Is anarchism/minarchism/anarocapitalism hostile towards libertarianism?

[Keyser Soce]

so a world without a "violent government" but full of violent individuals, and violent groups, and other violent governments is fine. till they kill you. right?

Why do feel the world is full of violent and evil people? I have met far more people than average and it has been my personal experience that the vast majority are good people if a little misguided.

I understand and appreciate where you are coming from, but it can't ever happen. it will never happen, its a pipe dream. if there is anything as much impossible as you living in anarchy peacefully I have not heard of it.

Because you can't figure out how it would work, it won't? Aren't there currently thousands of things working all around you that you don't understand? Flying? That can't ever happen, it's pipe dream. Electric lights? That's impossible, it's never happened. Going to the moon? You may as well try to live in anarchy peacefully.

Would you protect yourself from foreign governments? By rolling around in the fetal position in a vain attempt to kiss your own ass goodbye?

Yah! That's exactly what the Swiss do.

government is a necessary evil, it has a purpose.

Everything evil has a purpose. Most of the time it's to show us what doesn't work. Like government.

you can be as non violent as you want, but other people won't and you will be a slave to them, like you are a slave right now

Sooo, what's the difference then? Violent people will never kill as many people as violent governments. No gang could ever steal as much as the government currently does.

[violence]

so a world without a "violent government" but full of violent individuals, and violent groups, and other violent governments is fine. till they kill you. right?

Why do feel the world is full of violent and evil people? I have met far more people than average and it has been my personal experience that the vast majority are good people if a little misguided.

I understand and appreciate where you are coming from, but it can't ever happen. it will never happen, its a pipe dream. if there is anything as much impossible as you living in anarchy peacefully I have not heard of it.

Because you can't figure out how it would work, it won't? Aren't there currently thousands of things working all around you that you don't understand? Flying? That can't ever happen, it's pipe dream. Electric lights? That's impossible, it's never happened. Going to the moon? You may as well try to live in anarchy peacefully.

Would you protect yourself from foreign governments? By rolling around in the fetal position in a vain attempt to kiss your own ass goodbye?

Yah! That's exactly what the Swiss do.

government is a necessary evil, it has a purpose.

Everything evil has a purpose. Most of the time it's to show us what doesn't work. Like government.

you can be as non violent as you want, but other people won't and you will be a slave to them, like you are a slave right now

Sooo, what's the difference then? Violent people will never kill as many people as violent governments. No gang could ever steal as much as the government currently does.

yes, humans are more good than bad. but all it takes is a couple bad ones to ruin a pacifist's day.

flying, electricity, these are tangible things, anarchy is not. anarchy has happened before, and it has ALWAYS lead to an oligarchy. very bad ones.

until those violent people take over and form a extremely violent government.

the swiss are peons and pawns to anyone who wants to control them, the united states has done it, and nazi germany has done it. they are pawns they are meaningless. they are not neutral, they have never been, they are posers who pretend to be non violent, and neutral... but they did horrible things in WWII. and they have a ton of blood on their hands.

i've already opined on what i think are the downfalls of a republic. mainly apahy, it only took a hundred years for us to become slaves

peaceful anarchy is a pipe dream and will NEVER HAPPEN. period.

[violence]

why are you comparing what i believe is the rightful purpose of government to the government we have of today?

Because you believe in violence, just like the government we have today does.

so do you.

No. I believe in non-violence.  That means I don't believe in violence or government.

wrong, you are a violent person. you eat animals that were killed for food. you eat plants that were killed for food. you walk around and smash bugs with your feet.

everything you do is violent to something else.

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, why are you wasting your time trying to convince us that we are wrong. There are lots of people for you to hangout with that agree with your need for people to do violence on your behalf.

At one time hardly anyone thought it was possible to live without a King. Then people said "Farewell to Kings", the next step is "Farewell to the State". Many people have made the mistake of looking to the past and projecting it as the future. In history class you are taught about the rulers and the wars... the really great things in history where done by the peaceful individuals and voluntary alliances. The good things in my life are all handled in this way, why can't we expand that.

[violence]

Well, why are you wasting your time trying to convince us that we are wrong. There are lots of people for you to hangout with that agree with your need for people to do violence on your behalf.

