Rick Santorum: Libertarian Ideas 'don't work in practice'

Last night on The Independents, Rick Santorum, a longtime critic of libertarianism, had a frank exchange of views on the topic with the co-hosts. You can watch it below:

Reason on Santorum here.

Comments

[Old Man With Candy]

Mmmm, yummy santorum, fresh from the source.

[fish]

Rick Santorum: Libertarian Ideas 'don't work in practice'

Kinda like your presidential aspirations??..

[Jumbie]

Sadly, I just found out Santorum is only in his 50s. We could easily be stuck with this idiot's presidential ambitions for the next 30 years and since he's such a jester, he'll be given prime spots in media coverage.

There's nothing worse than stale santorum.

[gaijin]

"Would you use government to plug my hole?"

lol!

[Stevie OneLeg]

It was the best moment in television so far this year. Hilarious!

[Ken Shultz]

Kennedy: "Would you use government to plug my hole"?

Santorum: "What I'm suggesting is that there are things that government does".

----Public school education

----Vocational training programs.

His understanding of libertarianism seems to be nil. ...as if Rand Paul wanted get rid of public schools? As if teachers' unions were the solution to our problems?

I'm not sure I understand what's especially Republican about him either.

He isn't Republican. He's just squeamish.

[Monty Crisco]

Absolutely this. He is a big-government statist. He knows what an authoritarian is (after all, he IS one), so he knows he must hate libertarians, the authoritarian's diametric opposite. So he spews some such CLEARLY DISPROVABLE bullshit that libertarian ideas don't work. Someone should have asked him if Reagan's reforms touched off 20 years of unprecedented economic growth.

[Drake]

He's a moron without a notion of the basic concepts of Federalism which most Republicans at least pay lip service to.

[Warren's Strapon]

Why is Santorum taken seriously? Last time he won an election, I was still in my 20's.

[meister574]

He's pro-life, pro-interventionist and anti-gay. That pretty much qualifies him as a modern Republican.

[fish]

Kennedy: "Would you use government to plug my hole"?

When I saw this my first notion was Teddy and scotch. There's hole plugging I endorse!

[Pope Jimbo]

What made me laugh most was that Kennedy's comment went completely over his head. I don't think it registered at any level, that her comment might have some other meaning.

[antisocial-ist]

Fuck Rick Santorum.
That is all.

[Alice Bowie]

I think Libertarians are very intelligent people and have many great Ideas. I'm a liberal and share few things with libertarians.

As long as our productivity and meal ticket is based off of money, libertarianism will be good.

Once money is eliminated from the equation (and it will be some day), then libertarianism will either have to change or go away.

[Monty Crisco]

Keep praying for the robot economy, Alice, and then we can have true communism. Keep the faith, comrade!

[Alice Bowie]

Let me tell you something Monty,

Given the state of the world today and people's callous attitude. Especially that of the elite, the last thing I would do is pray for a robot economy.

Once the elite have robot cops, that will be the end for many people on this planet. There will be no comrade or communism.

[Monty Crisco]

The elite DO have robot cops, effectively.
And if you are really a liberal, I am wondering where your disdain for elites comes from.

[Alice Bowie]

There are many rich people in America that look out for the good for the little guy and all people in general.

There are people (i call them elite) that may be rich but have authority, power, and abuse the hell out of it. Cops, politicians, security guards, Bouncers, judges, etc.

I have no disdain for all of the elite. I believe that we will always have an elite. But I hope that our future doesn't have callous people. Perhaps a wish but from what I see right now, the future is ugly.

[Monty Crisco]

Wishing for a future with no "callous people" (and wondering what you are therefore doing on these comments) is probably as hopeless as expecting one where there is no money. You're a strange bird, Alice...

[poloniusium]

What's the difference between LEO's now and robot LEO's of the future?

Maybe Peace Droids wouldn't have a union.

[sarcasmic]

As long as our productivity and meal ticket is based off of money, libertarianism will be good.

What the heck does that even mean?

[Alice Bowie]

As you can see, Labor is becoming obsolete in America. THis is why so many more people are on some form of public assistance or are losing homes and are unable to recover financially and have lost money in the crash.

People that had money in 2008 in the market and had jobs that were stable saw their money go down and then up. However, people that lost their jobs were forced to liquidate and are now kicking themselves as the market recovered.

What I am saying is that once money goes away, liberty will probably go with it.

[sarcasmic]

I see. So like most liberals you are profoundly ignorant of economics. That makes sense.

[Alice Bowie]

You know that I'm a liberal that works in Finance and deal with many macro economic factors.

[sarcasmic]

I don't care where you work. That statement of yours, and the one about a future with no money, shows that you don't understand the basic concept of scarcity. If you don't understand scarcity, then you don't understand anything at all about economics.

