Attack libertarian/anarcho-capitalist philosophy - see if you can do it

[ProximityThrill]

I have libertarian sympathies (soft drug legalisation, gay marriage, free speech absolutism), but you simply cannot have these nice things without being tough on crime and having a strong border, which anarcho-capitalism cannot provide. Your ideology means nothing if it doesn't align with human nature.
That's why I think conservatism with libertarian characteristics is the ideal blend of ideology and practicality.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

I have libertarian sympathies (soft drug legalisation, gay marriage, free speech absolutism), but you simply cannot have these nice things without being tough on crime and having a strong border, which anarcho-capitalism cannot provide. Your ideology means nothing if it doesn't align with human nature.
That's why I think conservatism with libertarian characteristics is the ideal blend of ideology and practicality.

Please stay within the normative scope of this thread.
For instance, "strong border" and "tough on crime"
Do you claim there is an ethical right to exclude peaceful movers across political lines owned by no single person? Under the norms I outlined, only owners can exclude on their boundaries. A state border claims a right to aggress against non-aggressors on unowned/other-owned land. If you think that's justified, please give premises that make it universalizable without contradiction.
And define crime. If crime = aggression, then defense/restitution is consistent with libertarian ethics. But if being "tough" includes stuff like prior restraint or punishment without a victim, then justify creating new aggression to prevent hypothetical aggression, also without contradiction.
If you want to argue that the property rule itself is false, go pick a target and take a swing.
You'd need to deny agency/volition, deny rivalrousness, deny that conflict is anti-life, and/or show that first control + consent cannot be universalized without reintroducing conflict.
Otherwise, you're just stating an off-topic preference.

 

[ProximityThrill]

If you think that's justified, please give premises that make it universalizable without contradiction

It's universal in the sense that every State that exists has the right to control its own borders, a right which is defined by human historical events and is therefore recognised by most humans that aren't literal tribals.

If crime = aggression

'Crime', in the context I'm defining it, means anything that intentionally causes physical or financial harm to another person or company. This includes things like murder, rape, assault, theft, fraud, torture and hard drug selling - hard drugs here defined as drugs with high potential for individual and societal harm, as well as extreme addictive qualities (e.g. heroin, fentanyl, crack cocaine, methamphetamine.)

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

It's universal in the sense that every State that exists has the right to control its own borders, a right which is defined by human historical events and is therefore recognised by most humans that aren't literal tribals.

That's not universalizable, it's merely descriptive. "Every state does X" does not entail "anyone who claims to be a state is justified in X". To make it normative, you would need to show that the status of "state" grants rights that private persons lack, without contradiction. Yet if "having borders" creates a right to exclude or coerce, then every individual with property boundaries already satisfies that criterion, so the "state" adds nothing but a claim of exemption from reciprocity. If you were to universalize it, it would destroy the distinction between ruler and ruled. That is, everyone becomes a microstate and "sovereignty" collapses into pure self-ownership.

'Crime', in the context I'm defining it, means anything that intentionally causes physical or financial harm to another person or company.

So you're redefining crime as harm, but harm is an effect, not a criterion of justification. Every defensive act "harms" an aggressor. Every act of competition "harms" someone's financial position. Without the prior question "was this harm initiated or responsive?" the term becomes circular. Whatever you dislike counts as crime. Under the principle of non-aggression, only initiated force or fraud is wrongful, because only the initiation fails the universality test (it grants A a liberty to act it denies to B). Defensive or consensual harm remains justified.

 

[Retrofire]

Our species naturally assembles into hierarchies, with a dominant male or group of males. Every political system that has ever existed has been totalitarian. Political science is a lie, because it contradicts our very nature. Since power is consolidated ad Infinium, a fusion of the public and private sectors is expected... The best outcome humanity can hope for is for the interests of the powerful, for some inexplicable (probably, ideological) reason, to favor the interests of the powerless..

 

[The Last Stand]

To make it normative, you would need to show that the status of "state" grants rights that private persons lack, without contradiction. Yet if "having borders" creates a right to exclude or coerce, then every individual with property boundaries already satisfies that criterion,

What are "borders of a state" if not, metaphysical lines that indicate boundaries occupied through sovereignty? If you want to be normative, think of it like an apartment complex that occupies a lot which is owned/managed by a company, bodies, or even government. Well, that would be an oversimplification, but still.

