Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 42   Go Down

Author Topic: Libertarian vs Anarchism  (Read 93580 times)

bud

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #30 on: July 30, 2002, 02:12:05 am »

FSP is not starting out as an anarchy.  It will attempt to legally take over the existing government of the target state.  The goal will apparently be to reduce the size of government so as to prevent it from violating the peoples'
rights.  Depriving it of tax money will go a long way towards accomplishing this.  Now, if, after getting this far towards the goal of a Free State, we see that the existing size and degree of government can be reduced even further, thus reducing government's ability to oppress us, wouldn't we be stupid not to do so?  You only need a government to force people to do or not do something, thus reproducing the situation we now have in the USA--a plethora of special interest groups of varying sizes, each trying to convince the government to force everyone else to think, say, or do what they want.  I forget who said this, but "anyone who wants a powerful state either is, or else plans to be, the State."  And every degree in between a powerful state and ANY state.  It amazes me that otherwise intelligent people can actually think that only the government can supply, e.g. law enforcement,  domestic security, roads, bridges, etc.  Remember, most of the tax money the government extorts from us is used for propping up the state--not providing services.  The only 2 things I can think of that government can do better than the private sector is (1) piss away large amounts of money, and (2) get innocent people killed.
Logged

amyday

  • Guest
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #31 on: July 30, 2002, 09:47:06 am »

When you have a country of a million people where there is no government to take care of them, the people will be armed. You may have some people who don't have guns, but the majority will. If the country is ever attacked the armed citizens will form a bigger army than a government of the same size country could. (also the people in a government protected state usually have gun restrictions and are taught to fear guns by the government because if you are afraid of guns you will not buy one, I know many people who tell me they are afraid of guns and are happy to let the police or military protect them) So a country without a government will be better able to defend itself. You make it sound like in a society with out government people will ignore each other and not get along, and that any other country with an army will come in and be able to take over the people. I think you don't understand anarchism. My understanding of it is that we are against initiation of force with includes government initiation of force, and all governments exist by their ability to force people. That is the whole premise behind government, that government is a power above man and as such has the right to take your posessions and control your behavior. Every thing that government does now by force, organizations could do voluntarily.  Show a situation in which you don't understand how anarcy would work, and I'll try to help you understand.
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #32 on: July 30, 2002, 10:25:15 am »

Please explain how you can maintain an effective defense against a major army without organizing your defense.  And you cannot organize a defense without creating a structured system.  That structured system can be voluntary to enter, but cannot be voluntary to leave, as that will not permit effective military strategy.  Also there is an economy of scale that applies to military technology.  If we were left to individual means for defense, we would have less than a dozen fighter jets and very few AA guns.  As such, any nation with air power could defeat the anarchists in question.  

If somehow a large group of anarchists were able to contract with each other to create consolidations of power such that they could fight off an invasion, Those consolidations become a significant threat to freedom and with just a small measure of corruption, will become warlords.

If we create a constitutionally limited government, maybe we can buy another 100 to 200 years of liberty before it returns to the modern state of corruption.  Either way, such a constitutional government is _very_ difficult to corrupt within the lifetimes of the creators of the constitution, since there can be no room for creative interpretation when the writers are there to explain it.
Logged

amyday

  • Guest
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #33 on: July 30, 2002, 11:15:15 am »

Why can't you have an organized defense? Why do you beleive people will only work together if they are force to? Think about how a church works. The members want a place to worship and they want someone to lead the group. People donate money, and the members vote on how the spend the money. No one is forced to pay, and you can leave at any time. Think about how much money the catholic church raises. This is all voluntary. Why can't I donate money to an organization that buys jet fighters and hires pilots. There could be multiple organizations. I would donate to the ones I felt made the best use of my money, had the most modern/effective equipment, and hire the best pilots. In the free market, the companies that wasted money, and didn't stay up to date, would lose supporters and go out of business. The different businesses could work together to combat a threat to the country.
>>maestro
That structured system can be voluntary to enter, but cannot be voluntary to leave, as that will not permit effective military strategy. <<

This problem with deserting is assotiated with government armies that use the military as their personal bully. When people are fighting to defend their homes and families, they do not walk away. If you are being told to kill inoccent people, and you don't have to be there, people would leave. Which shows how a voluntary force will be a more moral force.

On an other note, pacifist would not be forced to pay for weapons and war.

