Is Voluntaryism/Anarcho-Capitalism a viable political theory? If not, why?
Anarcho-Capitalism
Sebastian Price
Other urls found in this thread:
thejournalofneoabsolutism.wordpress.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Sebastian Wright
Man does not live on bread alone.
It isn't viable. Fortunately, Anarcho-monarchism is a similar, but much more viable system which fixes many of the problems of ancapism.
Matthew Foster
> is it viable
Idk, it's all just about what you are willing to throw someone else in a cage over
Matthew Long
It's Satanism you doofus. Read that shit in your pic related again, slowly. No one has a higher claim to your life? That's rejection of the Trinity, that's the religion of Satan, of the fallen ones. That's not freedom, that's slavery. It's not intelligence or reason or creativity, it's abject poverty and ignorance and foolishness.
Is it a viable political theory? It's the dominant political theory of the last five hundred fucking years genius! It's the hell we currently live in. It's Babel and Cana. The only difference is that in the political form the worship of Satan is submerged in platitudes and retarded sloganeering, but it's no different than temples of blood and rape and eating of the dead.
Stay far away from this stupid shit man, it's nothing new, it's positively ancient, and it's progenitor does not care about you, your health, your happiness or your life.
Josiah Allen
Yes
Fuck off leaf
Jacob Moore
Statism is satanism dipshit
Evan Jones
"Anarcho" Monarchism? Isn't that rather contradictory? How does that work? You have no government but you have a monarch somehow?
Nathan Gonzalez
Agreed
Isaac Price
> Statism is satanism
> Ancap is satanism
Both are two sides of the same coin, insofar as they both seek to worship material power, manifested in one's own ego, or invested in the collective power of the state to provide for one's needs.
Gabriel Taylor
Keep buying into that managed dialectical bullshit user, muh statism versus muh ancap is just a retarded psyop between two shit false positions. Read some history man, this shit is a recent run by the secret societies to set you up. Monarchy is the oldest and most continuous form of government in history. Thousands of years of success over many different cultures, including the greatest: Byzantium. But you don't even look into this. Why? Because the Rothschild cabal would rather you get into pissing matches over a spectrum of garbage political philosophies that are all reducible to classical liberalism.
Adrian Jones
Ah, glorious anarchist-hierarchies, because as we all know, you can't have true without-leaders-ism without strong leadership.
Tard boys, begone.
Jace Thomas
Anarchy is the lack of legal coercion or force by the state or bureaucracy of one against another.
Monarchy, a hierarchical structure where individuals are absolute sovereign over their own property, and the natural elite can direct society without coercion, based on kinship, custom, tradition, and value / honor-based systems.
The two can coexist peacefully.
One major problem with Anarcho-capitalism which anarcho-monarchy solves is ancapism is value/ethics free, which creates problems of nihilism, similarly freedom without virtue is perpetual unhappiness which leads to mutiny and right back to coercion and statism.
Thomas Roberts
1. Perhaps I should re-define the claim in mky pic then. No one but God and perhaps Christ has a higher claim to my life, my liberty, or my property than I do. Nonetheless, what about those who don't believe in God? Is it reallhy right for us to usethe threat of vioence to force them to support a cause that they don't believe in? And are you really one of those dipshits who thinks that you have to be religious in order to be moral? Because you don't.
Actually, no, it is not the "dominant political theory of the last five hundred years" considering that the ideology itself is less than fifty years old and has never been implemented anywhere on earth in any form.
And it certainly isn't the hell that we live in now. The hell that we live in now is people who use the threat of violence to force others to do as they say and others who obey their commands because of said threat of violence. Anarcho-capitalism, on the other hand, is centered around the principles of non-aggression and self-ownership.
I worship God, not Satan. However, I do not believe that God or Christ would want us to use violence to force our beliefs onto others, rather that God would have his own consequences for them in the afterlife.
