25 votes

Does Anarcho-Capitalism Allow People To Form Governments?

I'm creating a new thread for this topic that has come up in another thread.

The Merriam-Webster Definition of "government":

: the group of people who control and make decisions for a country, state, etc.

: a particular system used for controlling a country, state, etc.

: the process or manner of controlling a country, state, etc.

Oxford Dictionary definition:

"[TREATED AS SINGULAR OR PLURAL] The governing body of a nation, state, or community:
an agency of the federal government

Are people allowed to form governments in an anarcho-capitalist society?

If so, how can we continue to call a world where such is a possibility "anarchy"?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

continuing...

MarcMadness writes below:

> farmer,
> You continue to question beg by inserting
> your own qualifications for the definition
> of government to include "force" and "coercion"
> and "theft". You are right, there is nowhere
> else to go with this conversation if you
> continue to do this.

MarcMadness,

You seem to be correct that there is nowhere else to go, but it is not because I have inserted anything. I think our own discussion

http://www.dailypaul.com/321118/from-farmer-to-marcmadness-f...

makes it quite clear that you also include the same things in your definition when it comes to practical examples (or the lack thereof). Everyone does. Just because words are recorded in a dictionary does not make them correct. Mine (Larken Rose's actually) is the commonly accepted definition. The one in the dictionary is only the commonly parroted one.

But if you refuse to question things beyond what you parrot from the dictionary and continue to deceptively and maliciously twist what others say, then there is nowhere to go.

You are a nutjob.

Accept that the correct definition, including the most widely accepted definition, does not include force or coercion. Just because our sky is blue does NOT mean skies have to be blue. You have very little grasp on how communication and languages work. You're fucking insane to go to such lengths to defend your obviously and irrefutably WRONG definition of a word.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

I wouldn't

Agree with the name calling,but the blue sky analogy is a good one.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

And now...

And now you call me deceptive and malicious? It's clear you are not interested in intellectual debate, and I am not interested in this sort of dialogue.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Well you are

He's trying, as do I, to define terms so we are clear on what we are arguing. You are hanging on this definition or that because you think the flavor or emotional association will protect your lack of clarity from the light of reason.

You say tax, and war, and social contract because you know the real things you want to promote aren't as likely to be thoughtlessly accepted as the more honest words for what you promote. Just like a left progressive says 'social justice'.. and tax, and war, and social contract.

If you want to argue minarchism fine, but let's not pretend taxation is anything other than extortion, or war is anything other than socialized murder.

The honest minarchist asserts that, on net, if we don't violate some limited and contained locus of rights, the rights of society as a whole will be diminished.

We argue that 1) it can't be contained, and 2) it doesn't do what it purports even if it could be, and 3) it's an ethical contradiction.

I'm consequentialist enough that if you could demonstrate that it could be contained, and it did what it purported at least more than not, I might be moved to agree.

But I do not at all see this as likely.

The problem you face is the devastating arguments against statism, which I'm sure you have employed at some point, don't end with minarchy and don't excuse minarchy and can be used equally well against minarchy.

Where do rights come from?
Us. Therefore the government may do nothing we aren't morally able to do.

When is socialism better than capitalism?
Never. Therefore socialized monopolies are inferior even when you are taught to idolize them.

Minarchism

I'm not interested in arguing minarchism, because I'm not a minarchist.

You are framing this discussion in the way you'd like to argue against it, not in the way I am actually presenting it. So if anyone is being dishonest here, it is you.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

I'm not framing anything

I'm not the one so afraid to admit what he believes that he has to use weasel words.

I don't need to frame anything. I'm defining the terms so you know exactly what I am saying.

I'm not relying on confusion about concepts to get people to think my position sounds plausible.

Is there any confusion about our position? Is anyone unclear?

If theft is wrong for anyone it's wrong for everyone.

If murder is wrong for anyone it's wrong for everyone.

If kidnapping is wrong for anyone it's wrong for everyone.

Uniforms, votes, hats, coronations, flags, ribbons, and badges don't make any of those things different things.

Euphemisms for those things don't make them different things.

That's our position. We are not framing, equivocating, nuancing.

So one would think this should be a clear debate. Why are we wrong?

What is it about a flag that makes murder into war?
What is it about a vote that makes theft into taxation?
What is it about a uniform that makes kidnapping for an invented crime into 'justice'?

Please explain this wondrous magic.

We're apparently too simple to understand the theology of state worship.

We see millions of murders of innocent people and millions of kidnappings of innocent people and countless trillions stolen, and we start to get a bit suspicious about this mystical dichotomy between state evil and non state evil. In fact by comparison we can't even see the non state evil.

If I were allowed to redefine

If I were allowed to redefine sex as rape, I could make a very successful case that sex is immoral. What a concept, redefining words to things they don't mean is intellectually dishonest and you are the one who refuses to accept the real definitions of words.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Questions

"What is it about a flag that makes murder into war?
What is it about a vote that makes theft into taxation?
What is it about a uniform that makes kidnapping for an invented crime into 'justice'?"

