I seriously doubt whether half of the anarcho-capitalists I know have ever read Rothbard or Mises.
Because… they generally are just repeating “conversation” libertarianism. Like stuff that libertarians say on Facebook and Tumblr.
…and usually don’t understand the actual theory when we start talking.
What you are essentially saying is that people who aren’t Rothbard or Mises (who wasn’t an AnCap) can’t independently conceive the idea of anarchy or Anarcho-capitalism?
The beauty of anarchism or Anarcho-Capitalism is that it is very logical. One can easily deduce the theories and ideas of anarchism single handedly, without ever having to be introduced to the great thinkers of libertarianism.
Anarchy is logic.
Even Anarchy should be voluntary.
I think that if you really think about and respect the idea of anarchism or voluntaryism then you are understanding of the idea that some people actually want government, despite the known downfalls and that if these people are willing and open to government then we have to accept that fact and allow them to have a government. Just like we accept that some people want to do drugs and do so much that they overdose. Their habit, their problem.
What I can’t accept, however, is when they try to push their love and dependence on government on to others who don’t want that coercive force in their life and try to force them to live under an unwanted system for the so-called “good of society”.
Likewise, the same theory can be applied to any and everything. For example, if people want public school or a Federal Reserve and they don’t mind a percentage of their income being taken for that purpose, we, as anarchists or voluntaryists shouldn’t have an adverse reaction to that. We should first ask if they know what the downfalls are, and if they do then we can only move on.
If we were to try and force them to give up their statism then we’d be no better than the statists who try and force people into government indoctrination. In other words, using force is wrong no matter what, even when trying to “free people”. They might have a completely different set of ideals and they might feel free in a system that we feel entrapped in.
This is why I don’t support violent revolution. This is why I don’t support Coup d’états. This is why I’m not a fan of “killing for freedom” or “bombing for peace”. If the idea of liberty and freedom is so good, the people will embrace it without force. If it’s not what they want, then we failed either as a philosophy or in our ability to teach it. We need an intellectual revolution, as Ron Paul says. We need an awakening of the minds and a warming of the hearts.
I guess at this point we can infer that if we aren’t able to teach or convey the message of liberty and voluntary interaction, free markets and statelessness that our only choice would be to pull a John Galt leave the system that isn’t for us and find a new territory, with like minded people and a system that we can believe in and live by.
I’m hoping for the prior.
This message brought to you by alcohol.
We’re supposedly shutting down ALL of government “due to sequestration.” Please don’t tease me with such marvelous possibilities.
I have to politely disagree. As nice as that would ultimately be, the short run implications of elimination of all government would be devastating. People are just too dependent.
It’s probably fair to say that most anarchists would agree with that, and think the same way. We don’t expect, or even want, a full and automatic shut down all at once. It has to be gradual, but inevitable.
To me sometimes, it seems the big fight isn’t the government itself. Rather it’s the people who have so blindly & consistently bought the propaganda as truth, voluntarily let themselves be led to social & financial slaughter, and became a cheerleader for coercion, violence, and murder who are the battle. It’s getting them to see the truth. The more that people wake up and realize we, as the people, far out number and can ultimately out think the state, the more change then begins to happen.
As Ernest said, anarchists with a the ability to logically reason know that a sudden closure of government would create chaos and probably lead to something worse than the current form of government and not toward a peaceful, anarchist society.
You can’t force people into anarchy just like you can’t force people to follow the orders of the state. Force is wrong regardless of the outcome and is always an unsustainable system.
The only sustainable revolution is a peaceful one. The only peaceful revolution is a intellectual one.
The path to a peaceful anarchist society is to teach people the benefits of a stateless society and also tell them of the negative aspects (yes, there are negative aspects). But it’s best to be honest. We have truth on our side and so long as people are willing to listen and understand, peace and liberty will eventually win out. Might not be this year, this decade or even in my lifetime, but it will happen. It must happen. Or the human race is doomed to wipe itself out of the universe.
Explain the appeal of anarchism without using the letter ‘e’.
“Individual autonomy is paramount to social stability and human dignity. Anarchism supports this goal, that’s had through a combination of voluntary association and working-class solidarity against all forms of involuntary subordination.”
What do I win?
“to be had”
Markets are nothing more than the collective action of society and ethics are the collective belief of that society, than there’s no one to blame for unethical behavior of the market than society as a whole.
Therefore, if one wishes to clean up the market of unethical behavior, one shouldn’t punish the market with regulations. Instead, one should try to teach society to embrace and practice better ethics.— We need ethical evolution, not market regulation.