Anarcho-Capitalism is centered around non-aggression and self-ownership. How is that stupid, and how is that not caring about my happiness or my life?
Jack Fisher
I believe that it's great to give to those less fortunate, but is it okay to force others to do the same? Is it okay to steal from people what rightfully belongs to them in order to pay for what we believe to be moral? Should we not allow them that choice for themselves?
Henry Butler
Anarchy isn't about lack of hierarchy per se, but lack of legal or violent coercion.
Leftists see anarchy as anti-hierarchy because they don't understand the concept of a family, incorrectly attributing the family to "communism". Family/kinship structures are have hierarchy but lack legal coercion against each other. Confucious points out that virtuous people rarely enjoy offending their superiors, ad hominem warning, but leftists disproportionately suffer from unresolved family issues and can't understand the concept of a non-coercive hierarchy (could be due to parental mistakes).
Landon Ross
Actually, monarchy has been responsible for the unjust murders of millions of innocents, as well as countless unnecessary wars in the name of "defending the honor of the king" or whatever. Monarchy is also incredibly dangerous because if the individual in charge becomes corrupt due to the power that he holds, that could mean danger for the people of his nation, especially in fighting against those who may obey his every word, as good slaves do.
Austin Nguyen
Someone come help this guy out
Ayden Bell
Kek, anarchists. Not even once
Christopher Rogers
> but is it okay to force others to do the same? Is it okay to steal from people
Absolutely not. Non-coercive methods should be encouraged to ensure the less fortunate do not suffer needlessly.
This is not some utopian fantasy, ancient pagan cultures operated on these very principles and were aristocratic (monarchical) and mostly anarchic. They lasted for tens of thousands of years.
E.g. cultural customs that strangers/guests in one's home MUST be sheltered, fed, and taken care of, even if they were "enemies" existed among Aryans like Pashtuns, Hindus, Europeans, and similarly among Plains Indians and Eskimos.
Grayson Turner
Ever heard of voluntary exchange? If you want to promote a leader for yourself, you can, just don't force it onto others. The underlying philosophy of Anarcho-Capitalism isn't immorality, it is "live and let live" meaning that even if you may disagree with someone, so long as they are not threatening or endangering your life, liberty, or property or that of someone put under your care, you leave them alone and they leave you alone.
Jace Wilson
This is now a memeball thread
Jayden Morales
Grayson Collins
All I hear is bullshit, I'm reading through your mess and I'm seeing the tears of an nonintellectual statist who can't fathom Mises, let alone Rothbard, so he whines abut it instead of actuallly providing factual evidence to oppose our claims.
The initiation of violence is wrong, there are no exceptions to this.
Ayden Jones
so much god damn text for a meme
Alexander Morris
Individuals can have their own morals and ethics, as most of us do. Anarcho-Capitalists abide strictly by the non-aggression principlie, which means that even if we may disagree with certain people who may do certain things, we should not force them to comply to our standards and if we do not like them, we may choose to simply not interact with them.
Grayson Robinson
Any anarcho-philosophy is inherently impossible.
You want to live like a fucking African tribesman, or something? Because that's what no government looks like.
Any area that is not the territory of a government, will eventually be taken by a government. It's been proven true in literally every society that hasn't had property laws.
If any nation were ever seriously try to adopt anarcho-anything, here's what might happen:
>Chinese take over
>Russians take over
>Islamists take over
>Drug Cartels take over
That's about it, as far as options go. An organized force will always overpower an atomized one.
Michael Phillips
>Is Voluntaryism/Anarcho-Capitalism a viable political theory?
no
>If not, why?
it's a great idea, it's just never going to happen in our lifetimes. maybe within 3 generations we could get it going, if we don't just enact it anyways due to some law destroying technology advancement like deep space 3D printing kind of shit. we can't solve niggers either, so there's that.
Ryder Jackson
Gotta love it when someone doesn't have an argument so they result to a strawman they found on Google Images. Here, let me try!
