Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 01, 2014, 05:34:05 PM
Welcome to the board!

I am no longer the only anarchist!

Regarding the question of national defense, we have but to consider the idea of insurance firms, which hold assets against some known risk, and collect premiums for covering it.

http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf

The private production of defense chapter begins on page 43.

I do not claim that this is an answer that decides the issue once and for all, but it is the foundation of the alternative paradigm.

Great!  Glad to see a fellow anarchist.  Yeah, the role of insurance firms would play a vitally important role in the production of private defense services.  Insurance firms are expert at assessing risk.  What is the risk of invasion?  What is the risk of robbery?  All these questions can be answered on the market far better than any State ever could.

The risk of attack from a State might be great or it might be small, but there are multiple ways to deter such a risk and repel an attack if needed. 

Quote from: keyboarder on August 01, 2014, 06:20:11 PM
Troll=jrodefeld! 

This forum promotes unity of conservatives/TEA movement.  We've already
studied the other philosophies and determined that they are not practical for our needs.  To try to undermine our philisopy by sticking yours in our face is hateful and quite frankly of no benefit to either of us.  If you like the libertarian view, then stay with it.

So you do not welcome divergent view points?

You want an echo chamber?

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 06:24:03 PM
Great!  Glad to see a fellow anarchist.  Yeah, the role of insurance firms would play a vitally important role in the production of private defense services.  Insurance firms are expert at assessing risk.  What is the risk of invasion?  What is the risk of robbery?  All these questions can be answered on the market far better than any State ever could.

The risk of attack from a State might be great or it might be small, but there are multiple ways to deter such a risk and repel an attack if needed.

What is needed is a paradigm shift in terms of our understanding of social cooperation, private property and the rule of law.

Conservatives have let the left define these institutions as purely public goods, and have unwittingly gone along with the conception of society as a central plan, rather than an emergent or spontaneous process.

The classical liberals of yesteryear understood the organic nature of society but it seems we have forgotten these core principals and have adopted the progressive/socialist/Hobbesian view of social cooperation.

Tis a shame but it is inevitable given the public nature of education.

Quote from: keyboarder on August 01, 2014, 06:20:11 PM
Troll=jrodefeld! 

This forum promotes unity of conservatives/TEA movement.  We've already
studied the other philosophies and determined that they are not practical for our needs.  To try to undermine our philisopy by sticking yours in our face is hateful and quite frankly of no benefit to either of us.  If you like the libertarian view, then stay with it.

He's not a troll, and we do welcome discussions such as this.  He's OK.  He's coming from a liberty/freedom side of things.  I'd much rather have these debates, in general, than with Marxists.

Quote from: taxed on August 01, 2014, 04:02:15 PM
Bro, you just outed yourself with the whole bitcoin thing.

The hoax does not taint Bitcoins, nor their supporters.

It does taint those pranksters on 4chan who thought it up.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 01, 2014, 06:30:37 PM
So you do not welcome divergent view points?

You want an echo chamber?

Divergent views distract from the principals this great country was founded upon.  You do note the mess our congress is having, don't you?  Why?  Self interests over the rule of law.  This difference of opinion was morphed into criminal activity by some in both Democrats and Republican parties.  Like some here have stated, this country is hanging on by the conservative principals of only a few. 

Me, want an echo chamber?  Isn't that what you want here to YOUR views?  Get real and get going. 

Quote from: keyboarder on August 01, 2014, 06:43:53 PMMe, want an echo chamber?  Isn't that what you want here to YOUR views?  Get real and get going.

lolz

I hope you see the irony here.

Quote from: keyboarder on August 01, 2014, 06:43:53 PM
Divergent views distract from the principals this great country was founded upon.  You do note the mess our congress is having, don't you?  Why?  Self interests over the rule of law.  This difference of opinion was morphed into criminal activity by some in both Democrats and Republican parties.  Like some here have stated, this country is hanging on by the conservative principals of only a few. 

Me, want an echo chamber?  Isn't that what you want here to YOUR views?  Get real and get going.

We don't want an echo chamber.  It's a political discussion and it's fine.  Having discussions with libertarians is important.  Some of us were pretty hard-core libertarians at one point.

Quote from: taxed on August 01, 2014, 06:52:14 PM
We don't want an echo chamber.  It's a political discussion and it's fine.  Having discussions with libertarians is important.  Some of us were pretty hard-core libertarians at one point.

Someone should nudge keyboarder and let him know that the libertarian focus on the rule of law, individual liberty, free exchange, sound money and the spontaneous order, is directly pulled from the classical liberalism that animated the views of the best "founding fathers."

Of course I am referring to the anti-federalists.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 01, 2014, 06:56:10 PM
Someone should nudge keyboarder and let him know that the libertarian focus on the rule of law, individual liberty, free exchange, sound money and the spontaneous order, is directly pulled from the classical liberalism that animated the views of the best "founding fathers."

Of course I am referring to the anti-federalists.

She's good.  I always love the discussion.  It's actually my favorite.

Quote from: keyboarder on August 01, 2014, 06:43:53 PM
Divergent views distract from the principals this great country was founded upon.  You do note the mess our congress is having, don't you?  Why?  Self interests over the rule of law.  This difference of opinion was morphed into criminal activity by some in both Democrats and Republican parties.  Like some here have stated, this country is hanging on by the conservative principals of only a few. 