Whatever you dislike counts as crime.

Thank God I don't run a country, because I'd consider defamation of Joan Crawford (I'm looking at you, Mommie Dearest) a crime punishable through arrest.

That is, everyone becomes a microstate and "sovereignty" collapses into pure self-ownership.

If you want to be spiritual, that exists as "free will" and personal responsibility. Adults are responsible for the well-being of themselves, but that does not absolve them from consequences.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

What are "borders of a state" if not, metaphysical lines that indicate boundaries occupied through sovereignty?

The answer to that question depends on what "sovereignty" actually means.
If sovereignty is defined as exclusive control over a territory, then the crucial question of "how is that control justified?" still remains. Consider a mugger holding a wallet. If control alone were equal to legitimacy, then that mugger would be a "sovereign" over the wallet's contents.
Consider the example of an apartment complex that you raised. An apartment complex has boundaries because the land was first claimed, improved, or bought by someone, and every resident inside is there by consent (lease/purchase/contract). Each link in that chain of control is voluntary. If a dispute arises, the owner can point to a traceable line of consent all the way back to first use, and that is what makes the borders legitimate.
Now compare that to a state border. The state does not trade ownership back to voluntary acquisition. What it does is declare a line and assert that everyone inside is under its jurisdiction, whether they consent or not. To universalize that rule ("any group of people may draw a line around others and rule them"), every individual or group could go and do the same thing, which collapses sovereignty into universal self-ownership, which happens to be the very thing that the state denies.
So, normatively, "sovereignty" either reduces to ordinary property rights or contradicts them. There's no middle ground there.

Adults are responsible for the well-being of themselves, but that does not absolve them from consequences.

Correct, but "consequence" only carries ethical weight if the response itself is justified.
Consider a situation in which you defend yourself from a mugger. When you do that, the mugger faces consequences, but those consequences are restorative, they restore the violated boundary.
If someone is punished for actions that did not violate anyone's rights, that's aggression under a different name, not "consequence". The normative question is not whether someone is experiencing consequences, but whether the force behind those consequences can be justified under the same universal rule that binds everyone else.
And that's the difference between ethics and power. The former is about what can be justified for everyone without contradiction. The latter is just about who can get away with it. The thread is about the first, not the second.

Regarding borders, if you want to defend your point, then give premises that let a state rightfully bind non-consenting owners on land that the state doesn't own and make them reciprocal (rules that you would accept if your neighbor declares that you are inside his sovereignty). Otherwise you're either returning to property (which is my view) or asserting a double standard (which is contradictory)

---

Our species naturally assembles into hierarchies, with a dominant male or group of males. Every political system that has ever existed has been totalitarian. Political science is a lie, because it contradicts our very nature. Since power is consolidated ad Infinium, a fusion of the public and private sectors is expected... The best outcome humanity can hope for is for the interests of the powerful, for some inexplicable (probably, ideological) reason, to favor the interests of the powerless..

You're describing what you think is likely. This thread is about testing what ought to be and whether the ethic I stated in the OP is contradictory. Descriptivism doesn't touch that.

Description is not justification. From "hierarchies tend to form" it does not follow that aggression is justified. At most you have argued "people will violate the ethic", which is a sociology claim and not a refutation of the ethic.
At the same time, your own post is normative. To say that "the best outcome is X" is to voice a should, which means you accept normativity. The question is whether your "might = right" surrogate can be universalized without contradiction. And it can't, for if consolidated power is the criterion of right, then any stronger coalition supersedes it tomorrow, making the notion of "right" hollow.

If you actually want to attack the position I outlined in OP, then show that the homesteading/consent rule cannot be universalized without generating conflict (in which case the rule would fail its own purpose of conflict avoidance) or show that denying exclusive control over first-use does not reduce to endorsing permanent conflict (which would undercut your own exclusive control over your body and your time that you need to argue here).
If you're only here to assert inevitability, then that's off scope. If you're asserting might makes right, say so plainly and defend it as a norm. In which case, go and resolve the problem that, by your own standard, your own claims have no standing the moment a stronger party says otherwise.