Nothing. And that has nothing to do with the question I'm asking, only to do with the question you want me to be asking.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Right.

If you've ever debated Marxists you will run into this same dilemma. It is a sign that the debater has a propaganda agenda or is a propaganda victim who's ideology is an article of faith.

Ventura 2012

bravo

Excellent post. Crystal clear.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'm not relying on confusion about concepts to get people to think my position sounds plausible.

Is there any confusion about our position? Is anyone unclear?

If theft is wrong for anyone it's wrong for everyone.

If murder is wrong for anyone it's wrong for everyone.

If kidnapping is wrong for anyone it's wrong for everyone.

Uniforms, votes, hats, coronations, flags, ribbons, and badges don't make any of those things different things.

Euphemisms for those things don't make them different things.

That's our position. We are not framing, equivocating, nuancing.

So one would think this should be a clear debate. Why are we wrong?

What is it about a flag that makes murder into war?
What is it about a vote that makes theft into taxation?
What is it about a uniform that makes kidnapping for an invented crime into 'justice'?

Please explain this wondrous magic.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

At least I think what you said is crystal clear.

control?

Marc wants to use this definition of government: the group of people who control and make decisions for a country.

The problem is that it's not clear if the "controlling" and "making decisions" is being done by the consent of everyone or not.

Is the "controlling" being done like a boss would direct an employee?

Is the "making decisions" being done as in financial decisions made via power of attorney?

What I "want"

Is for people to use words that have the proper meaning. The only people that use the definition of government as a "coercive force" or a "gang of thieves writ large" or Rothbardians, anarchists, etc. At most maybe....5% of the world if we are generous?

So what makes more sense when trying to discuss liberty with people? To create ENTIRELY NEW definitions that confuse the shit out of people, or use the actual definitions and go from there?

"The problem is that it's not clear if the "controlling" and "making decisions" is being done by the consent of everyone or not.

Is the "controlling" being done like a boss would direct an employee?

Is the "making decisions" being done as in financial decisions made via power of attorney?"

Yes, exactly, that is not "clear", which leaves the options open. I am in 100% agreement with you that the conception of government has been that of rights-infringement and tyranny. And I am saying it is this conception of government that is wrong - but this does not negate man's right to create a government, and as long as you guys insist that it does, you will alienate the vast majority of people you wish to influence.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

You are very wrong about

this statement:

"Is for people to use words that have the proper meaning. The only people that use the definition of government as a "coercive force..."

In fact, any serious student of political philosophy and/or political science understands and agrees that politics adjudicates the sanctioned use of violence (force and coercion) within society, irrespective of their ideological stripe. Marx understood this just as well as Rothbard.

In fact, anyone who does not understand that this is the basic and essential feature of government which differentiates it from social or civic organizations is so politically naive as to be a babe in the woods.

George Washington said:

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

And that pretty well sums it up.

Every law is an authorization to use force against those who do not comply.

Generally, law contemplates a measured and deliberative use of force in an ever escalating manner, up to and including summary execution, until such time as the offender submits.

If you do not believe this, then refuse all orders and instructions from a cop the next time you are pulled over for not wearing your seat belt. If you are lucky, you will merely be physically assaulted and imprisoned. If you are unlucky, then you will be shot.
Of course, it is theoretically possible for government to engage in some sort of meaningless, or even truly voluntary legislation. However, to the extent that they do this (which is not very much), they are not acting as government qua government, but merely as a civic or social organisation.

^ This...

is exactly right

The reason some anarchists will deny that government = force, is because the use of force by humans can never be eliminated from existence in this world. Therefore "anarchy" when defined as "zero government", i.e.- 'zero force', is impossible to achieve.

If anarchy is defined as "without hierarchy" it is still very difficult to achieve, for the same reasons.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Actually I don't think anyone said that

Whatever you want to call government people have the right to create it.. up until the point someone says, "no thanks" and other people say "we weren't asking".

So if your conception of government is one that says "oh sorry, we thought you wanted this service, we'll be on our way" when someone says "no thanks" then we can stop here. We have no disagreement.

But I suspect you have exactly in mind saying "we weren't asking".

So what you don't have a right to do is have a vote and then 51% of people approve of stealing, regulating, zoning, or taxing the other 49% of people's property.. and do it.

You can't set up a town with the right to tax in other words. You can sell water or trash pickup or fire, but then you're just a firm, not a monopoly, and monopoly is what you are after.

Now you might do it anyway, but you'd be violating peoples' rights and doing evil, and whatever markets you condemned to socialist monopolies would be weaker for it, and eventually you'll be forced to put up trade barriers and capital barriers and then physical barriers to keep people from migrating to a free society.

There will always be governments but they don't have to have monopolies of violence. If you look at global politics today, far more dangerous entities than your neighbor operate in anarchy between themselves.

Though of course they would dearly love to end this anarchy, oddly the tribalism and nationalism they inculcate in the populations they prey on act as counterpressure to the global government they would like to create.

ok...

"Whatever you want to call government people have the right to create it.. up until the point someone says, "no thanks" and other people say "we weren't asking"."

So people DO have the right to create government. Why did it take so long for you to agree with me? Yes, if people try to impose their governmental jurisdiction upon others, than that government is now acting criminally.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

if...

> 5% if we are generous...

100% if we are honest.

Ok...

Here's a fun experiment. Go up to 10 random people on the street and ask them their definition of government.

I will await your response here.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

I would imagine that

at least 9 out of 10 of them will have spent at least 12 years in compulsory Prussian style state sponsored reeducation camps, otherwise known as public schools. How do you think they will answer?

And, if you happen to encounter 1 in 10 who did not, there is a good chance that they are among the bureaucratic, political, and economic classes who control and profit from the state. How do you think they will answer?

Sorry, but not going to

Sorry, but not going to school doesn't give you the right to redefine words.

The masses aren't often right about things, but when it comes to the definitions of words... They fucking are. That's the whole damn point of language.

Your stubborn unwillingness to accept the accepted definition of a word shows that your argument has absolutely no ground to stand on! You have to redefine multiple English words to things that the vast majority of users of the English language will vehemently disagree with in order for your arguments to make EVEN A LITTLE sense.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Ha.

TelFiRE.

You are very amusing.

You can't honestly believe that there IS any particular definition of a word that is universally correct?

A tremendous amount of political energy is expended in "branding" and "rebranding" and otherwise manipulating the meaning of words, and language in general.

Debating which definition is "CORRECT" is an amusing past-time for the semi-literate.

However, anyone who is interested in debating ideas rather than semantics can easily express themselves by simply explaining what they mean in a more verbose way when conflict arises over the definition of a particular word.

philosophy

Even the most rudimentary pholosophers understood that if you ask the average person about anything (e.g., your ten random people) you can get the wrong answer. This is the point of Socrates' parable of the cave.

Again, the fact that the dictionary says something, or every human believes a certain thing, is no reason to believe that thing is correct. Such a survey may provide the correct answer, but it also may provide nothing useful to understand the true nature of things.

I have admitted up front that I am offering something which is different than the error you will hear from the average person on the street. But this discussion with you is like arguing with someone who thinks the Federal Reserve System is just an innocuous monetary system and nothing more. You've got to have a monetery system right? You've got to have money.

wolfe's picture

One last thought.

You cannot govern those that have the choice to disagree with you. To govern, is by definition, to control.

If someone can choose to disagree and disobey you, then it is called leadership when they do what you instruct anyway. If they have no choice, it is called governing or force.

Need a real world example outside of politics? Do truckers have a choice to ignore the governors on their rigs that peg them at no more than 55 mph? It wouldn't be called a governor if they did. It would be called a warning light.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

wolfe's picture

Go up to 10 random people...

on the street and ask them if they could choose not to pay taxes without consequence, if they would still pay them. They pay them because the threat of FORCE exists. Government without force is called a service that is provided for by support of it's users, and therefore ceases to be government.

Play with words all you like, but the real meaning is present for all to see regardless of what you want to define it as. Yours is the redefinition, not ours.

Further, I suspect that even your "street query" would not yield the results that you claim.

And lastly, the definition you propose does NOT exclude the use of force to "govern". Are you saying, according to your definition that North Korea doesn't count as a government? Of course not. You would be a fool to say such a thing.

The word "govern" used in your definition is defined mostly as an exercise of force itself. Are you arguing that you dislike the synonym that was used?

"Govern" =

gov·ern
[guhv-ern] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1. to rule over by right of authority: to govern a nation.
2. to exercise a directing or restraining influence over;
3. to hold in check; control
4. to serve as or constitute a law for: the principles governing a case.

Your understanding of the definition is what is flawed.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Where

Where does it say people must be coerced into this rule? Is there no such things as legitimate authority? If someone breaks into my house, do I not the have authority to use force to stop him?

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

wolfe's picture

If you remove force...

Then it ceases to be government under our (the world's) definition, and do as you please between consenting people.

The second you apply force to a forth from the three then you are a government under our definition, in violation of the NAP, and should be dealt with accordingly.

Psst: The word Govern (referenced in the original definition of course) uses several synonyms for the word force to self describe. DO you deny this?

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

If someone immigratws to the

If someone immigratws to the United States, havent they consented? So isnt the government voluntary for immigrants?

Ventura 2012

wolfe's picture

Random aside...

Do you do business law? I can't remember your specialty.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Criminal defense primarily.

Criminal defense primarily. I've done some landlord/tenant work too.

Ventura 2012