At one time hardly anyone thought it was possible to live without a King. Then people said "Farewell to Kings", the next step is "Farewell to the State". Many people have made the mistake of looking to the past and projecting it as the future. In history class you are taught about the rulers and the wars... the really great things in history where done by the peaceful individuals and voluntary alliances. The good things in my life are all handled in this way, why can't we expand that.

what don't you fucking get? i don't want a violent government. and a government (people) punishing people for REAL CRIMES. is NOT bad violence. yes there is a good and bad violence.

i would live under anarchy, i would prefer it to any government at all. but its simply not possible NEVER possible. because you will not convince everyone, and some people will form a government and kill you and/or take your stuff.

a government that is a negative force on the people meaning its there to protect individual rights, there to protect people from the government itself, not to "help" people would be great, and i think everyone here no matter what your beliefs would be pretty happy with that.

anarchy ALWAYS leads to oligarchy. ALWAYS.

im not trying to convince you of anything, and considering the thread topic these posts are relevant.

nothing in history has been done by peaceful people. we'd all be living under a king or under communism if it weren't for violence on the side of "good".

how are you going to stop me and a bunch of people from killing you and taking your stuff under anarchy? sure we could do it if there were a government thats only purpose was to protect your individual rights, but we wouldn't be able to use your stuff, or your money, or simply take your land and stay there.

i am very very very anti government. we need a very very small government, with very specific duties that can never change (if thats possible, which it probably isn't)

this is why so many of our founding fathers believed a revolution was needed every so many years, because of apathy. if they would've done this, we'd be much better off.

apathy kills

[KBCraig]

i would live under anarchy, i would prefer it to any government at all. but its simply not possible NEVER possible. because you will not convince everyone, and some people will form a government and kill you and/or take your stuff.

Or as I have phrased it, "government isn't desirable, but it's inevitable."

anarchy ALWAYS leads to oligarchy. ALWAYS.

So does government. Doesn't matter if you start with anarchy, minarchy, or other *archy, government happens, and it grows.

[Kat Kanning]

what don't you fucking get?

You are rude and uncouth.  I wish you weren't posting here.

[violence]

what don't you fucking get?

You are rude and uncouth.  I wish you weren't posting here.

the word "fucking" is far less rude then saying someone wants the government to "do violence" on people for them.

[BillKauffman]

Now, personally i would be very happy, and this would be a perfect world, having NO STATE. i would love that very much, but it can't happen. having government fulfill its proper role, would make everyone free.

Maybe the state and government are different?

http://www.barefootsworld.net/nockoets2.html

excerpt from "Our Enemy, the State" by Albert J. Nock

AS FAR back as one can follow the run of civilization, it presents two fundamentally different types of political organization. This difference is not one of degree, but of kind. It does not do to take the one type as merely marking a lower order of civilization and the other a higher; they are commonly so taken, but erroneously. Still less does it do to classify both as species of the same genus - to classify both under the generic name of "government," though this also, until very lately, has always been done, and has always led to confusion and misunderstanding.

A good example of this error and its effects is supplied by Thomas Paine. At the outset of his pamphlet called Common Sense, Paine draws a distinction between society and government. While society in any state is a blessing, he says, "government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." In another place, he speaks of government as "a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world." He proceeds then to show how and why government comes into being. Its origin is in the common understanding and common agreement of society; and "the design and end of government," he says, is "freedom and security." Teleologically, government implements the common desire of society, first, for freedom, and second, for security. Beyond this it does not go; it contemplates no positive intervention upon the individual, but only a negative intervention. It would seem that in Paine's view the code of government should be that of the legendary king Pausole, who prescribed but two laws for his subjects, the first being, Hurt no man, and the second, Then do as you please; and that the whole business of government should be the purely negative one of seeing that this code is carried out.

So far, Paine is sound as he is simple. He goes on, however, to attack the British political organization in terms that are logically inconclusive. There should be no complaint of this, for he was writing as a pamphleteer, a special pleader with an ad captandum argument to make, and as everyone knows, he did it most successfully. Nevertheless, the point remains that when he talks about the British system he is talking about a type of political organization essentially different from the type that he has just been describing; different in origin, in intention, in primary function, in the order of interest that it reflects. It did not originate in the common understanding and agreement of society; it originated in conquest and confiscation.[1]

Its intention, far from contemplating "freedom and security," contemplated nothing of the kind. It contemplated primarily the continuous economic exploitation of one class by another, and it concerned itself with only so much freedom and security as was consistent with this primary intention; and this was, in fact, very little. Its primary function or exercise was not by way of Paine's purely negative interventions upon the individual, but by way of innumerable and most onerous positive interventions, all of which were for the purpose of maintaining the stratification of society into an owning and exploiting class, and a propertyless dependent class. The order of interest that it reflected was not social, but purely antisocial; and those who administered it, judged by the common standard of ethics, or even the common standard of law as applied to private persons, were indistinguishable from a professional-criminal class.