 

[Nox Was Right]

All libertarian ideologies are disingenuous and rely on the typical leftist childish tantrum of entirely rejecting a concept instead of fixing its flaws. You will assume that any authority is evil, and that if we just all could be le equal everything would work fine in the best of worlds, so already you're taking an unrealistically perfect scenario for your idea, and the worst possible for the other. Libertarianism, any honest person will recognize, is nothing but absolute butthurt over real or imagined government misconduct. You deliberately forget why every single society in History established leaders in some way, and just pretend that it could be long lasting to have "everyone make their own decision and be le free". This is what you're factually defending, and no pilpul will change that.

Leaders exist because people are different, and you need the people with the best abilities to lead, democracy, especially universal democracy, is an utterly failed idea that denies human nature. Most people are not intelligent enough to understand leadership decisions, and they don't even care about them in the first place. What we need to work towards is meritocracies so leaders are the best possible candidates, and counter-powers from the people in the form of weaponry so the people can overthrow a government if it becomes despotic. Meritocratic non-hereditary leaderships with the people keeping the power to defend themselves, taking the best ideas from the Roman Empire, NS Germany and the early US, are what is needed for a healthy society.

Childish reasonings of "current government bad, therefore me hate all governments, don't tread on snek" are worthless and no amount of jewish economics and boomer white flight innawoods will change that. If you want to maximize freedom, support NS, that's the logical conclusion every single honest person comes to on free speech spaces for a reason.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Most of what you wrote is not an argument
There's only one real salvageable claim, and I'll address that

Leaders exist because people are different, and you need the people with the best abilities to lead

A difference in ability does not imply a right to domination.
From an ontological point of view, ability is a measure of how efficiently an agent transforms means into ends, but ethics concerns how agents coexist without conflict over those means. A "leader" may coordinate others by consent, which would be voluntary hierarchy, perfectly compatible with the libertarian norms I outlined. But coercive hierarchy assumes a right to override the will and property of others without consent. Which reintroduces the very conflict ethics exists to prevent.

If your "best leaders" rule by consent, that is not anti-libertarian. If they rule by imposition, then you're replacing meritocracy with force. Either leadership is in the context of voluntary cooperation, which is ethically valid and already within the libertarian scope, or leadership is in the context of coercion, in which case go and justify the contradiction of claiming "the best" while forbidding choice by the ones led by them. Pick one

 

[Nox Was Right]

Most of what you wrote is not an argument
There's only one real salvageable claim, and I'll address that

A difference in ability does not imply a right to domination.
From an ontological point of view, ability is a measure of how efficiently an agent transforms means into ends, but ethics concerns how agents coexist without conflict over those means. A "leader" may coordinate others by consent, which would be voluntary hierarchy, perfectly compatible with the libertarian norms I outlined. But coercive hierarchy assumes a right to override the will and property of others without consent. Which reintroduces the very conflict ethics exists to prevent.

If your "best leaders" rule by consent, that is not anti-libertarian. If they rule by imposition, then you're replacing meritocracy with force. Either leadership is in the context of voluntary cooperation, which is ethically valid and already within the libertarian scope, or leadership is in the context of coercion, in which case go and justify the contradiction of claiming "the best" while forbidding choice by the ones led by them. Pick one

Word salad just to say "Everything that is good is libertarian, anything that isn't good isn't libertarian." Again, all libertarians are pilpulers, cowards or conscious liars, who pretend "the economy" is an independent entity separate from humanity. It's a jewish ideology to prevent Aryans from establishing NS-styles societies that can effectively fight back. You always argue in bad faith, because of your childhood trauma of gubernment bad. If you're a naive teenager, you're a NS who doesn't know it yet, if you're an adult, you're an enemy of humanity.

 

[BigMan13]

Extremely deregulated buisiness really only works for free cities or groups that already run themselves. Works for Singapore, questionably; doesn't really work for anybody else. It's a niche economic and political system that works in niche moments.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Extremely deregulated buisiness really only works for free cities or groups that already run themselves. Works for Singapore, questionably; doesn't really work for anybody else. It's a niche economic and political system that works in niche moments.