Sometimes I Wonder…
What makes someone a “philosopher”?
I know a lot of people consider Stefan Molyneux a philosopher and an equally large number of people consider him an idiot.
I’m pretty sure I can figure out where the line of distinction is between an idiot and one of decent reasoning ability but I’ve never really figured out where the non-philosopher crosses into the realm of philosophers.
Technically, isn’t anyone who has had a conscious thought pandering in philosophy? And as the saying that I just made up goes, once a philosophizer, always a philosophizer.
I agree that Molyneux isn’t the greatest philosopher we’ve seen and technically. He supposedly focused his master thesis on the philosophies of Kant, Hegel, Hobbes and Locke but his masters was in History. Technically, I’m more of a philosopher than he is, since I actually hold a bona fide, state-certified degree in philosophy. Then again, pretty sure Socrates and Kant and the rest of these “philosophers” didn’t have a degree in philosophy. Armatures.
We can even take it meta from here and talk about how this blog post itself is nothing more than philosophizing on the philosophy of philosophers. Okay, that one hurt my brain.
I’ve just always wondered how we make the distinction between philosopher and non-philosopher. Do we consider Ron Paul to be a philosopher? What about Ludwig von Mises? Keynes? On second thought, fuck Keynes. What about Obama, surely he has a new philosophy for what America should be. Is he a philosopher?
Is there a RateMyPhilosopher.com? It links, therefore it is?
And can one really be a bad philosopher or is it simply a case of promoting a bad philosophy? Does bad even exist? Can’t one simply be different? Isn’t the only justification or subjective judgement we can rely on self-contained and self-actualized, hence making the opinion (and existence) of others irrelevant?
Okay, now I’ve gone too far.
America Has A Morality Problem, Not A Gun Problem
Our government justifies murder every single day.
We’ve been at war my entire life. We’ve been at war for the majority of my father’s life. We’ve been at war for the majority of the existence of this country. This country doesn’t just co-exist with violence, it promotes it. It profits off of it. It uses it as a tool, not just politically, but economically. If you haven’t heard the term “broken window policy”, look it up. It’s the notion that if something is destroyed, there will be an economic gain from rebuilding it. That’s Keynesianism and Keynesianism is the main economic philosophy that runs this country and the economies of many of the other western countries.
It is a violent philosophy in nature and through it we justify military spending and military raiding. It’s what we do and it’s what we teach kids. Falsely attributing economic recovery and prosperity to war time. I learned that in the 4th grade. “What got us out of the Great Depression, kids?” “WORLD WAR II!!!!” The class would answer unanimously.
If you teach kids that war is profitable and that money is the key to happiness, people will support war so long as they perceive it as a means to make their life wealthier and happier.
And it works. When I was young, I bought that message hook, line and sinker. I’m not brilliant but I’m no idiot. Yet it sounded reasonable to me, the correlation was there and the logic made sense, at least to a child it did. But it was all a lie. I won’t get into it here, go read Bastiat.
Through the propaganda of pushing war, we also justify murder and violence. How many protests and outcries do you hear when we drone an entire village of children in Pakistan or Yemen? Or when we drop a few bombs on a wedding or a funeral in the Middle East? It happens all the time and we just shrug our shoulders and move on. It’s acceptable violence and through that acceptance we become numb.
Then there’s the ultimate propaganda wing for violence; the media. News, movies, video games and even toys profit off of violence. News channels can’t get enough coverage of murder, war, school shootings, hostage situations. Just watch the news and count how many serious positive stories they tell and how many violent stories they tell.
Then go to the movies or watch a television show. Violence is everywhere. Just look at the list of biggest movie blockbusters. Look at that list, almost every one of the Top 10 movies center around violence or war. Think of some of the most famous actors or characters in American cinema history; James Bond, Rambo, Terminator, Darth Vader, all hyper-violent murderers.
Then go to Toys-R-Us and take a stroll through the toy section. Soldiers, guns, fighting toys, it’s like a plastic military bunker in there. Whatever happened to building blocks and engineering toys? Even Legos have added guns and lasers and swords to every set. Then walk into the video game section. Modern Warfare, Battlefield, Halo. “Kill, kill, kill, murder, murder, murder.”
And we wonder why we have a violent society?
People want to blame inanimate objects. But that’s what we like to do in America, blame others. We blame guns for murder just like we blame role models for our lack of parenting, we blame the successful for our own shortcomings. The problem is our own society and how we shift the blame from the responsible party to their choice of weapon.