>>maestro
If somehow a large group of anarchists were able to contract with each other to create consolidations of power such that they could fight off an invasion, Those consolidations become a significant threat to freedom and with just a small measure of corruption, will become warlords.<<<

If these organizations are funded voluntarily, then if people don't give them money, then they can't pay their mercenaries, so will be powerless. Governments support their armies through  money stolen from the people.
Logged

Freestatepatriot

  • FSP Participant
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 88
    • The Christian Independent
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #34 on: July 30, 2002, 11:46:11 am »

I'm a constitutional libertarian and not secessionist, though I believe in the right of a state to secede in an orderly fashion.  I'm strongly in favor of state´s rights, and believe that government's proper function is to protect the rights of life, liberty and property of free individuals from violence.  The U.S. Federal government should be scaled back to constitutional limits, and the IRS should be abolished with extreme prejudice.

And that's all I've got to say about that.

Adam G.
Logged

NORML54601

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
  • Insert personal text here
    • The unknown ideal
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #35 on: July 30, 2002, 01:32:32 pm »


Why can't you have an organized defense? Why do you beleive people will only work together if they are force to? Think about how a church works. The members want a place to worship and they want someone to lead the group. People donate money, and the members vote on how the spend the money. No one is forced to pay, and you can leave at any time. Think about how much money the catholic church raises. This is all voluntary. Why can't I donate money to an organization that buys jet fighters and hires pilots. There could be multiple organizations. I would donate to the ones I felt made the best use of my money, had the most modern/effective equipment, and hire the best pilots. In the free market, the companies that wasted money, and didn't stay up to date, would lose supporters and go out of business. The different businesses could work together to combat a threat to the country.




There is quite a difference between donating to your church and to national defense. Every week you're reminded that you'll burn in hell if you don't give god your money, but eventually people would disregard the threat of burning in a war. Initaially the dontations would come in fairly regularly, but I think they would taper off quite quickly. People become desensitized virtually overnight to any kind of threat and would not take it seriously enough to fork over thier money. An example of this can be seen with the American Red Cross and thier blood supply. BTW, I work for the Red Cross, so I have firsthand knowledge of this. After 9/11, we were flooded with calls from people looking to give blood. We literally had over 500 calls a week for the first 2 weeks after the attack and several hundered for the weeks after that. Last week, we had our annual community blood drive, with a goal of 750 pints. Keep in mind that there is a national blood shortage emergency happening right now, and we put out our biggest media push in the past 3 years. 9/11 was less than a year ago, and we're fighting a war in Afghanistan right now. We ended up finishing with 754 pints for the 4 day event, and there were about 50 donors we had to turn away for various reasons. Despite the fact that we are at critical levels, despite the fact that virtually the whole community knew about it, only about .02% of our town's population attempted to give blood. If .02% of the population contributed to the national defense budget (not just to the budget, but to various companies as you said) I don't think we'd be tough to conquer. I do think the contributuions would be higher than .02%, but it would not be enough to support a defense of this country, especally if we were attacked/invaded as most of the contributiuons would start after an attack and by then it would be too late.
You also suggest that "The different businesses could work together to combat a threat to the country." This poses another interesting question. Are these businesses for profit, or non profit? If they're for profit, they will be competing for your money, and therefore would not be likely to share information with the other "defense" companies. Imagine the mess that would ensue if we were attacked, and we had 4 different "defense" organazations all with different levels of technology trying to defend the country. Someone would be needed to tell who to go where, detirmine which company would best defend which border and so on... Who's going to detirmine that?
We've also got to think about the people that don't conrtibute at all. Are they still entitled to a defense?

IMO, the best way to pay for a national defense (and the other functions) of a limited government would be a small, 1-2% sales tax on all items sold within the US. No income tax, no sin taxes, the rich aren't penalized for being rich, etc......