Clearly, then, we have two distinct types of political organization to take into account; and clearly, too, when their origins are considered, it is impossible to make out that the one is a mere perversion of the other. Therefore, when we include both types under a general term like government, we get into logical difficulties; difficulties of which most writers on the subject have been more or less vaguely aware, but which, until within the last half-century, none of them has tried to resolve. Mr. Jefferson, for example, remarked that the hunting tribes of Indians, with which he had a good deal to do in his early days, had a highly organized and admirable social order, but were "without government." Commenting on this, he wrote Madison that "it is a problem not clear in my mind that [this] condition is not the best," but he suspected that it was "inconsistent with any great degree of population." Schoolcraft observes that the Chippewas, though living in a highly-organized social order, had no "regular" government. Herbert Spencer, speaking of the Bechuanas, Araucanians and Koranna Hottentots, says they have no "definite" government; while Parkman, in his introduction to The Conspiracy of Pontiac, reports the same phenomenon, and is frankly puzzled by its apparent anomalies.

Paine's theory of government agrees exactly with the theory set forth by Mr. Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The doctrine of natural rights, which is explicit in the Declaration, is implicit in Common Sense; [2] and Paine's view of the "design and end of government" is precisely the Declaration's view, that "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men"; and further, Paine's view of the origin of government is that it "derives its just powers from the consent of the governed." Now, if we apply Paine's formulas or the Declaration's formulas, it is abundantly clear that the Virginian Indians had government; Mr. Jefferson's own observations show that they had it. Their political organization, simple as it was, answered its purpose. Their code-apparatus sufficed for assuring freedom and security to the individual, and for dealing with such trespasses as in that state of society the individual might encounter - fraud, theft, assault, adultery, murder. The same is as clearly true of the various peoples cited by Parkman, Schoolcraft and Spencer. Assuredly, if the language of the Declaration amounts to anything, all these peoples had government; and all these reporters make it appear as a government quite competent to its purpose.

Therefore when Mr. Jefferson says his Indians were "without government," he must be taken to mean that they did not have a type of government like the one he knew; and when Schoolcraft and Spencer speak of "regular" and "definite" government, their qualifying words must be taken in the same way. This type of government, nevertheless, has always existed and still exists, answering perfectly to Paine's formulas and the Declaration's formulas; though it is a type which we also, most of us, have seldom had the chance to observe. It may not be put down as the mark of an inferior race, for institutional simplicity is in itself by no means a mark of backwardness or inferiority; and it has been sufficiently shown that in certain essential respects the peoples who have this type of government are, by comparison, in a position to say a good deal for themselves on the score of a civilized character. Mr. Jefferson's own testimony on this point is worth notice, and so is Parkman's. This type, however, even though documented by the Declaration, is fundamentally so different from the type that has always prevailed in history, and is still prevailing in the world at the moment, that for the sake of clearness the two types should be set apart by name, as they are by nature. They are so different in theory that drawing a sharp distinction between them is now probably the most important duty that civilization owes to its own safety. Hence it is by no means either an arbitrary or academic proceeding to give the one type the name of government, and to call the second type simply the State.

[J’raxis 270145]

so a world without a "violent government" but full of violent individuals, and violent groups, and other violent governments is fine. till they kill you. right?

Why do feel the world is full of violent and evil people? I have met far more people than average and it has been my personal experience that the vast majority are good people if a little misguided.

[violence]

minarchists don't advocate "keeping an eye on that guy".

punishing people who commit REAL crimes WITH victims is a completely different thing.

the cartoon is way off base, very disingenuous.

[Tom Sawyer]

Rude bastard. The host asks you to leave and you stay.

[J’raxis 270145]

Rude bastard. The host asks you to leave and you stay.

the problem with anarchy

Private property. Stop being a douche.

[John Edward Mercier]

True Jeremy, but an anarchist has no rulers... only the rules they make for themselves.
So the respect for others needs to be internal.

[J’raxis 270145]

True Jeremy, but an anarchist has no rulers... only the rules they make for themselves.
So the respect for others needs to be internal.

Yup—and those who don't internalize that respect end up getting dealt with as aggressors.