Mason Hill
When you don't have an argument so you resort to straw-men...
Again, let me try! Oh wait, mine are actual scenarios that America has been in...
Sebastian Martin
Josiah Murphy
That's all true, and I'll address that, but let's remember even coercive, violent monarchy is much more in line with libertarian ethics compared to democratic bureaucracy, as the monarch has long-term interest (stake) in the well being of his state: as all it's land and property is his own, he merely rents it out to his subjects at low-cost, and to his nobles & warriors (aristocracy) he grants it freely, only requiring military aid in times of need and nominal tribute (taxation). Democracy is run by temporary managers who don't give a fuck about the long-term value of their property, only seeking short-term gain. Similarly, voters share this high time preference, only seeking to increase their gibs at the expense of others. Hoppe explains this in The Mind of Hans Herman-Hoppe. Democracy is a zero sum game where not only each monarch, but each individual, is in a war of all against all.
The problems of those violent monarchies, and I agree it was a big problem, is that they were hunter-gatherer or agrarian societies who could only increase their capital by increasing their land: hence the tendency toward centralization, expansionism and military imperialism.
That's probably always going to exist, I agree it's bad, but if you're going to lay that at the feet of monarchy, it's obvious that post-Enlightenment democracies and modern nation-states have been much more violent and lethal to humanity.
There are even a few modern city-state like monarchies like UAE and Bhutan and if you count defacto dictatorships like Singapore, are much more peaceful than their democratic or democracy-backed (U.S.) neighbors.
Camden Sanchez
>An organized force will always overpower an atomized one.
yeah it worked really well for america in the middle east.
Henry Reyes
>it's just never going to happen in our lifetimes. maybe within 3 generations we could get it going, if we don't just enact it anyways due to some law destroying technology advancement like deep space 3D printing kind of shit.
So what you're saying is that it may be viable in the future, but not right now. I doubt market anarchists disagree with that. If it's a great idea, then trying to bring about what parts of it that we can may erect the scaffolding necessary to bring it about for our offspring or their offspring.
Cameron Evans
definitely
government is the big issue, they clamp down especially hard on it
some grey market stuff is making progress right now
Adrian Taylor
yeah i agree, have lots of white babies, don't circumcise (mutilate), breast feed and peacefully home school them. introduce self awareness and philosophy at a young age and the rest can pretty much do itself, but it's like I said this won't be the majority principle for at least 3 generations. create the best possible brains and we will conquer the stars.
Chase Hill
1. How so?
2. So you think that a society in which a massive deity doesn't exist to steal from people or lock them in cages for illegitimate purposes is somehow "tribalism," yet a society which praises a hierarchy which does so on a massive scale is somehow just, let alone not that which you have just described?
Statism is a religion. Nothing more, nothing less.
No place on earth has abolished their authority in favor of voluntary interactions between individuals. Far too many people have been tricked into believing in violent authority. Nonetheless, the Anarcho-capitalist philosophy is correct, if only more people coud see that it is NEVER okay to initiate violence against peaceful people for ANY reason!
Those things may very well happen, due to the fact that so many billions of people have been tricked into believing in violent authority. Nonetheless, that does not legitimize the evil statist regimes of American politicians.
Jeremiah Lee
I agree, it's too knew and unknown of an ideology for it to be implemented any time soon. But, the Ancap population is growing as people are informing themselves and one another and owning themselves.
Christopher Sanchez
I'm sorry, are you a racist?
Nathaniel Smith
I agree that a righteous monarch is better than large groups of bastardly politicians, but nonetheless I would prefer to own myself.
Josiah Nguyen
>implying the al-qaeda and the taliban aren't organized forces
Retard.
>"How so?"
>No quote
Stopped reading after that. tldr me.
Ryan Rogers
Yeah, I definitely agree. Let's be rational. We can't just instantaneously abolish every government on earth. We have to inform the general populous first, and then implement our ideas so\lowly, such as through the Free Private Cities program.