[Alice Bowie]

What is scarce Sarcasmic?

Food? Water?

We create the scarcity. Yes, the beach house is scarce.

[Jordan]

Holy shit, you are an unbelievable retard. You really, really need to take a basic econ class. Read it before you embarrass yourself further.

[Alice Bowie]

as technology pushes forward, you'll see that we can have enough food, water, healthcare, housing for everyone.

What we are having trouble figuring out is how to make people productive once currency does go away.

[sarcasmic]

as technology pushes forward, you'll see that we can have enough food, water, healthcare, housing for everyone.

Uh, no. That will never happen. Technology doesn't make stuff. People do. People make, operate and maintain the technology. It all comes down to human productivity. So there will always be scarcity. There will never be enough of everything to go around for everyone. Saying that there will be is political thinking, not economic thinking.

What we are having trouble figuring out is how to make people productive once currency does go away.

You're saying we won't need money because people will be so productive that it won't be necessary, then wonder how to keep people productive without it.

Do you see the contradiction?

[Jordan]

Like I said, you don't know what scarcity means. Food, water, healthcare, and housing will never be free. Never. Anything with a price attached to it is scarce.

[sarcasmic]

"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."

? Thomas Sowell

[sarcasmic]

Looks to me like you've go politics down pat. Economics, not so much.

[sarcasmic]

*got*

[Monty Crisco]

Let me guess: you're a big Thomas Piketty fan?

[Jordan]

And Obama is a constitutional law scholar who believes that the 4th Amendment permits wiretapping the entire country, murdering and indefinitely detaining Americans without trial is constitutional, and the commerce clause overrides the rest of the Constitution.

[fuck you tulpa]

"You know that I'm a liberal that works in Finance and deal with many macro economic factors."

So, are you running PB's sockpuppet or vice versa?

[Almanian!]

Labor is becoming obsolete in America

Tell that to the 2000 people working in my plant today - 450 of whom we hired in the last two years.

My fucking God but you're ignorant.

[Warren]

Alice,
If you think it's possible for a society to exist without money then you don't know what money is.

[sarcasmic]

I think Alice suffers from the common liberal misconception that wealth and money are not the same thing.

[Free Society]

you mean to say "are the same" thing? Because they aren't equivalents.

[LynchPin1477]

As you can see, Labor is becoming obsolete in America

You mean manual labor, like factory work? Yes, that has been a trend for a while thanks to automation and cheaper overseas labor, both of which have made consumer goods more affordable AND freed up more people to join the service economy. But if by labor, you mean human effort, then no, I don't see that.

THis is why so many more people are on some form of public assistance or are losing homes and are unable to recover financially and have lost money in the crash.

The crash certainly wiped out a lot of wealth and caused the jobless rate to spike. But those public assistance programs you mention are, to a degree, self-perpetuating.

Just imagine for a moment what the economy would look like if we got rid of so many onerous, anti-competition, cronyist regulations and red tape. You can already see hints of this with things like Uber and Airbnb, which of course, local governments are trying to stifle. I'm just speculating, and on some level this is unknowable, but I would wager a lot of money that the jobless rate would drop by A LOT if ingenuity and entrepreneurship were truly allowed to flourish.

All of which is to say, money or a lack thereof has nothing to do with it.

[sarcasmic]

I would wager a lot of money that the jobless rate would drop by A LOT if ingenuity and entrepreneurship were truly allowed to flourish.

I agree. If anyone could try to make a buck off their favorite hobby without first having to ask permission and obey orders from a dozen government assholes, there would be no recession.

[Ken Shultz]

"People that had money in 2008 in the market and had jobs that were stable saw their money go down and then up. However, people that lost their jobs were forced to liquidate and are now kicking themselves as the market recovered."

That's called "creative destruction", Alice, and it's a feature, not a bug.

That's how the old order is displaced. That's why it's so hard to pass wealth down past the third generation. That's why we don't use buggy-whips anymore.

The economy without creative destruction looks like the Soviet Union's before it collapsed. This is how and why things change.

Change is frightening and scary and absolutely necessary, and what you described is the way it happens.

The way people did things before wasn't sustainable, and now they can't or, rather, hopefully, won't do things that way anymore. If we'd kept things going the way they were in 2006, we'd just be digging ourselves out of a deeper hole.

[Alice Bowie]

Very familiar with creative destructuion.

What has made the difference in the 20th century and beyond is the fact that we have safety nets once this occurs.

In order for capitalism to work, certain businesses, products, services, and ideas have to fail or become obsolete.

I feel that we should have safety nets so that people are willing to try again.