Logged

Eddie_Bradford

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 567
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #36 on: July 30, 2002, 02:54:06 pm »

This touches on a classic economics problem on non excludable goods.  Say everyone voluntarily participated in the army and had a machine gun.  (We won't even begin to get into bigger weapons)  Now I am safe with this citizen's defense force but when I'm on the front line instead of entering the melee I run.  I figure the others will fight just as good a I.  So now assume everyone does this, well we just lost.  If there is a defense then you can't choose to specifically not protect me because my land is in the center of the FS.  I'm non excludable even though I choose to not give money.  Also it's advantagous to me to not get involved in the defense of the country.  It's like if one person stands up at the baseball game he can see better but the guy behind him can't.  So he stands up and others stand up and pretty soon everyone is standing and no one will sit back down because they can't see but it was much better when everyone was sitting.  Again we come to the prisoner's dellima.  The Perato optimal outcome comes from you and everyone else acting against their best interest.  As for things that don't work under anarchy.  Roads, military, randomly selecting jurors (how can you do this without violating privacy, and can we 'force' people to be in a jury?).
You own a piece of land that's connected to the rest of the world by a privatly owned road owned by bob who also owns all the land around you.  Bob hates you and he can sentence you to die if he wants because he can not allow you to go on his road or his property and you will only survive if you can grow enough food on your land and collect rain water, or if you build a flying machine because you can never leave you land.  With extreme property rights you become dictator because you can say "do what I want or get off my land" this is especially dangerous with road which are natural monopolies.
-Eddie
Logged

Freestatepatriot

  • FSP Participant
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 88
    • The Christian Independent
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #37 on: July 30, 2002, 06:22:13 pm »

Quote
[quote ]
An example of this can be seen with the American Red Cross and thier blood supply. BTW, I work for the Red Cross, so I have firsthand knowledge of this. After 9/11, we were flooded with calls from people looking to give blood. We literally had over 500 calls a week for the first 2 weeks after the attack and several hundered for the weeks after that. Last week, we had our annual community blood drive, with a goal of 750 pints. Keep in mind that there is a national blood shortage emergency happening right now, and we put out our biggest media push in the past 3 years. 9/11 was less than a year ago, and we're fighting a war in Afghanistan right now. We ended up finishing with 754 pints for the 4 day event, and there were about 50 donors we had to turn away for various reasons. Despite the fact that we are at critical levels, despite the fact that virtually the whole community knew about it, only about .02% of our town's population attempted to give blood. If .02% of the population contributed to the national defense budget (not just to the budget, but to various companies as you said) I don't think we'd be tough to conquer. I do think the contributuions would be higher than .02%, but it would not be enough to support a defense of this country, especally if we were attacked/invaded as most of the contributiuons would start after an attack and by then it would be too late.


For what it's worth, I give blood every three months.  But, I'm in Brazil, so that doesn't help the American Red Cross much... ;)

Enjoying the debate, BTW.

Adam G.
Logged

Mega Joule

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 291
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #38 on: July 31, 2002, 02:47:23 am »


Please explain how you can maintain an effective defense against a major army without organizing your defense.  And you cannot organize a defense without creating a structured system.  That structured system can be voluntary to enter, but cannot be voluntary to leave, as that will not permit effective military strategy.  


Tell that to the minutemen who could join or leave the voluntary army at will.  They defeated one the most powerful armies in the world which out-manned, and out-gunned them.  They faced a formidable foe with a rag-tag force of farmers fighting for their homes, their families, and their freedom and won.

Quote
Also there is an economy of scale that applies to military technology.  If we were left to individual means for defense, we would have less than a dozen fighter jets and very few AA guns.  As such, any nation with air power could defeat the anarchists in question.  


Well for one thing fighter jets would not cost nearly so much if defense contractors had to compete for business at competitive consumer rates rather than relying on inflated government contracts.  

Quote
If we create a constitutionally limited government, maybe we can buy another 100 to 200 years of liberty before it returns to the modern state of corruption.  Either way, such a constitutional government is _very_ difficult to corrupt within the lifetimes of the creators of the constitution, since there can be no room for creative interpretation when the writers are there to explain it.


At least more of the population would have a choice, unlike our first constitution in which only white, man, property owners were permitted to vote for its ratification.  The problem lies with the coming of age of those who could not vote for such a new constitution.  Certainly it would be just as wrong for us to consent to a constitution which would than be imposed upon the next generation (which was given no choice) as it was for those few privileged men who ratified our current constitution.

Mega Joule
Logged
"One essential of a free government is that it rest wholly on voluntary support.  And one certain proof that a goverment is not free, is that it coerces more or less persons to support it, against their will."  (Lysander Spooner, 1867)

Mega Joule

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 291
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #39 on: July 31, 2002, 03:19:32 am »

Quote
But my original point is _still_ that anarchy is not possible in any area with a significant population density, since similarly to the relations between nations, men without morals will consolidate into tyrannical governments and will simply use force to subjugate or kill the anarchists.

