on: November 28, 2006, 10:07:59 PM »

Ficken, I suggest you seek out the works of a man named Murray Rothbard. You'll thank me later in life.
Logged

fickenbaisage

  • Guest
Re: Which is better? Minarchism or Anarcho-capitalism?
« Reply #16 on: November 28, 2006, 10:16:18 PM »

Ficken, I suggest you seek out the works of a man named Murray Rothbard. You'll thank me later in life.

Okay.
Logged

cerpntaxt

  • Guest
Re: Which is better? Minarchism or Anarcho-capitalism?
« Reply #17 on: November 28, 2006, 10:17:47 PM »

Anarcho-capitalism can be hard work... most anarchists are of the leftist persuasion, and thus consider capitalism to be incompatible with anarchism... that's my complaint and warning and suggestion of what needs to be done about the general state of anarchist ideology today...
Ficken, I suggest you seek out the works of a man named Murray Rothbard. You'll thank me later in life.

Okay.
http://www.mises.org has a lot of his work available online for free.

>http://www.mises.org/studyguide.aspx?action=author&Id=299
« Last Edit: November 28, 2006, 10:23:28 PM by cerpntaxt »
Logged

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: Which is better? Minarchism or Anarcho-capitalism?
« Reply #18 on: November 28, 2006, 10:42:52 PM »

Quote
most anarchists are of the leftist persuasion, and thus consider capitalism to be incompatible with anarchism... that's my complaint and warning and suggestion of what needs to be done about the general state of anarchist ideology today...

there are some left anarchists who are against capitalism but for the free market without privilege which eliminates economic rent to landowners, economic interest for bankers and economic profits for capital - they are called "mutualists"
« Last Edit: November 29, 2006, 08:40:28 AM by BenTucker »
Logged

Taors

  • Guest
Re: Which is better? Minarchism or Anarcho-capitalism?
« Reply #19 on: November 28, 2006, 11:02:58 PM »

Ficken, I suggest you seek out the works of a man named Murray Rothbard. You'll thank me later in life.

Okay.

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf
Logged

Bill Brasky

  • Guest
Re: Which is better? Minarchism or Anarcho-capitalism?
« Reply #20 on: November 29, 2006, 06:50:49 PM »

I feel that complete Anarcho-capitolist is the only true liberty oriented way of life.  I started out a rank and file republican, believeing in the 2nd amendment and states rights and all that good stuff but as I grew up and matured I carried my logic out to a more libertarian philosphy, and just recently I made the leap so-to-speak to Anarcho-Capitalism and carried the logic to its end.  Therefore I feel that all liberty-minded individuals will eventually become Anarcho-capitalist if they simply think about it and carry their logic out to its end.

Thats amazing, considering there are very few people on earth that can make that claim and actually live within modern society.

Do you pay taxes?  Sales tax, income tax? 

If you do, a third party is involved in your transaction.  That means you cannot have a give and take transactive relationship without making accomodations for the government, and thus you accept the intrusion of force into your anarcho-capitalistic doctrine. 

That acceptance of the state as a third party into the anarcho-capitalists participation within society is the pane of glass between illusion and reality, as I see it. 

Everybody is over here, on the "I'm an anarchist-C" side, and over there..  through that thin glass.. there is nobody. 

But thats where the true anarcho-caps belong.  Over there.  Where people refuse to pay taxes. 

Its fucking annoying.  Its like watching peter pan and seeing the wires. 
Logged

cerpntaxt

  • Guest
Re: Which is better? Minarchism or Anarcho-capitalism?
« Reply #21 on: November 29, 2006, 07:14:09 PM »

I'm not sure what I'm going to do when I have to pay taxes... haven't had that opportunity yet
Logged

fickenbaisage

  • Guest
Re: Which is better? Minarchism or Anarcho-capitalism?
« Reply #22 on: November 29, 2006, 10:16:20 PM »

Minarchism is so similar to classical liberalism, which is what the United States of America was founded on, that I would lump them together for argument's sake. Doesn't the state of affairs in the US is proof enough that classical liberalism was a failed experiment, since emotional issues have been known to us to blind people to principles of liberty, and henceforth the proposal of minarchism is not feasible?
Logged

Bill Brasky

  • Guest
Re: Which is better? Minarchism or Anarcho-capitalism?
« Reply #23 on: November 30, 2006, 12:04:31 AM »

Minarchism is so similar to classical liberalism, which is what the United States of America was founded on, that I would lump them together for argument's sake. Doesn't the state of affairs in the US is proof enough that classical liberalism was a failed experiment, since emotional issues have been known to us to blind people to principles of liberty, and henceforth the proposal of minarchism is not feasible?