It's one of the reasons we got rid of debtor's prison.

[DesigNate]

Safety nets like bailing out the Banks?

[DesigNate]

We are the most productive country in the world (something like 96%). Even more so than China, and they can FORCE you to work! The idea that labor is becoming obsolete in America is fucking retarded.

Unless you were referring to Labor as in Unions, then you'd be correct. And why not, since they haven't really done much for their members since getting two weekends implemented and then agitating for higher and higher wages till the companies can't afford to hire any new people.

[Rhywun]

Once money is eliminated from the equation

Star Trek is fiction, Alice.

[Alice Bowie]

So was that flip-phone Kirk used to say "Beam me up Scotty"

[Rhywun]

So was that flip-phone Kirk used to say "Beam me up Scotty"

Oh, we've tried the moneyless society. Here is one example of what you get.

[Loki]

Could combine into one if OK with combining generating and sending loads at SS level.

Read the story you linked. If you don't mind, I'm going to go hang myself now. Good God, that's depressing as fuck.

[Rhywun]

Wut?

I don't know what you pasted there but it wasn't in the story - which was about Havana not ... engineering?

[fuck you tulpa]

Lol, you mean the RADIO?

You're dumb.

[LynchPin1477]

I'm curious --- what do you think money is and what purpose do you think it serves?

[Almanian!]

Yes, never in human history have people bartered for goods and services without the proxy of money facilitating the exchange. And it's the MONEY that makes the libertarianish....ideas and...things....work? Wha?

[Monty Crisco]

The fact that this dipshit could even DREAM about being President truely shows the depth and wealth of opportunity in America. Seriously, in a different time and place he would have been a corrupt church official content with abusing the serfs and molesting boys...

[Warren's Strapon]

He is trying to fail upwards. He is only running for president because he lost his Senate seat.

[Free Society]

Libertarian Ideas 'don't work in practice'

Well that's not opinion, it's objectively false. Freedom works. Political authority doesn't. Rick Santorum's brand of fascism doesn't work.

[Pro Libertate]

Libertarian ideas are working here right now, despite the efforts of people like Santorum to destroy any trace of them. You know, the libertarian ideas that made this country as rich and as powerful as it is. Moron.

Of course, that moron and others like him, left and right, are winning the war on freedom.

[Free Society]

No, stupid. It's the fusion of church and state that made America great. Duh.

[sarcasmic]

Rick Santorum: Libertarian Straw Man Ideas 'don't work in practice'

[Hayeksplosives]

This is all you need to know about Rick Santorum (from a 2005 interview with NPR):

"They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do. Government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulation low and that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues, you know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world, and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can't go it alone, that there is no such society that I'm aware of where we've had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture. "

He can't even hear how terrible he sounds.

[DesigNate]

Nope, no "radical individualism" in the founders. None whatsoever.

[Austrian Anarchy]

That's it. I'm never voting for him, unless he runs against Lamar Alexander for something.

[Free Society]

A guy with anarchy in his name probably shouldn't vote for anything except maybe tax referendums. I would sooner reject evil entirely than legitimize the lesser of two evils.

[Almanian!]

Also, Rick Santorum can fuck himself in his Santorum with his own Santorum.

"Rick Santorum - go fuck yourself."

[Warren]

Would you use government to plug my hole?

OMFSM Kennedy, I'm sorry. I take back half of all the nasty things I said about you. That was... savory.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

What's sad is that conservatives used to at least have a coalition of libertarian and SoCon elements. They even had people who were libertarian and SoCon *at the same time.*

Santorum doesn't even acknowledge this history. Honest discussion would require that he at least account for facts which seem to contradict his narrative. He could explain why he thinks the old SoCon/libertarian fusion didn't work. But he can't pretend it didn't happen.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

It's unfortunate that Kennedy didn't call him on this, almost as if she *agrees* with his about libertarianism and conservatism being inherently incompatible.

[sarcasmic]

Honest discussion would require him acknowledging that libertarians support limited government, not no government.

But that won't happen since it appears all his rehearsed attacks against libertarianism are attacks against the idea that there should be no government at all.

[Free Society]

Honest discussion would require him acknowledging that libertarians support limited government, not no government.

Your camp of libertarians maybe, not mine. Libertarian philosophy ranges from minarchy to anarchy.

[sarcasmic]

Most libertarians accept the reality that government, as in some bunch of assholes using organized violence as a license to steal, will always exist. Since it is unavoidable, then it is best to keep it limited.

[Free Society]

I'm not hankering for another discussion where you dismiss anarcho-capitalism out of hand, without any genuine consideration. What I'm arguing for here, is that libertarian philosophy is not the province of minarchists solely, to the exclusion of anarchists.