I consider myself an anarchist for lack of a more accurate label.  I agree with you that anarchy, given the exponential population growth of the modern world, is not possible.  Personally I do not see anarchy as a social or political goal but rather as an ideal.  One which states that the basis of natural law is thus:
1.  To live honestly
2.  To harm no one
3.  To give to each his/her due

Quote
Unfortunately, it seems that humankind is not "civilized" enough to live in anarchy around other humans.

That is one theory of why the Neanderthals became extinct.

Quote
But I am simply discussing governmental philosophy.  Do not take these arguments as an endorsement of immoral or amoral governance.  I am merely telling it as I see it.  I apologize if I come across as harsh or heartless; I am not so bad when I'm not arguing philosophy and politics. :)
Perhaps some union between libertarian and anarchist ideals will help us to for a more perfect union.  

Mega Joule

P.S.  I don't think you're "bad" when you are arguing philosophy and politics.   ;)
« Last Edit: July 31, 2002, 01:59:32 pm by Mega Joule »
Logged
"One essential of a free government is that it rest wholly on voluntary support.  And one certain proof that a goverment is not free, is that it coerces more or less persons to support it, against their will."  (Lysander Spooner, 1867)

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #40 on: July 31, 2002, 12:13:52 pm »

Many good counterpoints to my argument have been made over the past several days and I'll try to get to them, but it may take a bit. :)

One note regarding the voting exclusions in the constitutional convention.  Those voting exclusions were made by the states if I'm not mistaken.  The constitution was a protection against _federal_ tyranny, with the logic being that the states were loosely confederated and should not be subject to a national authority of significant power.  The states of the time were still within their rights to do whatever they pleased.  At least one state (and I think a lot more) had established state religions.  The 14th ammendment was the primary change to this state of affairs, by enacting rules upon the _states_ requiring equal protection under the law, etc.  

Thus any restrictions upon voting were the fault of the states individually and not a flaw in the constitution.  
Logged

Matthew

  • FSP Participant
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 95
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #41 on: August 01, 2002, 02:33:15 am »


If I don't let them have my money they will take me away from my family and lock me up. If I resist them trying to lock me up, they will kill me.


This is a GREAT point can you really support some one who will kill you over money.  Even the smallest government has to do this, unless taxes are voluntary, but then is there really and real government present?
Logged
"And if Donald Trump delivered the mail, you could send letters for 12 cents, and also gamble with the stamps." Howard Stern

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #42 on: August 01, 2002, 10:29:18 am »



If I don't let them have my money they will take me away from my family and lock me up. If I resist them trying to lock me up, they will kill me.


This is a GREAT point can you really support some one who will kill you over money.  Even the smallest government has to do this, unless taxes are voluntary, but then is there really and real government present?


This is a good point.  That's why the constitution pre-16th ammendment _didn't_ allow for income tax.  they could tax goods and they could tax trade, but they couldn't tax income.  Even the current tax code contiues to use the word "voluntary" in a kind of doublespeak manner.  A government _doesn't_ require income tax.  it requires _some_ kind of income, but that can be gained from excise and tariff taxes if the government is small enough, from sales taxes if not, and from voluntary taxes on the off chance that _that_ doesn't cover it.
Logged

admin

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #43 on: August 04, 2002, 06:03:24 pm »


Please explain how you can maintain an effective defense against a major army without organizing your defense.  And you cannot organize a defense without creating a structured system.  That structured system can be voluntary to enter, but cannot be voluntary to leave, as that will not permit effective military strategy.  Also there is an economy of scale that applies to military technology.  If we were left to individual means for defense, we would have less than a dozen fighter jets and very few AA guns.  As such, any nation with air power could defeat the anarchists in question.  


Right now I can't think of why a major army would want to attack an anarchist "country" with fighter jets or bombers or any major firepower.  There is no existing government/taxing power or police force to take over.  What purpose would be served by flying bombers over cities and demolishing them?  Why would anyone attack at all?  The only possible purpose would be to enslave the polulation in ordet to tax them.  To do this requires the establishment of a police state at the ground level, which brings us back to the fact that any anarchist "country" would be heavily armed.  Establishing a police state would be impossible.

Charles
Logged

Tim C.

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #44 on: August 04, 2002, 08:17:36 pm »

Jeez Debra...look what you've done! It's war!
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 42   Go Up