That's a historical observation, not an argument. This thread is about whether libertarian ethics are true, not to describe where they have been implemented. "It only works in niche cases" is a description of an outcome, it does not address whether voluntary exchange and property rights are the only non-contradictory basis for human coexistence

 

[Rolex]

I've wondered about this topic for a while. I don't have any full confutation of it but I have some general issues with its feasibility and concerns about its implementation.

For the sake of argument, are we assuming this philosophy being the founding idea for a brand new nation populated by a single race or culture? Or the USA dissolving its government and going full send toward free markets and no laws? Those two would have very, very different outcomes.

The main issue with it is that government and laws are like perma-baked into our wiring.
Let's say it happened in the US though, so much money would start piling up that a corporate government of sorts would naturally arise. You'd have to rely on literal perpetual corporate warfare to keep from any single ruler showing up. Would probably end up looking pretty feudal. There would be a few decades of product critics being covertly killed, followed by uprisings and reorganization. If it were even possible to keep a government from forming, It'd be a bloody few decades before any solid arrangement would be found.
Companies want white money, but without the inherent strength of white society. Could we get to a point where a strong, unified people dictate the market and not the other way around?

When we talk about true anarcho-capitalism, literally no real laws and zero market restrictions, there are so many things to take into consideration that it's hard to really discuss fully.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

For the sake of argument, are we assuming this philosophy being the founding idea for a brand new nation populated by a single race or culture? Or the USA dissolving its government and going full send toward free markets and no laws? Those two would have very, very different outcomes.

What makes you think the anarcho-capitalist position entails no laws?
I outlined the position in the OP and posited laws that are to be upheld by every human being in all situations, no exemptions. Specifically, property norms that serve the purpose of avoiding conflict. The goal of this thread is to see if there is any contradiction within the framework.

The main issue with it is that government and laws are like perma-baked into our wiring.

If that were true, what does it say about your wiring? You have posted here under your own agency and claimed control over your own time and words instead of petitioning a spokesman. So you are acting as if self-ownership is real.
Regardless, your point is a description and not if justification. Even if lots of people crave rulers, that does not tell us what is right or wrong.

a corporate government

Feudalism is a political privilege. Nobody, whether they call themselves a government, a mafia, a mugger, or a firm, has the right to tax or conscript.

Either way, show how the rule of first control + consent is contradictory (by means of logical contradiction, not sociological forecast) and/or propose a different universal rule that resolves conflict over scarce means without contradiction.

 

[Rolex]

What makes you think the anarcho-capitalist position entails no laws?
I outlined the position in the OP and posited laws that are to be upheld by every human being in all situations, no exemptions. Specifically, property norms that serve the purpose of avoiding conflict. The goal of this thread is to see if there is any contradiction within the framework.

If that were true, what does it say about your wiring? You have posted here under your own agency and claimed control over your own time and words instead of petitioning a spokesman. So you are acting as if self-ownership is real.
Regardless, your point is a description and not if justification. Even if lots of people crave rulers, that does not tell us what is right or wrong.

Feudalism is a political privilege. Nobody, whether they call themselves a government, a mafia, a mugger, or a firm, has the right to tax or conscript.

Either way, show how the rule of first control + consent is contradictory (by means of logical contradiction, not sociological forecast) and/or propose a different universal rule that resolves conflict over scarce means without contradiction.

Good points on all counts. I think such a state could function in a country of truly like minded people. I think the midwit masses would fuck it up spectacularly in the US. I worry about borders and building enough unified authority for the enforcement of laws without having a proper governing body though. What are your suggestions for those things?

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Good points on all counts. I think such a state could function in a country of truly like minded people. I think the midwit masses would fuck it up spectacularly in the US. I worry about borders and building enough unified authority for the enforcement of laws without having a proper governing body though. What are your suggestions for those things?