Jace Smith
No, live and let live is nihilism, tolerance is a paradox. Anarchy is only sustainable and non-violent when there is sufficient cultural, traditional, and kinship aka normative structures in place to glue social-fabric together, discourage bad behaviour and encourage peaceful, predictable relations.
See above. The problem with ancaps is they want a decentralized, value-less, nihilistic society run purely by self-interest.
Anarcho-monarchy is a loosely centralized, value-based hierarchical society which just lacks legal coercive force in compelling others to do things. You MAY still be compelled by kinship, honor, or tradition to engage in war against foreign invaders.
Non-aggression principle doesn't prevent me from letting a foreign army march through my land to invade yours and the rest of Ancapistan just because you wouldn't trade with me last week.
You can't base an entire society on one principle. You need kinship systems, traditional and honor systems in place to hold the fabric of society together and unite it in times of adversity or war.
Kevin Perry
>Al Qaeda and the Taliban are atomized individuals
>Implying the USA wasn't in Iraq to solely enrich defense contractors and oil CEO's and to topple a threat to the international banking cabal
Anthony Walker
So, you are a racist? Why does it matter that your babies are white?
Robert Foster
Whats wrong with being racist?
Gabriel Bell
I'm all about reducing the tax burden and shit, but I also don't want corporations dumping waste and shit wherever. I've lived in the third world, and I'm thankful as fuck to live in a country with some kind of environmental regulations.
Big government is bad, but not all government is bad, otherwise government wouldn't exist at all - natural selection would have phased it out.
Landon Smith
The free market is an unrealistic theoretical construct with no basis in reality.
Oliver Roberts
Hold on- if their is no coercion, how is Anarcho-Monarchism going to exist and Anarcho-Capitalism not?
Non-aggression principle doesn't stop people from commiting acts of aggression, it merely condemns them. Self-ownership is primarily what is going to stop people from doing that. One individual acting alone is not enough to conquer a nation. So, if enough people realize that they own themselves they will stop clinging to leaders who are willing to commit aggression on a massive scale. We must plant the seeds of self-ownership and non-aggression before we (as a society) follow through with ending unjust authority.
Camden Martinez
Need I even reply to that? It's self-evident as to why racism is wrong.
Adam Bailey
Give me your reasons, im all ears
Bentley Hall
Denominational “Christians” know nothing about the true trinity and openly reject the teachings of Christ.
Jesus was an anarchist. What was the unholy trinity he was at spritiual warefare with? The religious institutions, the financials institutions, and the state institutions are what killed Christ. You can’t support the notion of a state and call yourself a Christian. It’s truly the most profound example of widespread ignorance or doublethink the world has ever seen.
Nathan Jones
> I would prefer to own myself
Do I violate the NAP if I let a foreign army cross my property to invade you? Can I be "compelled" by you to come to your defense? Does "I own myself" mean I get to decide whether to warn you or not without repercussion?
I'd like to push back on that point. Absolutely ownership of yourself is so inherently nihilistic and self-centered it puts you outside ANY society. If not even kinship systems like family hierarchies or cultural/traditional norms can (non-violently and non-legally) motivate you to come to the mutual defense of the society, or to stop molesting your underage niece, then your better of not belong to any society at all and living in the woods.
You can own yourself all you want, but good luck getting accepted into an anarchic society where your honor and word mean nothing.
Andrew Hernandez
>king of kings
>anarchist
That is what you get trying to learn theology from a satanist.
Jackson Hall
no, it doesn't account for unseen cost passed to no one but affect others aka population.
>we didnt know smog is bad, we never accounted it in our prices.
Mason Cruz
Who's to say that the consumers won't demand environmental protection? Who's to say that the state, which is compiled primarily of corrupt, power-hungry politicians, is the only way to protect the environment? I mean, I favor environmental protection, and I don't advocate the initiation of unjust physical force!