No.  Minarcism (and its 18th century cousin) is not a failure.  It was abandoned through a slow process by people who had a vague understanding of federal power.  State legislatures gave away certain things to get others.  As time went on, the feds power grew and states stagnated because the common mentality looks at larger (fed) being safer and stronger than smaller (states).

Its greed, really.   The machinery of state government, and thus the people, would like to put in one dollar and get two back.  Thats why all the senators and congressmen always say "We'll get the funding from the government" and everyone says YAY!...  Especially when things go really bad, like Katrina.  But routinely, the federal dollars are jockied around for pork projects that are funded at the expense of the other 49 states, and may the best man win is the attitude of the elected representatives in Washington. 

So, they tax you 'til it hurts and give with one hand and take with the other.  Then, they dangle the carrot whereby the states have to meet the demands of the feds to recieve the dollars they are addicted to.  A good example of that is the speed limits and BAC requirements for drunk driving.  Both are enacted on a state level, but at the demand of the feds under the threat of budgetary slashing if the guidelines are not met.  55 was the standard, and .10 for BAC (thats blood alcohol content for you youngns'), and if not made the state maximums, highway funding would be cut.  So, all the states complied.  Then a new standard was imposed of .08 BAC, and the states complied under the threat of highway funding cuts.  Its encroachment.  Most reciently, the 55 rule has been lifted in rural areas, mostly because of the more fuel efficient vehicles on todays roads and the impact that speed had on commerce, it took longer for products to reach their destinations and that made the prices inflated for the consumer.  So, now you see 65.  How generous. 
 
Logged

fickenbaisage

  • Guest
Re: Which is better? Minarchism or Anarcho-capitalism?
« Reply #24 on: November 30, 2006, 12:17:58 AM »

Minarchism is so similar to classical liberalism, which is what the United States of America was founded on, that I would lump them together for argument's sake. Doesn't the state of affairs in the US is proof enough that classical liberalism was a failed experiment, since emotional issues have been known to us to blind people to principles of liberty, and henceforth the proposal of minarchism is not feasible?

No.  Minarcism (and its 18th century cousin) is not a failure.  It was abandoned through a slow process by people who had a vague understanding of federal power.  State legislatures gave away certain things to get others.  As time went on, the feds power grew and states stagnated because the common mentality looks at larger (fed) being safer and stronger than smaller (states).

Its greed, really.   The machinery of state government, and thus the people, would like to put in one dollar and get two back.  Thats why all the senators and congressmen always say "We'll get the funding from the government" and everyone says YAY!...  Especially when things go really bad, like Katrina.  But routinely, the federal dollars are jockied around for pork projects that are funded at the expense of the other 49 states, and may the best man win is the attitude of the elected representatives in Washington. 

So, they tax you 'til it hurts and give with one hand and take with the other.  Then, they dangle the carrot whereby the states have to meet the demands of the feds to recieve the dollars they are addicted to.  A good example of that is the speed limits and BAC requirements for drunk driving.  Both are enacted on a state level, but at the demand of the feds under the threat of budgetary slashing if the guidelines are not met.  55 was the standard, and .10 for BAC (thats blood alcohol content for you youngns'), and if not made the state maximums, highway funding would be cut.  So, all the states complied.  Then a new standard was imposed of .08 BAC, and the states complied under the threat of highway funding cuts.  Its encroachment.  Most reciently, the 55 rule has been lifted in rural areas, mostly because of the more fuel efficient vehicles on todays roads and the impact that speed had on commerce, it took longer for products to reach their destinations and that made the prices inflated for the consumer.  So, now you see 65.  How generous. 
 

The reason why minarchism is a failure is due to greed.
Logged

Bill Brasky

  • Guest
Re: Which is better? Minarchism or Anarcho-capitalism?
« Reply #25 on: November 30, 2006, 01:07:28 AM »

No.  Minarcism (and its 18th century cousin) is not a failure.  It was abandoned through a slow process by people who had a vague understanding of federal power.  State legislatures gave away certain things to get others.  As time went on, the feds power grew and states stagnated because the common mentality looks at larger (fed) being safer and stronger than smaller (states).