Regarding forecasting how such a framework works in practice, it helps to reframe the questions as "I want xyz, how can I get it without coercing peaceful people?". That way, the solution follows from the principle itself.
Regarding law enforcement, it means that everyone is free to enforce law (to act against aggression), for themselves as well as on behalf of third parties who ask or contract for it. Because barring people from enforcing law is to coerce peaceful people. In other words, "law enforcement" exists, as a competitive market, rather than a monopolized structure.
Borders as political frontiers no longer exist, only the edges of owned and embordered land remain. That is, fences, walls, access control, and voluntary defense alliances. The owners of a region are free to pool funds for perimeter defense, making a "private border". The only required thing is consent among those footing the bill, and not some "governing body".
There is no authority in the "right to rule" sense, but every human being has the authority to act in defense, and to delegate defense. If someone abuses such a mandate (starts aggressing instead of defending), they're going up against 8 billion people with the authority to stop them.

In other words, protection, coordination, and exclusion still exist, but without all the horrible abuse and tyranny and enshittification that comes from these things being monopolized by a single coercive provider. But legislation is gone, replaced by law.

 

[Nox Was Right]

Nobody, whether they call themselves a government, a mafia, a mugger, or a firm, has the right to tax or conscript.

I'm proven right once again, all libertarians are just arguing that all forms of authorities are evil because they're so scared and self-centered they can't even begin to imagine a positive authority. They're as ridiculous as commies wanting to suppress the very idea of money and private property. They don't like the flaws in something, so they simply advocate to remove the entire thing. "Some laws are unfair, remove every single law! Governments can be bad, let's live in complete anarchy! Money can be misused, let's delete the idea of money!"

Lolbertarianism (outside of naive teenagers) is always either extremely traumatized people projecting their insecurities onto the universe, or enemies of the Aryan race doing their best to stop us from regrouping and becoming strong. It is a hyper individualist, don't care I got mine, boomer stance created by jews. It's also an ideology, like anarchism, that attracts many passive-aggressive contrarians bitches who will change their entire sets of beliefs and contradict their own arguments just to disagree with and annoy you.

This guy is calling his dad telling him to not take from the cookie jar a mafioso. It's either bait or trauma-induced stupidity. To any humans here, don't bother taking this baiter seriously, he is a pilpuler arguing in extremely bad faith.

 

[The Last Stand]

Companies want white money, but without the inherent strength of white society. Could we get to a point where a strong, unified people dictate the market and not the other way around?

What does race have to do with it?

I'm proven right once again, all libertarians are just arguing that all forms of authorities are evil because they're so scared and self-centered they can't even begin to imagine a positive authority.

In a perfect world, the United States Constitution would be an ideal form of authority that recognizes freedom and human rights while upholding wrongdoers that would want to infringe on those rights.

In a perfect world, people would be able to advocate and regulate themselves with minimal interference. We don’t live in a perfect world, human beings are imperfect, virtuous and conscientious to change.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

In a perfect world, the United States Constitution would be an ideal form of authority that recognizes freedom and human rights while upholding wrongdoers that would want to infringe on those rights.

In a perfect world, people would be able to advocate and regulate themselves with minimal interference. We don’t live in a perfect world, human beings are imperfect, virtuous and conscientious to change.

I think what you need to keep in mind is that the libertarian ideas I defend in this thread are not built on any assumption of perfection, but rather they are built on the fact of imperfection.
If human beings are flawed, it raises the question of whether we mitigate that flaw by giving some people power over others, or by denying anyone the power to rule without consent. Governments are also just a set of humans, which means that all you achieve by centralizing imperfection is concentrate it.
At its best moments, the US constitution recognized the same tension. It was an early attempt to bind rulers with written limits. And you can see how that ended up, because the limits were enforced by the rulers. What libertarianism (consistently applied as anarchism) does is push the idea one step further, towards not binding rulers, but removing the monopoly that makes rulership possible.

The framework does not expect people to become angels, it's designed the way it is because they aren't. That is why property and consent are treated as universal (valid for everybody at all times in every situation) constraints on everyone's behavior, including those who want to rule "for good reasons"

 

[The Last Stand]

Lolbertarianism (outside of naive teenagers) is always either extremely traumatized people projecting their insecurities onto the universe, or enemies of the Aryan race doing their best to stop us from regrouping and becoming strong. It is a hyper individualist, don't care I got mine, boomer stance created by jews. It's also an ideology,

Why would Jews want to create a system where autonomy is determined through property norms than government?