All government is bad, as government is inherently evil. Do you honestly believe that politicians are good people? That they want what's best for you or your country? No, because just about everyone who runs for public office does so because they are power-hungry.
If any government on earth can get away with massive amounts of unjust threats of violence, what makes you believe so strongly that any government whatsoever is actually legitimate?
You see, I used to believe in government too. Then I realized one simple thing- it is not okay to hurt people or to take their stuff, and there are no exceptions to this rule.
Tyler Baker
Because there is nothing superior about your race than that of others. I really dgaf if you're racist because it doesn't affect me, nonetheless though, we are all individuals and none of us should be treated differently than others simply due to the color of our skin.
My question to you is- why are you a racist? What makes you so special just because you're white?
Jordan Hughes
Kek triggered
David Nelson
Fucking nufag, lurk moar
Jason Barnes
Thank you. And I completely agree with this. Say, why don't you change your flag?
Parker Harris
Kek ancaps are literally brain dead
>volunteer
we can barely keep niggers from killing each other
Jack Allen
No, he's completely right. Jesus was massively in opposition to the Roman and Jewish authorities, and he favored self ownership, and the idea that you had to come to him rather than that he would force you to obey his command.
Also, fun fact for you, it was individuals who were subservient to government tyranny who killed Christ.
Jackson Watson
Life has no meaning except that which we give it. There is no god, no heaven, and no hell. Fuck off christcuck, real men are talking here.
Camden Wilson
There is no legal or violent coercion in anarcho-monarchy. There is still a monarch, who can ask his aristocracy to come to his aid in war, who in turn can ask their kinship relations to come to their aid, who will mutually come to the defense
This is the traditional social structure which has existed for thousands of years, and in some cases like the Pashtuns, have never* been conquered or subjugated or taxed by a foreign army.
Self-ownership alone will not stop people from betraying the society to a larger, more powerful nation state who simply earnestly promises the traitors "you can keep all your shit and I'll give you titles and deeds and the same freedom you had before". Any self-owner with an overly-burdenous debt, grievance or vengeance against the ancaps will be highly motivated to take this offer. This is because promises of materialism alone cannot sustain a people: they can easily be won over by the one who promises MORE capital, and modern violent states are in the perfect position financially to play the devil in such a deal.
Samuel Allen
It wasn’t institutions in general. It was the type of institution and their Jewish nature
Gabriel Bell
>Who's to say that the consumers won't demand environmental protection?
They won't. They are high time preference. They don't care about long-term goals if they can benefit in the short term.
Right-wing Conservation has to be a cultural value or religious belief, that is not merely consumerist, it must be engrained in the traditional structure of society
Jordan Edwards
most generous people, most inventions, most successful empires built, most successful civilizations constructed... and the 2nd lowest birthrate, at sub replenishment in most if not all white countries. also the one's being most pilfered by taxes to sponsor up welfare programs for non-whites to exploit. go look at the numbers then come talk to me about equality. I know this may be uncomfortable for you, but pursuit of the truth above all else is what matters in the end.
Cooper Jackson
Yes, you are obviously violating the NAP by invading me, and yes I am allowed to take up arms against you and ally with whomever I please. And you may defeat me, but that doesn't justify your actions, nor would it justify the actions of any other authority that steals from its masses and tricks them into believing as it says rather than as they believe as individuals.
Absolute ownership of yourself is to say that no individual has a higher claim to your life, your liberty, or your property than you do. You have the right to do as you please and to do with your property as you please as long as you aren't infringing upon the life, liberty, and property of those other than yourself, which government in all forms does to some regard by inheritance.''
Voluntary exchange. I can choose to associate with whomever I want, and I can be as moral or what you may view as immoral as I may please so long as I am not harming the life, liberty, or property of other individuals. I, myself, choose to be righteous, but it is importance to be accepting of others, even if you do disagree with them.