[sarcasmic]

I haven't dismissed it out of hand. I've dismissed it after much thought on how it could exist without some group of armed assholes rising up and forming a government. Without some explanation on how to keep that from happening, I'm afraid I must dismiss anarcho-anything.
Even the idea of competing security forces doesn't work for me, since there's nothing to stop one from killing the other and forcing everyone to pay whether they want to or not.

[Free Society]

I haven't dismissed it out of hand. I've dismissed it after much thought on how it could exist without some group of armed assholes rising up and forming a government.

Last time we spoke I asked you to consider how certain problems might be solved outside of the context of a political monopoly of aggression. Your answer was basically "Nope can't work at all." That's dismissal out of hand.

Without some explanation on how to keep that from happening, I'm afraid I must dismiss anarcho-anything.

How does one keep a middle-eastern shithole from devolving into a theocratic tyranny? The political culture would need to change. Just as with anarchy, if a population were unaccepting of being tax-livestock then they'll reject such systems. You have a special sort of kinship with the neolithic caveman who argued that it would be impossible to govern a tribe without an alpha male raping all the women.

Even the idea of competing security forces doesn't work for me, since there's nothing to stop one from killing the other and forcing everyone to pay whether they want to or not.

The market and economics. The only means by which one can circumvent the laws and incentives of economics is to use political coercion. In the absence of political coercion, I have doubts that Microsoft or whoever is going to kick in your door and shoot your dog so you'll buy their software.

[sarcasmic]

In the absence of political coercion, I have doubts that Microsoft or whoever is going to kick in your door and shoot your dog so you'll buy their software.

No, but the local security firm might. What's going to stop them? They've got organized violence which always triumphs over the individual.

[Free Society]

Competitors. Economics. Political culture. Anarcho-capitalism isn't a system where every individual is their own island. I don't advocate the abolition of society or even abolition of "hierarchy". Interdependence would exist as before, but with logically consistent principles governing human interaction instead of inconsistency and injustice dominating those interactions.

[sarcasmic]

Interdependence would exist as before, but with logically consistent principles governing human interaction instead of inconsistency and injustice dominating those interactions.

You seem to be ignoring human nature. Human nature is to take the easy way, and it's easier to plunder than to produce.
So unless you change human nature, which I don't see happening, how do you stop people from using organized violence for the purpose of plunder (government)?

[Free Society]

You seem to be ignoring human nature. Human nature is to take the easy way, and it's easier to plunder than to produce.

I would say that's true of yourself. Human beings respond to incentives. If you create an arbitrary class of people entitled to disregard their moral obligations without any fear of punishment, you're creating the circumstances necessary for injustice to flourish. People are creatures of incentives. I propose that the incentives be arranged in a way that disincentivizes plunder and mayhem, unlike the current system which codifies it.

how do you stop people from using organized violence for the purpose of plunder (government)?

Insurance companies, dispute resolution services and protection agencies. There is government in anarcho-capitalism, but it's highly diffuse and controlled by market forces instead of a political elite.

[sarcasmic]

There is government in anarcho-capitalism, but it's highly diffuse and controlled by market forces instead of a political elite.

Good luck keeping it that way.

[Free Society]

Good luck keeping it that way.

Keeping your state system under the lock and key of wise and benevolent masters has yet to materialize. Good luck yourself.

[sarcasmic]

Keeping your state system under the lock and key of wise and benevolent masters has yet to materialize. Good luck yourself.

I'm not arguing in favor of a state system. I'm asking you to tell me how you would prevent one from emerging out of your an-cap system.

So far you haven't given me a good answer.

[Free Society]

So far you haven't given me a good answer.

You're the same fellow who told me a while back there was no conceivable way to organize a justice system without a state monopoly. Even though that's literally been done successfully. You're unwilling to accept any answer that isn't "state monopoly" in my experience. Though perhaps I'm just not using the arguments that will warm the cockles of your heart.

[sarcasmic]

You're the same fellow who told me a while back there was no conceivable way to organize a justice system without a state monopoly.

I asked how there can be competition among people who deal in death, without one group killing off the rest and then having a monopoly.

[Free Society]

I asked how there can be competition among people who deal in death, without one group killing off the rest and then having a monopoly.

They don't deal in death. There is overwhelming demand in society for justice and liberty. Companies predicated on the provision of that service wouldn't be in business long if they "dealt in death". That's a more apt description of a statist military.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

You're right, you can't keep the state under lock and key. (See my book below.)

But you can have a free society a hell of a lot longer with a Constitutional Republic than you can with what amounts to tribal gangs vying for power.

A republic has limits. What will inevitably stem from an anarchy will be government without the limits.

