Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Moral Anarchy
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Moral Anarchy (Read 3160 times)
Crystallas
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2052
Location: R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution
Joined: May 4th, 2011
Re: Moral Anarchy
Reply #30 - Mar 4th, 2013 at 6:30pm
Print Post  
From this thread alone, anyone who wants to know where I stand, already knows.

That being said, I think zophos's argument was taken out of context. While he is still making a minarchist argument, some of the rebuts are going after strawmen to make a point.

IMO, we can do a better job of debating the 10% we disagree with between minarchism and anarchism within our libertarian groups.  Instead of using the other 90% we do agree on to make an argument. To what entails that 10%, is usually the same issues. The premise of why not to have that 10% centrally controlled is the same as the other 90. However if pointing to that 90% doesn't make a compelling argument, at some point we should focus on that 10% without drafting comparisons to the 90%.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Tom Palven
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1397
Location: North America
Joined: Sep 27th, 2011
Re: Moral Anarchy
Reply #31 - Mar 4th, 2013 at 7:43pm
Print Post  
Crystallas wrote on Mar 4th, 2013 at 6:30pm:
From this thread alone, anyone who wants to know where I stand, already knows.

That being said, I think zophos's argument was taken out of context. While he is still making a minarchist argument, some of the rebuts are going after strawmen to make a point.

IMO, we can do a better job of debating the 10% we disagree with between minarchism and anarchism within our libertarian groups. Instead of using the other 90% we do agree on to make an argument. To what entails that 10%, is usually the same issues. The premise of why not to have that 10% centrally controlled is the same as the other 90. However if pointing to that 90% doesn't make a compelling argument, at some point we should focus on that 10% without drafting comparisons to the 90%.



Say what?  I've read that four times and can't understand it.  Maybe someone else can translate it.   Huh
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Libertarian For Our Future
Libertarians Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 236
Joined: Dec 12th, 2012
Re: Moral Anarchy
Reply #32 - Mar 4th, 2013 at 7:45pm
Print Post  
The point of my argument is simply put, you need some form of limited government in order to provide certain functions. You say that a private industry can provide that for the general public. My point, in agreement with zophos, is that because of society as it is right now, it won't work.

If we use anarchy examples, let's take the court system. If we would have a complete private structure around it, what's to say that one private court won't go along with the rest? You can easily claim the government doesn't do a good job either but if you have multiple private courts that can be used to defend someone's rights, I don't believe in this society we can successfully have that. If you continue to have one single court that is BOUND by the Constitution, there shouldn't be any reason to doubt it.

If you have corrupt private organizations, this is where morality comes into play. You say government does a bad job, I say this society isn't ready for it. So again, breaking down the mindset of needing government, back to my original point. Will all of us on this board oblige by it? More than likely. Will others outside of this board? Whose to confirm what they will/won't do? My vote is they probably won't.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Libertarian For Our Future
Libertarians Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 236
Joined: Dec 12th, 2012
Re: Moral Anarchy
Reply #33 - Mar 4th, 2013 at 7:49pm
Print Post  
Tom Palven wrote on Mar 4th, 2013 at 7:43pm:
Say what? I've read that four times and can't understand it. Maybe someone else can translate it. Huh

His point was that we should focus on discussing anarchy/minanarchy and the 10% of the things we disagree on (IE: Privatization everything or leave some things in government's hands). The 90% (IE: Welfare) should be left out of this discussion as we need not discuss it as we all agree on it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
zophos
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1307
Location: Pennsylvania
Joined: May 14th, 2011
Re: Moral Anarchy
Reply #34 - Mar 4th, 2013 at 7:51pm
Print Post  
The thread's a little fractured now (this site needs nested comments), but I'll address everything I saw in one short post.

I asked Tom to define promote because, anarchically speaking, that's a meaningless word. Or rather, you can only promote something within an anarchist society from a personal standpoint, not from a societal standpoint. So, "promoting" the NAP in an anarchist world isn't going to get the four billion socialist-communist-theocratic-fascist-whatevers to suddenly embrace it. Thus, from my point of view, the (perhaps only temporary) need for a "well-managed" state.

Second, to reiterate a point I made earlier, I support socialized security and not socialized everything else because security is a fundamentally unique product. As I said previously:

Quote:
I don't think it's unreasonable of me to see the market for security and justice as fundamentally different than the markets for food, healthcare, etc. It deals in violence, and I see the least violent situation being one in which violence doesn't have to compete with more violence (i.e. there is a monopoly on violence).... Instead of working in concert to impose social order, security experts might work for rival gangs. I see excessive violence in that scenario.