Jonathan Allen
> Life has no meaning except that which we give it.
No society every survived or ever will based on this principle.
It's okay if you belief what you believe, but at the very least a society must have mutual meaning-making, aka a hierarchy of values, be it the natural order and harmony of the universe, a common religious tradition, honor system, traditionalist ethics, etc.
Even freemasons -- whose members are all over the place belief-wise -- recognize that a basic value structure must be shared by its members.
Ryan Baker
Distributism and Subsidiarity 4tw
seriously, look it up
Jeremiah Richardson
Read and weep lolbert homo
Kevin Martin
That's not what I said.
I'm not invading you. I'm simply not warning you that a foreign army is crossing my property to invade you.
Oliver Diaz
>Voluntaryism/Anarcho-Capitalism
The free rider problem has yet to be solved. It's easy to agree upon things like roads. It's less easy to agree upon things like armed forces and who has the ability to carryout violence without fear of consequences.
When everyone has to pay a fee for Police, isn't that the same thing as now?
Camden Long
>life, your liberty, or your property
These are Enlightenment values which were used to justify the centralization of society into democratic bureaucracy, undisputedly the most violent bloody statist governing structure to ever exist.
Luke Wright
Josiah Thompson
Lolbert homo? Oh yeah, because I'm totally going to weep when someone calls me something like that instead of making an actual claim against me. Yeah, right.
Jackson Clark
No, a failure to warn me of a foreign invader is not a violation of the NAP, as wrong as it is.
Chase Roberts
I just bought ten more puppies, moralfags BTFO
Landon Richardson
You can still pay for defense, you can still pay for roads, you can still pay for police. The difference is taht the state will not hold a monopoly on these things, and no one will use the threat of violence to force you to fund these things. It will all be up to you as an individual (I know, self ownership is SO MUCH RESPONSIBILITY!) and those you associate with.
Easton Ross
Just read all of us talking about anarcho-monarchy.
It solves the free-rider problems because, even absent legal or violent coercion, the monarchs and aristocratic nobility DO direct and protect society, and use kinship structures and traditionalist ethics to punish bad behaviour non-violently, through exile or ex-communication.
This has existed in various forms in Pashtun society, Iroquois Confederacy, Germanic tribes, etc. In the case of the Plains Indians they weren't unconquerable due to lack of social-immune response to foreigners offering better goods and novel trade relations. Pashtuns however were unconquerable
Grayson Lewis
Um, no, democratic beurocracy threaten these values by its very nature.
Asher Walker
No, just no
Owen Johnson
That's a real problem don't ya think?
Especially when the invading army says: "anyone who let's us cross their territory to invade their neighbour will be 100% free from pillage and will receive favourable trade relations compared to those who fight back"
This is why you need more than NAP, namely, honor-systems and kinship structures where people voluntarily obey the aristocracy who in turn obey the monarch
Joseph Clark
makes sense, I'll have to look more into it. I've been studying up on a lot of different Anarchist philosophies, not just Ancapism. For example, I agree with Agorism in the sense that I'm okay with individuals doing as they please as long as they are doing no harm but I, myself do not participate in most of these acts. I agree with much of Anarcho-Pacifism because I abide by the NAP. I love transhumanism because I love progress and technology and want to promote it through liberty.. I'm an Anarcho-Christian because I believe in Christ but I do not believe that I should be allowed to force my beliefs onto anyone else.
Owen Powell
anarchy is as destructive of society as socialism is. They are two sides of the same coin. rampant individualism, the inability to bind people to commitment, and the abandonment of those in need work to destroy the family unit, which is the absolute base of all strong and moral societies. Any system which does not recognize that fact is doomed, as the moral fabric of society degenerates and without strong families the population begins to die off. Witness modern day democratic european nations as a prime example.
Property rights are important, very important. But they are a means to an end, not the end in themselves, not the highest priority of all goals, and must be subordinated to the well being of society, although in as minimally intrusive a manner as possible.