[Free Society]

But you can have a free society a hell of a lot longer with a Constitutional Republic than you can with what amounts to tribal gangs vying for power.

Hmmmm. Well first you give me an undemonstrated assertion and then you finish me off with the one-two punch of a false dichotomy.

[fuck you tulpa]

"I would say that's true of yourself. "
It's trur of everyone, the brain is wired to take the path of least resistance.

Sometimes, we are able to recognize that there are superior alternatives that require more efftort, but no, it's NOT just him, it's you too, and everyone else.

[Soros' Wank-noose]

This^^

A little observation I've made over the years, and have shown to the wife. When in a movie theater where a specific screen has two different paths to the seats-one close the entry way, and one that requires further walking (as in a stadium seating setup)-I have found overwhelmingly that the seats on "closer" side fill up much more quickly than the seats on the "far" end. People, for whatever reason(s) tend to take that easier path.

Yeah, it's a stretch from walking short distances to major political and social philosophies, but people do tend to be like lightning in this respect.

[Free Society]

It's trur of everyone, the brain is wired to take the path of least resistance.

Yes, which is why society will never satisfactorially control the state. The path of least resistance hardwiring entices people to borrow against the credit of the unborn. "In the long run, we're all dead" as a famous state fellator once said. In that same long-run, the state system is inevitably unsustainable and unquestionably an injustice. Denying that it's the most viable option for promoting freedom and justice, would be an understatement.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Yes, if libertarianism has an failing, it's the anarchists.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

an

[Free Society]

Yes, if libertarianism has an failing, it's the anarchists.

Yes, those damn anarchists with their logical consistency and moral integrity.

[fuck you tulpa]

"Yes, those damn anarchists with their logical consistency and moral integrity."

Oh ok you're that guy, die in a grease fire.

[Free Society]

[Free Society]

Oh ok you're that guy, die in a grease fire.

Solid argument.

[Cytotoxic]

He's like anarchist Bo.

[sarcasmic]

Tell me how an an-cap society prevents government from forming? Seriously.

[Free Society]

The political culture of a free society wouldn't allow it. Secondly, without a readily available or constructable tax infrastructure, there's no basis for a state to form.

A free society would be governed, it would have laws and there would be order. A mixture of insurance companies, courts/arbitrators and protection agencies working in concert.

Tell me how any society now prevents a 'tyranny' from forming? Seriously. You think that a tyrant will protect us from tyranny?

[sarcasmic]

A mixture of insurance companies, courts/arbitrators and protection agencies working in concert.

What happens when one of those protection agencies gets tired of having to woo customers into voluntarily purchasing their services, and decides to kill the competition so there's no one to prevent them from forcing everyone to purchase their services? How can people not allow this to happen? The agency has organized violence at its disposal. The only way to fight off organized violence is with organized violence, and the winner can still force everyone to pay. I don't see a way out of it.

[Free Society]

What happens when one of those protection agencies gets tired of having to woo customers into voluntarily purchasing their services, and decides to kill the competition so there's no one to prevent them from forcing everyone to purchase their services?

Competition, economics, political culture. There's an infinite number of exigent circumstances you can pull from to conclude that it won't work. If I were to play that game with the statism you advocate, I would similarly have an infinite number of ordinary circumstances to draw from.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Anarchism completely ignores the fact that there are evil people in the world who will not follow your model.

[Free Society]

Anarchism completely ignores the fact that there are evil people in the world who will not follow your model.

No, no it doesn't. There would be laws and enforcement of said laws in a stateless society. Statism ignores the fact that there are evil people in the world who will flock towards government power like a moth to a flame.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

There would be laws and enforcement of said laws in a stateless society.

Who makes and enforces these laws?

[Free Society]

Who makes and enforces these laws?

Insurance companies, courts and arbitrators (think Common Law, which developed outside of state control) and protection agencies.

The protection of law is a service whose demand would be high enough to allow the market to meet that demand with supply.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Okay, I'm a bad guy.

I don't recognize your authority in this matter. Whatcha gonna do?

[Free Society]

What authority? Authority over my property? My person?

[Free Society]

Okay, I'm a bad guy.
I don't recognize your authority in this matter. Whatcha gonna do?