Its greed, really.   The machinery of state government, ...

The reason why minarchism is a failure abandoned is due to greed.

You don't say. 

Logged

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: Which is better? Minarchism or Anarcho-capitalism?
« Reply #26 on: November 30, 2006, 12:19:55 PM »

No.  Minarcism (and its 18th century cousin) is not a failure.  It was abandoned through a slow process by people who had a vague understanding of federal power.  State legislatures gave away certain things to get others.  As time went on, the feds power grew and states stagnated because the common mentality looks at larger (fed) being safer and stronger than smaller (states).

Its greed, really.   The machinery of state government, ...

The reason why minarchism is a failure abandoned is due to greed.

You don't say. 

there are two ways to satisfy human desire:

1. economic means (labor-based property)
2. political means (law-based property)

the state is set-up to allow the political means for one class to exploit another via privilege whereas local governance as agency (classical liberalism) is constituted to protect labor-based property rights.
Logged

fickenbaisage

  • Guest
Re: Which is better? Minarchism or Anarcho-capitalism?
« Reply #27 on: November 30, 2006, 05:12:03 PM »

No.  Minarcism (and its 18th century cousin) is not a failure.  It was abandoned through a slow process by people who had a vague understanding of federal power.  State legislatures gave away certain things to get others.  As time went on, the feds power grew and states stagnated because the common mentality looks at larger (fed) being safer and stronger than smaller (states).

Its greed, really.   The machinery of state government, ...

The reason why minarchism is a failure abandoned is due to greed.

You don't say. 



So you're implying greed won't exist in government officials in a small government?
Logged

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: Which is better? Minarchism or Anarcho-capitalism?
« Reply #28 on: November 30, 2006, 05:38:33 PM »

No.  Minarcism (and its 18th century cousin) is not a failure.  It was abandoned through a slow process by people who had a vague understanding of federal power.  State legislatures gave away certain things to get others.  As time went on, the feds power grew and states stagnated because the common mentality looks at larger (fed) being safer and stronger than smaller (states).

Its greed, really.   The machinery of state government, ...

The reason why minarchism is a failure abandoned is due to greed.

You don't say. 



So you're implying greed won't exist in government officials in a small government?

the premise of civic republicanism is that one achieves individual freedom by practicing VIRTUOUS behavior within small-scale, face-to-face, particaptory, deliberative civic institutions...

if you are identified as greedy within your local community you will be harshly shunned...
Logged

Bill Brasky

  • Guest
Re: Which is better? Minarchism or Anarcho-capitalism?
« Reply #29 on: December 01, 2006, 02:55:18 AM »

No.  Minarcism (and its 18th century cousin) is not a failure.  It was abandoned through a slow process by people who had a vague understanding of federal power.  State legislatures gave away certain things to get others.  As time went on, the feds power grew and states stagnated because the common mentality looks at larger (fed) being safer and stronger than smaller (states).

Its greed, really.   The machinery of state government, ...

The reason why minarchism is a failure abandoned is due to greed.

You don't say. 



So you're implying greed won't exist in government officials in a small government?

Haha, no, of course not.  What I'm implying is elected officials in quantity, whether fed state or local, will and do make promises and shove pork into their own dens.  No government officials will ever agree to reducing his take in favor of giving more in a charitable fashon to another state.  The constituants would view this as weakness and laziness and so they "fight" pitched battles (and trade favors) to bring home the maximum they can obtain. 

The greed comes in several forms.  Pork, to bring home to the state.  This makes them look successful and helps to assure they are re-elected.  These are fairly well paying jobs, and they also pay in other ways, lobbyists give little gifts and trips, which all have value.  If not in office, no gifts, no job.  Also, they are paid in connections.  Favors.  Life is long and these guys dont just drop off the earth when they are done in office, they help contracts get into the hands of their associates and thereby ensure some lucrative deals when they retire into the private sector. 

Less government, less nepotism.  There will always be greed, but less people dipping into the cookie jar means less scamming behind the scenes, and less taxes. 
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Polling Pit
| | |-+  Which is better? Minarchism or Anarcho-capitalism?

// ]]>

Page created in 0.045 seconds with 35 queries.