Gavin Gutierrez
Cool pic - I just got a tattoo of Olga of Kiev
William Garcia
1. To be an individualist is not so say that you do not have moral obligation, nor is it to say that you, as an individual, do not believe in the family. Rather, it is to say that you are the exclusive owner and controller of your body and as long as you aren't initiating aggression, even if you agree with someone from a moral perspective, you are free to live in peace with one another. Anarchy/Libertarianism revolves around a "live and let live" moral principle of non-aggression.
Carson Hernandez
If Anarchy is as destructive as you claim, what makes you believe that individuals or certain groups of individuals (let alone those whom are extremely corrupt, such as most politicians), have the right to rule over others, and threaten them with physical force despite the fact that they are doing no legitimate harm to anyone else?
Chase Ramirez
Ethan Watson
> Life, liberty, property
Could be construed as:
> Hedonism, rebellion, materalism
That's the life of a chimp, not a civilized man. How about replacing it with this:
> Kinship, duty, honor/value/virtue
The way libertarian ethics and monarchy can be synthesized into anarcho-monarchy is this: Every man is in a sense his own nobility, but he shall, of his own accord, respect and obey his superiors at risk of exile, ex-communication, and denial of mutual defense.
Rank in such a society is defined not by force or legal coercion (violence) but by natural hierarchies: those with higher kinship seniority, more prestige, and more wealth. They are more powerful and superior in rank to you or I by virtue of the fact that they are more capable of defending the society: and they should be respected lest the whole system by destroyed.
You need mutually pre-agreed upon ethics or else there's no reason to join a society with anyone else or defend such a society.
Aaron Jackson
Also, Anarchy and socialism are on different spectrums. Voluntary socialism can exist in an Anarchist state, and it is not destructive in the least. But involuntary socialism, which exists in a statist or totalitarian nation, is indeed terrible, and is the polar opposite of what Anarchy is, which is the peaceful opposition to any and all forms of involutary interactions and the opposition to all threats of physical force, i.e, belief in the abolition of the state as a whole.
Xavier Flores
I think the way monarchy or rather feudalism and anarcho-capitalism have overlap is that a lord is essentially a very wealthy and powerful land owner with complex contractual arrangements with many people.
Blake Bailey
you still come at it as a question of rights. examine the underlying basis for this belief. Where do these rights come from? Why do you have them? What purpose do they serve? What gives YOU the right to claim these rights, thereby preventing others from exercising their own will upon the world as they might wish?
I'm not trying to be snarky. But if you examine where rights must come from you see that either its an arbitrary claim, or it is based on a higher standard, and thus rights can be subordinated to that higher standard.
Unrestrained individualism leads to the horrors of drug epidemics, mothers killing their children both born and unborn, families splitting apart, children being raised without moral guidance from two parents, men growing up to cut their dicks off. It is a suicidal path in the long run. Not to mention wholly degenerate and evil.
Again, rights are very important. But they are not the end all and be all of all things moral and good.
William Cruz
“Voluntary” doesn’t work around niggers and deadbeat communists who think they’re owed the world just because they’re breathing
David Carter
I spent a very long time identifying as a libertarian/anarchist. I have degrees in philosophy, economics, and law, so I don't come at this with superficial understanding. But 20 years as a libertarian something about it never did sit right, even as I felt I had all the right arguments to back it up. Only till recently did I delve into the oft underlooked ideas of distributism and subsidiarity, and they make so much more sense both from a philosophical and moral basis and from a personal sense of being proper and right.
I'm off to bed so I cannot continue to respond. I'd ask that you look over the wikipedia page for distributism, its a rather brief read, but generally it is a minarchist system that supports widespread property ownership so as to foster the well being of families first and foremost.
en.wikipedia.org
Good night.