I'll assume you mugged me on the street. So I call up my protection agency and report the crime. The PA then gets in contact with Francisco's PA and to inform them of the allegations against their customer.
-You deny that you committed a crime.
-My PA moves to arrest you, but since you deny the crime, your own PA steps in with an injunction. Now it goes to trial.
-Each of us are represented by either our own lawyer, or a PA lawyer or an insurance company lawyer or some combination thereof.
-Each party mutually agrees to a specific set of judges or court to hear the case.
-Each party agrees to abide by the decision of the arbitrator/court, as per their contract with their PA and/or insurance company.
-Suppose you're found guilty. Your insurance company may pay restitution or if your crime were egregious enough my lawyers might demand jail time etc. If you refuse to comply with the decision of the court, you'll be in breach of your contracts with the PA and insurance co. If your breach of contract is serious enough, you'll be cancelled and you'll have a hard time finding another ins co/PA to protect you and your property. Perhaps even the court system would outlaw you, which strips of your protections.
-The economic and social consequence of committing evil, and then persisting in that evil would overwhelmingly incentivize you not be a mugger.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

-Each party mutually agrees to a specific set of judges or court to hear the case.
-Each party agrees to abide by the decision of the arbitrator/court, as per their contract with their PA and/or insurance company.

No, I don't think I'll agree.

In fact, what I'll do instead is create MY OWN PA. Mine will be backed by more guns than yours, and instead of me paying for my crimes, my PA will kill your PA and then proceed to take all the shit belonging to those your PA was supposed to protect (to pay my PA members, of course).

And it's all good because I never agreed that what you (and your petty PA) are calling a crime is a crime. By my laws, I'm the good guy.

[Free Society]

No, I don't think I'll agree.

Okay then. Protection and insurance contracts cancelled. You are now solely responsible to protect your own life, liberty and property. Now that you're not protected, start running, because my PA does insist on your guilt, your non-participation is penalized by the courts as well.

In fact, what I'll do instead is create MY OWN PA. Mine will be backed by more guns than yours,

Okay. Where do you get your customers? What's your marketing strategy? Is your slogan; "We protect muggers." ?

my PA will kill your PA and then proceed to take all the shit belonging to those your PA was supposed to protect (to pay my PA members, of course)

And again, how will you finance this? Who's going to patronize a business with wanton disrespect for the rights of others?

And it's all good because I never agreed that what you (and your petty PA) are calling a crime is a crime. By my laws, I'm the good guy.

Your laws would be legitimized by whom? The other PA's will certainly disagree with that assessment. The market would disagree. The courts and insurance companies would also disagree and your PA, wouldn't be the only one with resources. Even though your resources seem to manifest from nowhere.

The economic incentive to trade voluntarily is far greater than to plunder.

[LynchPin1477]

There are a lot of places this can break down.

My PA moves to arrest you, but since you deny the crime, your own PA steps in with an injunction. Now it goes to trial.

If I pay my PA enough, they can say fuck your trial and back it up with force. But let's move on...

Each party mutually agrees to a specific set of judges or court to hear the case.

And if my PA/insurance company don't agree? All I have to do is make it profitable enough for them. But let's move on...

you'll have a hard time finding another ins co/PA to protect you and your property. Perhaps even the court system would outlaw you, which strips of your protections.

Or I can pony up enough money to create my own new court system and PA and, once again, say fuck all to your rules.

The economic and social consequence of committing evil, and then persisting in that evil would overwhelmingly incentivize you not be a mugger.

Unless I command enough wealth and influence to rig the system in my favor.

[Free Society]

If I pay my PA enough, they can say fuck your trial and back it up with force. But let's move on...

No let's not move on. Why would your PA do this? Would they want other PA's to reciprocate this action on their customers? The PA's would have contracts with each other so that business can be conducted peacefully and therefore profitably.

And if my PA/insurance company don't agree? All I have to do is make it profitable enough for them. But let's move on...

How will you do this? Is your bribe more valuable than sum of profits the PA would lose by alienating most of their customers?

Or I can pony up enough money to create my own new court system and PA and, once again, say fuck all to your rules.

Who will your customers be? How will your courts gain enough legitimacy in the dispensation of justice that insurance companies, PA's and customers will want to work with you?

Unless I command enough wealth and influence to rig the system in my favor.

Which is just soooooo much harder to do in a state system where you can bribe a politician with 25k and receive 25million in benefits. Sounds legit.

[LynchPin1477]

The PA's would have contracts with each other so that business can be conducted peacefully and therefore profitably.

Why compete, why respect contracts, when you can subjugate?

I don't need customers, I don't need PAs or insurance companies to contract with me, I don't need legitimacy according to the NAP, if instead I can make it profitable enough for a private army to subjugate people on my behalf. Might that army make more money by following the NAP? I suppose it *might*, but money isn't the only consideration. Do you really think it would be that hard to find a group of people who enjoy power as much as, if not more, than money? Hell, isn't that the definition of a progressive?

As I said below, for anarchy to work you need a fundamental shift in human nature. It doesn't matter how logically consistent you are being if your ideas are inconsistent with reality.

[Cytotoxic]

And that there are environmental protections requiring government.

