Well, here I go.
Lee @ 294: It ill behooves you to complain of society being gangster-like while simultaneously keeping your own head firmly in the trough.
When the gangsters start shooting at you when you attempt to procure some food outside of the trough, is there then room for complaint? That is, given that private road companies (for instance) cannot operate on a scale beyond the odd parking lot or gated community, because of government restrictions, what is the person who supports them to do?
albatross @ 320: The Park Service is a better example of something kind-of like cooperation
I would argue that it only appears so because, unlike with Social Security and the FDA, agitation against it is less common and/or less visible. If someone tried to homestead a parcel within Yellowstone National Park, and was run off or arrested by government authorities, the root non-cooperation of the enterprise would be as apparent as in the other examples.
sherrold @ 331 (and others elsewhere): I believe that Somalia is a valid counterexample to "anarchy must necessarily work great no matter the time, place, or situation!" But I think it's much less valid to hold it up as evidence that anarchy cannot work, what with it being a single example. Furthermore, one could logically argue (not that I am, or am going to try, but it's not an automatically unsound argument) that Somalia could have been even worse off today had it had a government over the past 15 years.
heresiarch @ 332: If you don't want to pay into Social Security, you're perfectly free to renounce your U.S. citizenship.
Strike out "pay into Social Security". Replace it with "pay the salaries of federal DEA agents who imprison, beat, and/or kill people who smoke pot, including those who need it to survive".
Would you stand behind the revised statement? If not, what is the distinction (just in regard to the "social contract", please) between your statement and mine?
Greg London @ 360: If civilization consisted largely of one-time interactions where the wrong choice could lead to death, I would have a much easier time accepting your argument. But I'm pretty sure civilization gets a lot more use out of this, to which this can be applied.
Avram @ 361: Out of babies' hands? Why, I would never. I mean, that's just unsanitary.
albatross @ #261:
For example, libertarians oppose the drug war and the draft, neither of which have much to do with property rights.
Libertarians (generally) consider their lives and their bodies to be their property. Furthermore, libertarians (generally) would consider all "political questions" to be answerable in terms of property. That doesn't mean, of course, that it's always simple to pinpoint whose property is whose, and what does and doesn't qualify as property.
I have been following this discussion with great interest. I learned some time back that I'm not well-suited for jumping into a discussion/debate like this one, as I get flustered and angry and lose my ability to make coherent arguments far too easily. But thank you to all sides for arguing so well.
I agree that a ton of anarcho-capitalists (well, if there are enough out there to weigh that much) get very starry-eyed. Their political philosophy goes from being the "fairest" or "most just" or "most effective" system, to being the "perfectly fair and just and flawless" system.
That said, I used to self-identify as one. I wouldn't now, but that's only because I haven't worried much lately about applying a label to my political philosophy--it's been tinged with some "left-libertarianism" over the past few years, but it's still way out there in the land of Nuts (TM Penn Jillette).
Not trying to start any back-and-forth on issues with this comment--but not discouraging that, either. Just saying my piece.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2008 | 4 |
Total: 4 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Robert Hutchinson:
Show all comments by Robert Hutchinson.