Evan James
>The difference is taht the state will not hold a monopoly on these things
Okay, but as capitalism has shown, you're going to end up with a monopoly by a corporation.
>no one will use the threat of violence to force you
Okay and what if I refuse to pay for them? You think they are just going to let me live in their area without paying for area services?
>the monarchs and aristocratic nobility DO direct and protect society
Okay so bear with me. Explain how that solves the free rider problem. Unless I misunderstand you, there is no consequence from not following the direction of a noble.
Aaron Williams
Exactly. It's not coercive in the sense of democracy, the king gives nobles and warriors land in return for their aid in times of war/adversity.
The lords in turn give land to the peasants in return for a portion of their gains.
It's a rent system, but it closely approximates ownership as there tends to be cultural honor-based norms around arbitrarily taking people's land for no reason, other than neglect/waste.
Agreed. The common link between ethics-free (valueless) voluntaryism and communism / gibs-me-dats is that they feel entitled to both unimpeded freedom and absolute lack of duty or responsibility.
There still must be obligation, duty and traditional honor-based systems which motivate people to follow the rules, obey their superiors and honor kinship relations. And systems to punish disobedience.
At the same time, I would argue that an honor-based society HAS and BEST existed when there was a lack of violent or unnecessary legal coercion by one against the other. You don't need to gas people to get what you want. However, there should be absolute INTOLERANCE toward lack of responsibility and duty toward the society and those superiors in a natural hierarchy.
Aiden Cox
No, self sacrifice is the foundation of civilization first to one's blood then to one's race then to one's country. Pure self interest always leads to disaster.
Kayden Smith
> Explain how that solves the free rider problem. Unless I misunderstand you, there is no consequence from not following the direction of a noble.
I'll explain just bear with me. In short, there are consequences, even serious ones, however there is a lack of coercive legal or violent consequences unless other methods have been tried unsuccessfully.
Consequences:
> reduced social standing, disfavour with superiors, lack of honor/prestige, embargo/boycott, ex-communication, lack of mutual defense, exile.
The natural hierarchy or rank is formed by prestige, kinship and custom, not coercively or by wealth alone. The people directly above and below each other in the hierarchy have close interpersonal relations, are bound in complex kinship, contractual and customary relations based on the traditional ethics and values of society, as a son has more motivation to obey his father, uncle or grandfather, or other elder, than they do a random socialite or new-money elite. The elders in turn are motivated to obey his lord or pledged superior. Rank here is somewhat voluntary
The natural hierarchy is non-coercive, it's based on things like kinship, prestige, and custom. It works much more like a family, corporation, sports team or military.
People have both motivation to obey and reasons to avoid disobedience. Push and pull factors. There can even be corporal or severe punishment if such are part of a contract and social custom.
> sufficient power and strength to support/defend society if need be (aka aristocratic liberty)
> favorability with the monarch through either kinship, military prestige or mutual contract
> kinship relations or contracts with those below him
> honor and rank within society based on traditional and cultural norms
Keep in mind this isn't an inclusive society: it is exclusive, as not everyone has the desire to be sufficiently virtuous or honorable to be part of such a society without sufficient conditioning or blood relations.
Jackson Roberts
You can see successful honor- and traditional based systems in hawala financial transactions among kinsmen in Arabic and Islamic society.
There are hierarchicial, honor-based societies which both enforce morality, duty, and hospitality in Indo-European societies like Pashtuns and North European clans, as well as in American Indians like Iroquois Nations & Inuit.
Iroquois Confederacy and Pashtuns are the most modern examples of societies which approximate anarchy with complex but non-coercive hierarchies. They were/are still filled with violence, but that's largely because of blood-feuds and traditional warrior codes, not because of expansionism or people fighting for more power .
Lucas Davis
>Consequences:
>> reduced social standing, disfavour with superiors, lack of honor/prestige, embargo/boycott, ex-communication, lack of mutual defense, exile.
Whoa, sounds like a serious breach the NAP here.