Anarchism is a form of collectivism.

[Free Society]

And that there are environmental protections requiring government.

Property rights are what you need for environmental protection. To put your claim into perspective; the US federal government is the biggest polluter in the country, by a wide margin.

Anarchism is a form of collectivism.

Care to back that up?

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Tell me how an an-cap society prevents government from forming?

Yeah, I'd love to hear it too. Because every time the argument progresses to that point, I either get "fuck you" or crickets.

Tell you what, I'll hop on board when you can answer the following question to my satisfaction:

How does an anarchy defend itself against a nation-state with aircraft, tanks and ships (without requiring the population live in caves for generations)?

[sarcasmic]

Yeah, I'd love to hear it too. Because every time the argument progresses to that point, I either get "fuck you" or crickets.

Yep.

[Free Society]

What happens when one of those protection agencies gets tired of having to woo customers into voluntarily purchasing their services, and decides to kill the competition so there's no one to prevent them from forcing everyone to purchase their services?

So anarchy won't work because of other governments? That's not a critique of a stateless society, that's a glaring example of why statism is inherently evil. Does the mere existence of socialism/progressivism/fascism/communism invalidate the principles you posit for minarchy?

[Francisco d'Anconia]

So anarchy won't work because of other governments?

No, anarchism won't work because a certain portion of the population is evil.

that's a glaring example of why statism is inherently evil.

Yes, a necessary evil. SO you can either set it up with limits or it can evolve on its own with no limits. Which do you prefer?

[Free Society]

No, anarchism won't work because a certain portion of the population is evil.

That line of argument doesn't prove your point. Yes there is evil in the world, that evil is not diminished when you concentrate power in the hands of evil people. The state system subsidizes, perpetuates and exacerbates the amount of evil in the world.

Yes, a necessary evil. SO you can either set it up with limits or it can evolve on its own with no limits. Which do you prefer?

I have yet to see a demonstration of statism's necessity. How are those limits working out for you? Who is doing the limiting? Lysander Spooner concisely defeated this argument many moons ago; "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

[Free Society]

Evil is not necessary to human existence. The argument that it is, is profoundly evil in and of itself.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

This is a joint response to both sarc (below) and FS.

I wouldn't so much call it necessary as unavoidable.

Necessary in that liberty requires protection. My argument is two fold.

1. Government will, as you rightfully point out, will evolve out of necessity, regardless.

2. It is absolutely required to protect the rights of the individual.

How are those limits working out for you? Who is doing the limiting?

FS, I don't disagree that government will ALWAYS try to expand and will take as much power as you let it. It is evil. Got it. But that doesn't make "no government" the correct answer either. For the reasons I point out. Some people are evil and will try to take your shit, requiring bigger and bigger forces to offset each other until you are looking at the scale of the nation-state. Again how does an anarchy (reasonably) defend against a nation-state without a life-long resistance movement living in caves?

And I'll highlight the following, because THIS is the important part:

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Liberty and force are not mutually exclusive. One cannot exist without the other. If I have liberty with no force backing it up, I will lose it to those who will use force. If I have a preponderance of force, I lose liberty to that force.

Liberty and force are a balancing act. If the goal is having the most liberty, then I need just enough force to keep it, but any more and it starts to infringe on it. The trick is to maximize your liberty while keeping the force required to do so to an absolute minimum.

Hence my two tenets:

From the NAP:

1. People may do as they please, PROVIDED in doing so they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

And to protect those rights while limiting the scope of force:

2. The ONLY legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of the individual.

Yes, government will attempt to grow. It is the nature of force. You will probably NEVER be able to limit it forever. You take your best shot, taking into consideration all that's happened before and build upon that. When they exceed their authority, you start over. For god's sake, the US was the first iteration of this and our Constitution got us a good 150 years (1933). The next one will get us 250 or more.

[LynchPin1477]

(cont.)

3) Spooner was guilty of something that I think many of us, myself included, are sometimes guilty of, and that is a lack of perspective. Yes, injustices and attacks on liberty are plentiful in our society, but in the day-to-day life of most people, they are also not the norm (taxes notwithstanding). Could things be better? Absolutely. But I can get up everyday and do pretty much all the things I want to do without any fear of being harassed by the government, and that is true of most people. Things could absolutely be worse. I'd say the Constitution, or more specifically a respect for its core ideas, has actually done quite a bit to keep us free.

[Free Society]

Could things be better? Absolutely. But I can get up everyday and do pretty much all the things I want to do without any fear of being harassed by the government, and that is true of most people. Things could absolutely be worse. I'd say the Constitution, or more specifically a respect for its core ideas, has actually done quite a bit to keep us free.