I'll remind you that I'm okay with "slow anarchism" or a anarchist future. I agree with LfoF that the process should be gradual rather than revolutionary. Let's get to a 50% libertarian state - and if that works (and the citizenry is convinced of its virtues as well), we can move on to a 75% libertarian state. One day this stepping stone approach might well land us at 100% anarchy - and I'd be fully supportive of that.
  

Bread and Circuses
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Crystallas
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2052
Location: R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution
Joined: May 4th, 2011
Re: Moral Anarchy
Reply #35 - Mar 4th, 2013 at 8:18pm
Print Post  
zophos wrote on Mar 4th, 2013 at 7:51pm:
I asked Tom to define promote because, anarchically speaking, that's a meaningless word. Or rather, you can only promote something within an anarchist society from a personal standpoint, not from a societal standpoint. So, "promoting" the NAP in an anarchist world isn't going to get the four billion socialist-communist-theocratic-fascist-whatevers to suddenly embrace it. Thus, from my point of view, the (perhaps only temporary) need for a "well-managed" state.



This is a grave misinterpretation. Anarchism does not mean you only act alone. Neither does individualism. Cooperation is better demonstrated through anarchist principles, because anarchism doesn't have this failed concept of a hierarchy to violate the human rights of any person through force or coercion.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Crystallas
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2052
Location: R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution
Joined: May 4th, 2011
Re: Moral Anarchy
Reply #36 - Mar 4th, 2013 at 8:26pm
Print Post  
Libertarian For Our Future wrote on Mar 4th, 2013 at 7:49pm:
His point was that we should focus on discussing anarchy/minanarchy and the 10% of the things we disagree on (IE: Privatization everything or leave some things in government's hands). The 90% (IE: Welfare) should be left out of this discussion as we need not discuss it as we all agree on it.


Almost. We libertarians agree with 90% on issues(minarchists and anarchists). Then we recognize that we disagree on remaining 10% or so. But we use the arguments from the 90%(parts that we agree on) to compare with the 10%(what we disagree with) to make our point. I'm saying that this is not an effective method of debate. The method can and has become very hyperbolic.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Libertarian For Our Future
Libertarians Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 236
Joined: Dec 12th, 2012
Re: Moral Anarchy
Reply #37 - Mar 4th, 2013 at 8:32pm
Print Post  
Crystallas wrote on Mar 4th, 2013 at 8:26pm:
Almost. We libertarians agree with 90% on issues(minarchists and anarchists). Then we recognize that we disagree on remaining 10% or so. But we use the arguments from the 90%(parts that we agree on) to compare with the 10%(what we disagree with) to make our point. I'm saying that this is not an effective method of debate. The method can and has become very hyperbolic.

So close... Cool
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Libertarian For Our Future
Libertarians Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 236
Joined: Dec 12th, 2012
Re: Moral Anarchy
Reply #38 - Mar 4th, 2013 at 8:42pm
Print Post  
Crystallas wrote on Mar 4th, 2013 at 8:18pm:
Cooperation is better demonstrated through anarchist principles, because anarchism doesn't have this failed concept of a hierarchy to violate the human rights of any person through force or coercion.

I agree that, in principle, anarchy is the least likely to violate ones rights. However, I still don't think most of society will agree who has rights to what.

In the current society we have, people, with the mindset that rich are too rich, will resort to theft. If we design courts around this, what's to say one court doesn't side with the criminals? I know we can say that government is just as corrupt, but if we can get the government down to a size where the courts work FOR us instead of AGAINST us, I think we can eventually try out private courts.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Tom Palven
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1397
Location: North America
Joined: Sep 27th, 2011
Re: Moral Anarchy
Reply #39 - Mar 4th, 2013 at 9:23pm
Print Post  
Libertarian For Our Future wrote on Mar 4th, 2013 at 8:32pm:
So close... Cool


Grin His heart's definitely in the right place, but I'm giving up and posting the sexist remarks that Isabel Paterson was rather cute in her youth in the four top left photos, and the 6th has a cute breast, whoever she is:
http://www.google.com/search?q=isabel+paterson&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&rlz...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Moral Anarchy
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy