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"?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

the begging continues...

"The notion that governments provide for the general defense is nonsense. The government has it's own set of interests. Interests that are diametrically opposed to peace and the interests of the people it claims to protect.

A free people, responsible for their own defense, able to engage in unfettered commerce and armed to the hilt couldn't be conquered.

A disarmed public, under the thumb of and made poor by the aforementioned institution on the other hand.."

Good lord. How can the government have "its own set of interests" in the case I am speaking of, when it is (literally, not figuratively) formed by the people?

If you don't allow people the right to form governments, you are the one threatening violence (to "disarm" them) and you are the tyrant.

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

.

-_-

I didn't threaten anyone. No clue where you're getting this from.

The comment was to Bill. Specifically, this bit:

Criminal justice and military defense are not viable on voluntary principles, and any society acting 100% voluntary would be easy prey to those that don't.

To address your question, its theoretically possible. So long as it adheres to the NAP and those who wish not to be a part of it may opt out and go about their business unmolested.

Now, the ability to maintain this situation in which government has the full consent of the governed could last all of 2 seconds before someone began getting screwed. Inevitably, the newly formed government would devolve just as all do for the exact same reasons and in the same manner. Nation states have life spans. They expand. They degrade. They cannibalize themselves. They die.

But for your question, is it possible (not probable) that this could occur? Yes.

maybe

I got mixed up with all the comments here.

Regardless, my only question is if people are *allowed* - meaning they have a "right" - to voluntarily form a government. I never mentioned "coercive taxation", "disarming the public" or anything like that- though they are terms that many seem to want to insert in the "definition" of government, as opposed to pointing out why those things are indeed tyrannical and speaking out against them.

My point is that, it is just as wrong for a group to force someone not to have a government, as it is for a government to force people to live under its rule.

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

.

Agreed.

yall should hug

then try to make sense.

any viable defense against foreign govts will involve involuntary measures.

either support involuntary actions, or else get owned by some other military.

No

But thank you for the offer!

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

Dude

Dude you ever think about anarchy? It would like so totally work.

Newt clearly supports

throwing people in rape cages for possession of a small quantity of marijuana.

It's not a drug, its a plant!

I don't support that

but the largest most powerful gang in my anarchy utopia hates marijuana so they beat and rob everyone rumored to smoke the drug. I would hire a bigger and badder gang to protect myself but can't afford it.

sux for u

when u cant afford nap insurance.

you're probably not worth shyt anyway.

Voluntary government

If people voluntarily form a government and they all consent to it by contract, then this is still a condition without rulers. It's a condition of voluntarily interaction with the absence of being ruled by force.

Ron Paul said "government should never be able to do anything you can't do".

Voluntary government is consistent with Ron Paul's statement.

Bingo.

"together at last, together forever..."

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

So if

a fiending crackhead contracts life long service to his crack dealer, in exchange for some crack, and the contract permits daily beatings etc., is this a condition without rulers?

Yes

Just as a boxer consents to being punched, and just as a surgery patient consents to a knife cutting them open.

Masochism is a condition without rulers, provided that the person is in a condition to give consent.

So in anarchocap

such a contract should be enforced, otherwise its broken contract / theft from the pusher?

Depends if the addict was in

Depends if the addict was in a condition to give consent. If not, then the contract is invalid.

In a free market, contract enforcement would be worked out much better than my opinion here.

The crackhead wanted crack real bad

and made his decision as an adult.

What, now you're gonna have a nanny state of men in white coats deciding when the kids can make bad agreements?

Nice attempt to dodge the question.

Every pusher would have a retinue of 100s of crackhead slaves on anarcho-cap, enforcing their own contracts if need be, if some white-bread enforcement group didn't want to touch it.

Think your beliefs through.

It's not just crack heads. Anyone in a desperate condition or in a powerful emotional state is prone to act irrationally at times. If you support full freedom to contract, you will have quasi-slavery.

consent

Your question is -- Are there situations when someone is not in a position to give consent?

The answer is yes. If someone is under duress, or under the influence of a drug, or has dementia -- any contract they sign will not be valid. The free market will work out all the tiny details.

That wasn't my question...

it was your dodge.

So every contract can be dodged by limelemon-type dodgers by claiming they smoked a drug that day?

So stupid, you guys deserve no respect for your garbage beliefs.

I had a cup of coffee, was feeling impulsive, so I don't owe you that mortgage? Duress is duress, has NOTHING to do with bad decisions made because of substance abuse.

Stop muddying the waters.

You think there won't be arbitration groups willing to rule against the crack head and not consider drug abuse valid grounds to dodge a contract terms?

.

So stupid, you guys deserve no respect for your garbage beliefs.

This is what I get for feeding the troll.

what u get is the truth

feed or no feed. skidaddle.

invalid contracts

So every contract can be dodged by limelemon-type dodgers by claiming they smoked a drug that day?

If someone signs a contract while under the influence of anesthesia, the contract will probably be invalidated.

that's quite a stupid reply

which is obvious to a non-dodger.

a person who signs a contract to get crack, in a state not of crack influence, but withdrawal from crack, is in no way comparable to a person who's unconscious, and therefore unable to take any action.

if you weren't hopelessly dodging, this would be obvious. its obvious to everyone else, and this too is not obvious to you, for you dodge like a dodger dodges, and dodge even the truth.

ive lost so much respect for yalls that i have lost the motivation to punctuate while i intellectually castrate you.

a person who signs a contract

a person who signs a contract to get crack, in a state not of crack influence, but withdrawal from crack, is in no way comparable to a person who's unconscious

That's not for you or I to decide, the market will determine the details.

I am the market

You are the market. The market is not an incarnate god, it is just people.

You don't get to avoid logical consequences of a principle (in this case, the right to contract) by punting to "the market."

Whatever "the market" ends up doing, it will either violate or accord with freedom to contract.

If some force-agencies are unwilling to uphold contracts signed by crackheads or desperately poor beggars, that doesn't mean other agencies won't.

Unless you're advocating for a Supreme good Agency to eradicate all the Bad agencies, then you are left with quasi slavery, if people are free to contract freely.

You want to avoid this, so pretend the market is above logic.

the market

The market allocates goods and provides services better than any type of central planning, that's why you should support market-based law and courts instead of supporting a monopoly on these services.

are you reading from talking points?

we aren't discussing goods and services, we're talking about whether voluntary contracts to slavery are enforceable.

you say yes if your god "the market" wants to.

what if "the market" also wants non voluntary contracts to slavery? then you're against it? everyone has their limits where they stop listening, and start telling "the market" what to do.

the market might demand child sex slaves, and there may be a booming market for it. people will get together and use violence to prevent this.

same with allowing people to contract voluntarily into a quasi slavery condition. the market may support it. but people will get together and use violence to eliminate it.

the market is not synonymous with what is right.

the world we live in right now is supported by the market. if the market wanted to eliminate the government, taxes, etc., wars, it would. the decision of the market doesn't dictate what is right or wrong.

You are mistaking

a "market" for a "free market," which is what libertarians advocate.

Certainly, there can be such a thing as a slave market. However, purchasing or selling a slave would not be an example of a free market transaction.

A free market transaction occurs when the transaction is mutually voluntary to all parties in the exchange.

In the case of a slave, the slave is coerced into participating in the transaction. Therefore, this is not a free market transaction.

as all anarchists know

there is no such thing as a free market in the real world. it is just an idea. yes, there may be an exchange between two persons, and this fits the concept. but when larger groupings of persons emerge, a change takes place in category or kind, not just degree.

the possibility of 'ganging up' emerges when you get beyond 2 semi-equal individuals. force becomes a profitable option when power differences of sufficient scale emerge. this possibility necessitates counter measures by individuals to gang up in self defense.

now you have two gangs; one offensive, one defensive. or, maybe two offensive. whatever the case is, the gang that is willing to violate voluntariarity is the one that is going to be effective at governing, at destroying criminals and at winning wars with other gangs.

boo hoo, nature is a cruel mistress.

the only 'out' anarchists have is to claim 'if everyone believed in voluntarism, they could prevent the small minority of violators from succeeding by using force.'

while true, this statement is not relevant, since people won't actually adopt voluntariarity, anymore than they will communism. that thorn in the utopian's ass called human nature gets in the way.

---

secondly, i'm not mistaking anything. the commenter to whom i replied uses the phrase 'market,' and is referring to the markets with which he's familiar. namely, real markets, which exist in the context of a society where political force to impose laws is the norm, and the voluntary principle is not the basis for society.

there is no example of markets in the absence of any involuntary actions, besides perhaps between a few individuals, or a small community of religious pacifists who are protected by an external non-voluntarist state.

actual markets historically exist in the context of forcefully imposed rules of law that do not observe the principle of 100% voluntariarity.

a society that genuinely used the voluntary principle 100%, without any protection from a non voluntary state, would perish in short order, and so none are recorded in history.

the market might demand child

the market might demand child sex slaves, and there may be a booming market for it...the market is not synonymous with what is right...the world we live in right now is supported by the market.

The market is peaceful voluntary exchange. Anytime there is coercion, as in your example, it is not a marketplace.

The point of libertarianism is to eliminate anything that is not a market.