I own 5 guns myself, never had to use one. We keep one at the family store where we’ve been robbed at gun point 6 times over the last 10 years, once with shots being fired. Luckily, never once when a family member was there. Not sure how I would have reacted if I was but I do feel safer knowing that if I or someone from my family is there, they have some sort of defense against the criminals.
There are hundreds of millions of guns in this country and tens of millions of gun owners. The majority of which go their entire lives without using the gun for crime let alone thinking about doing so. If guns were truly to blame, we’d have 80 million murderers living within our own borders. The law abiding citizens have guns and want to keep owning guns because violent people have guns. Criminals have guns. Governments have guns. Police have guns. The 2nd amendment is there to level the playing field. We have these rights and they are defended in the Constitution to allow law abiding citizens the ability to defend, deter and defeat violence, criminals and tyrants.
Children are dead and that’s the worst kind of tragedy. However, the gun isn’t responsible, the gunman is. 22 children were stabbed in China by a man this week, while none of them died, 15 children have been killed since 2010 in that country. Evil people will do evil things. Murderers don’t need guns to kill just like terrorists don’t need guns to kill just like drunk drivers don’t need guns to kill. Someone woke up this morning and decided they want to kill children. If you don’t see some sort of physiological issue there than I’ve wasted my time with this post. Someone who is willing to kill children is willing to do a lot of inhumane things, even in the absence of guns. There is a problem with his morality and his mentality.
Guns and gun owners aren’t the problem, it’s how they are used and more importantly who they are used by that’s the problem. Dig deeper than that and you’ll find that the real problem is how the American society promotes the same behaviors through war and media which end up causing us the greatest anguish.
We are violent and irresponsible and more importantly we are delusional and unwilling to get to the root of our problems, the morality of this country.
You can’t legislate violence out of a society by outlawing objects or even actions. If that worked, we’d have won the “War on Drugs” 50 years ago. Just as how prohibition didn’t work in the 1920 and it actually increased usage along with illegal activities and violence, gun bans won’t work. You can’t change the morality of people through the passage of laws, if that worked, we’d have empty prisons and a Utopian society. But clearly that doesn’t work seeing how we have the highest prison population rate in the world and we still can’t end the violent culture of this country.
We have some serious mental health issues in this country and no one is willing to do a thing about it. The mental capacity to justify killing children, whether it be a citizen or our government, is a serious issue that goes beyond the existence of the gun. When we see issues arise in a person, we are afraid to talk to them, get them help or confront them, just like we are afraid to parent our own children. We see the all the signs that a person isn’t right and most of us choose to walk away from the problem instead of resolving it. If you see someone who needs help, help them or get them help. It’s that simple. Don’t walk away thinking they become someone else’s problem. Society’s problem is everyone’s problem. You can’t walk away from these things and how that they disappear.
This morality problem is an issue that is at the very base of our societal roots and it’s one we have failed to address. Change can’t come by force or by legislation. The people have to be willing to accept that change. It has to be an intellectual change. We need to teach our children, hope that they learn to become moral citizens. We must condemn violence regardless if it’s perpetrated by a local crook or by our military and government. There are no exceptions to morality, violence is violence. Murder is murder. Don’t try to justify it and don’t teach others to ignore it.
America has a decision to make, especially with the rise of mass shootings and the call for gun bans across the country, are we going to finally solve our morality problem or are we going to defer the blame and ban guns?
The Lomasky review is an interesting example of what is getting to be a fairly common phenomenon: Hoppephobia. Although he is an amiable man personally, Hoppe’s written work seems to have the remarkable capacity to send some readers up the wall, blood pressure soaring, muttering and chewing the carpet. It is not impolite attacks on critics that does it. Perhaps the answer is Hoppe’s logical and deductive mode of thought and writing, demonstrating the truth of his propositions and showing that those who differ are often trapped in self-contradiction and self-refutation.
In the good old days, this was a common style in philosophy, employed by Kantians, Thomists, Misesians, and Randians alike. In the modern age, however, this method of thought and writing has gone severely out of fashion in philosophy, where truth is almost never arrived at – and certainly never argued for in a deductive fashion. The modern mode is utilitarian, positivist, tangential, puzzle-oriented, and pseudo-empiricist. As a result, modern positivist types have gone flabby and complacent, and reading hard-core deductivists – to say nothing of hard-core libertarians! – hits these people with the force of a blow to the gut.
Well, shape up, guys! In argument as in politics, those who can’t stand deductivist heat should get out of the philosophic or economic kitchen.—
SS: I really like Hans-Hermann Hoppe. I’ve probably sent the audio clip of his lecture on health insurance to a few hundred people since the ACA/Obamacare became a thing.