3 ms·

I will definitely take a look at the site. I wouldn't want to ignore information based on my own bias. I see the appeal of what you're saying, and I'm indeed c

I will definitely take a look at the site. I wouldn't want to ignore information based on my own bias. I see the appeal of what you're saying, and I'm indeed concerned with private coercive power; however, explaining the "how" behind a free society is contradictory and presupposes State power. I can't tell you how it would work without the State, the same way I can't tell how an iPhone is made (besides some high-level explanation), or how the process came to be that produced it. I don't know what solutions people will come up with. I would say, though, how is justice being served now? Is there not police corruption, abuse of power, innocent people thrown in jail (especially for drugs), unjust laws, etc? I would argue that this fair system you speak of does not exist, and would never exist under the State. I'm not saying it would exist in a free society (to err is human), but at least it wouldn't be centralized. At least we'd have third-party options. Maybe there would a financial incentive for you to not incite violence. Perhaps you'd be socially ostracized for your actions. Maybe I'd have to live with my broken nose. Again, not saying that this is the way it would work, only that there are plenty of creative solutions that don't involve a central, coercive agency. There are a few books here that go into the possible solutions: http://freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx http://freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx Also, for any of this to happen, there must a multi-generational philosophical awakening, in which people would become less violent and more open to peaceful solutions.

strlen 14y ago
> Is there not police corruption, abuse of power, innocent people thrown in jail (especially for drugs), unjust laws, etc? You can fight against drug war (and this seems to be catching on) without abandoning the idea of police and judiciary. Indeed, several high-taxation socialist countries in Europe (and here I'm using socialist literally) have decriminalized many drugs. I don't see a correlation between this: taxation serves a legitimate purpose of protecting society, yet most drug prohibitions do not. If we de-criminalize drugs and you, say, start your own drug factory (not saying you will): who will protect you if the Zettas decides to move and destroy you as competition? I do commend you for having the intelectual honesty to advanced anarcho-capitalism (as opposed to "government can tax me to go to war, but taxation is slavery if they use my taxes to provide healthcare"). However, I'll suggest this: if you want to focus on advancing the cause of anarcho-capitalism and small government, focus on drug war, foreign wars, police overreach, etc... first and then start talking about taxation. If you must talk about taxes, first start talking about gross abuses of taxation and eminent domain, e.g., using tax liens to confiscate homes of otherwise poor people and put them in the hands of real-estate developers. You can also talk about how the wealthy don't actually pay very high taxes in reality (long term capital gains vs. income), and so on... but the arguments about how the government is unfairly exploiting the rich to benefit the poor are simply silly. The wealthy want and actively benefit from big government, so policies that make the government more (not less) responsive to the wealthy, actively hurt your cause. David D. Friedman is the one anarcho-capitalist I am familiar with, but he mostly makes a consequentialist as opposed to ethical case for anarcho-capitalism (acknowledging the imperfections his system will have).

strlen 14y ago

> Is there not police corruption, abuse of power, innocent people thrown in jail (especially for drugs), unjust laws, etc? You can fight against drug war (and this seems to be catching on) without abandoning the idea of police and judiciary. Indeed, several high-taxation socialist countries in Europe (and here I'm using socialist literally) have decriminalized many drugs. I don't see a correlation between this: taxation serves a legitimate purpose of protecting society, yet most drug prohibitions do not. If we de-criminalize drugs and you, say, start your own drug factory (not saying you will): who will protect you if the Zettas decides to move and destroy you as competition? I do commend you for having the intelectual honesty to advanced anarcho-capitalism (as opposed to "government can tax me to go to war, but taxation is slavery if they use my taxes to provide healthcare"). However, I'll suggest this: if you want to focus on advancing the cause of anarcho-capitalism and small government, focus on drug war, foreign wars, police overreach, etc... first and then start talking about taxation. If you must talk about taxes, first start talking about gross abuses of taxation and eminent domain, e.g., using tax liens to confiscate homes of otherwise poor people and put them in the hands of real-estate developers. You can also talk about how the wealthy don't actually pay very high taxes in reality (long term capital gains vs. income), and so on... but the arguments about how the government is unfairly exploiting the rich to benefit the poor are simply silly. The wealthy want and actively benefit from big government, so policies that make the government more (not less) responsive to the wealthy, actively hurt your cause. David D. Friedman is the one anarcho-capitalist I am familiar with, but he mostly makes a consequentialist as opposed to ethical case for anarcho-capitalism (acknowledging the imperfections his system will have).