Me, want an echo chamber?  Isn't that what you want here to YOUR views?  Get real and get going.

I personally go out of my way to avoid an echo chamber.  Libertarians in general, even among themselves, are always trying to refine their views and improve their arguments.  The only way I can know if my positions are sound is to engage in discussion with different groups who hold different views than my own. 

If I can convert a few people here and there to the cause of (true) liberty, then that is a bonus.  There is far more to be gained through honest debate than by constantly reinforcing your own views and prejudices.  I just got done debating some Marxists on another forum and I enjoyed the experience.  I got to hear what they have to say and I did my best to refute their arguments. 

Divergent views don't "distract" from any great principles.  To the contrary divergent views test those principles and, if those principles are worth upholding, then they will stand up to scrutiny.

Quote from: taxed on August 01, 2014, 07:02:45 PM
She's good.  I always love the discussion.  It's actually my favorite.

As do I!

It's nice to break up the daily routine of takin' the piss out of the socialists and statists at that other place.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 01, 2014, 07:15:32 PM
I personally go out of my way to avoid an echo chamber.  Libertarians in general, even among themselves, are always trying to refine their views and improve their arguments.  The only way I can know if my positions are sound is to engage in discussion with different groups who hold different views than my own. 

If I can convert a few people here and there to the cause of (true) liberty, then that is a bonus.  There is far more to be gained through honest debate than by constantly reinforcing your own views and prejudices.  I just got done debating some Marxists on another forum and I enjoyed the experience.  I got to hear what they have to say and I did my best to refute their arguments. 

Divergent views don't "distract" from any great principles.  To the contrary divergent views test those principles and, if those principles are worth upholding, then they will stand up to scrutiny.

How can you debate Marxists? They're complete idiots.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 01, 2014, 06:56:10 PM
Someone should nudge keyboarder and let him know that the libertarian focus on the rule of law, individual liberty, free exchange, sound money and the spontaneous order, is directly pulled from the classical liberalism that animated the views of the best "founding fathers."

Of course I am referring to the anti-federalists.

I agree.  One troubling tendency I have noticed with many Tea Party people and conservatives in general could only be described as "founders worship".  It seems that many of them, probably including keyboarder, think that the founding fathers were almost infallible, that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence represent the pinnacles of human thought and progress, never to be surpassed.

To the contrary, I think that the Classical Liberalism that emerged from the Enlightenment Era with thinkers like John Locke represents only the starting point in the study of human liberty.  The study of free markets and liberty has progressed far beyond anything that the founders imagined.  The Austrian School of economics greatly improved upon the rather rudimentary understanding of economics that the founders had to work with.  Thinkers like Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Hans Hermann Hoppe, and many others have corrected many of the errors of the Classical Liberals and have given us a far more consistent and ethical basis for a society based on human liberty, private property and free markets.

That is not to say that we should not continue to derive value from the writings of the best of the founders, but we should not hold back in our criticisms either.  I don't think their capitulation and compromise on the issue of slavery, not to mention the vicious personal brutality that some showed towards their own slaves, should be taken lightly.  It is hard to see how a generation that owned slaves, murdered Native Americans by the thousands and oppressed women can ever provide the foundation for a truly free society.

Rather we should look at the American Revolution as a rough first attempt at creating a society with a limited, voluntary Republic.  And the record should be clear that it was a complete failure.  They violated the Constitution the minute the ink was dry. 

We can do far better than that.  We don't need to cling to some romantic notion of the founding generation and the Constitution, when we have libertarian thinkers and scholars that are far more accomplished whose work we can base a truly free society on.

Quote from: taxed on August 01, 2014, 07:30:17 PM
How can you debate Marxists? They're complete idiots.

Well, they were closer to left anarchists, sometimes called libertarian socialists.  Some of them are actually quite well read.  I could see how some people would be persuaded of their arguments on a superficial level.  They too oppose the State and want to get rid of it.  They oppose war and civil liberties abuses.  Where they differ from libertarians (and conservatives) is that they oppose workplace hierarchy.  This is a stupid and untenable position, I know.  They say that you can have private property, but it is based on use.  Your personal items, your home, your car, all things of that nature are your property and no one should be permitted to take them without your permission.  But they say that once you hire workers, you must enter into a "partnership" and you cannot "exploit" them by making profits off of their labor. 

The contradiction is how they plan to enforce such a system without a State.  In a system of anarchy, if I sign a contract with a worker and he agrees to work for me and I am permitted by contract to make a profit, then who is going to stop us from this voluntary economic transaction? 

One difference between antistate Marxist and anarcho captitalists is that we would permit voluntary Marxism.  You could proselytize and convince other workers to form non hierarchical coops where each owns the means of production.  No one would be permitted to use violence against them for forming that arrangement. 

However, they MUST accept the right of some institution, whether the State or just a gang of workers, to use violence against me if I voluntarily hire workers and they voluntarily accept the conditions laid out in the contract.

They get kind of vague when I bring up this contradiction.  But it is fun to debate them nonetheless.