The core idea, respect for the principles enshrined in the Constitution has done much to keep us as free as we are. The state's enforcement, the constitution, statutory law, none of those things are worth a pot of piss if people don't voluntarily respect those principles that we supposedly need statutes, constitutions and governments to protect.

[Free Society]

From the NAP:

1. People may do as they please, PROVIDED in doing so they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

2. The ONLY legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of the individual.

You are making a contradictory claim. This is the logical inconsistency of minarchy I was talking about. The government can't be legitimate if it violates the NAP. You can't say the NAP is a valid moral obligation shared by independent people, while at the same time claiming that badges or bureaucratic certification give you the authority to violate the rights of others. Even democratic majorities are not exempt from the moral obligation to respect the life, liberty and property of others. The NAP and political monopolies of legal aggression are incompatible.

[Free Society]

Necessary in that liberty requires protection. My argument is two fold.

No one is arguing that liberty doesn't need protection. Your argument is attacking a straw-man. The anarcho-capitalist argument is that the government is decidedly unqualified to provide that service.

1. Government will, as you rightfully point out, will evolve out of necessity, regardless.

Nice assertion but that's not an argument. Is it a certainty that Tunisia will develop a theocratic despotism? Nope. It's far from a certainty that such a government would arise in a place Canada, whose culture would not tolerate it's existence for long. Societies usually get the government it deserves, if it doesn't those governments don't last long. These societies run on Sharia-law or fascism or whatever, often aren't moral enough to prevent such institutions from coming into being. In a society where the principles of liberty are paramount, where non-violence and respect for the rights of others are practiced instead of just preached, the likelihood of a political monopoly arising is far from certain.

2. It is absolutely required to protect the rights of the individual.

Political monopolies of aggression, who claim some sort of separation between them and the normal obligations of morality, are the ONLY ones capable of protecting people's rights? Why stop there? Monopolies work so well...

[Francisco d'Anconia]

You are making a contradictory claim.

I am. The NAP is bounded as is the force, out of necessity. You cannot keep liberty without government and you cannot keep liberty with too much government. As I said, liberty and force are not mutually exclusive, it is a delicate balancing act.

Logical conclusion:

You maximize liberty while minimizing government to only that required to protect it. Unfortunately, it must be paid for...so yes...taxes.

Nice assertion but that's not an argument.

The assertion stems from the arguments you lost above. You cannot stop me from doing ANYTHING I want without force. Force is government. And as I pointed out, you get it either way...do you want a republic or a dictatorship?

Political monopolies of aggression, who claim some sort of separation between them and the normal obligations of morality, are the ONLY ones capable of protecting people's rights?

No. Government is the last word in force, UNTIL it stops complying with its limitations. Then the people discard it for another.

[Free Society]

I am. The NAP is bounded as is the force, out of necessity. You cannot keep liberty without government and you cannot keep liberty with too much government. As I said, liberty and force are not mutually exclusive, it is a delicate balancing act.

Aggression=/=defense. Not all violence is aggression. So what if we need the ability to use force to defend liberty, that doesn't mean the state is best suited or even capable of providing the defense of liberty.

You maximize liberty while minimizing government to only that required to protect it. Unfortunately, it must be paid for...so yes...taxes.

So you enforce the NAP by violating the NAP. Your logical conclusion is logically invalid.

You cannot stop me from doing ANYTHING I want without force.

force=/=aggression. Where did I ever say the use of force is illegitimate in and of itself? But I lost that argument, since I'm the one conflating those concept...oh wait.

Force is government. And as I pointed out, you get it either way...do you want a republic or a dictatorship?

So when I Judo Chop a mugger, that=government? Your strange definitions aside, government is a monopoly of legal aggression within a particular geographical area.

You miss the definition of "republic" and "dictatorship" too. These words describe the way power is distributed within a state. To say "republic or dictatorship" is, once again, a false dichotomy.

[Free Society]

Republics and dictatorships are not mutually exclusive. A republic is not defined by the presence or non-presence of democratic mechanisms, nor is dictatorship necessarily defined by the presence of Hitler 2.0

[Francisco d'Anconia]

So what if we need the ability to use force to defend liberty, that doesn't mean the state is best suited or even capable of providing the defense of liberty.

You cannot possibly defend against a nation-state without government.

So you enforce the NAP by violating the NAP.

Yes. You are not listening. The NAP is great. I dig it. But it cannot exist without threat of force should it be violated. An individual, cannot provide that force because the bad guy can always get a bigger force. The minute you hire your private militia, you have government. They don't need to honor their contracts, they just need to show up at your house, kill you and take your shit. Who's going to stop them? AT THAT POINT, you have a dictatorship.

Where did I ever say the use of force is illegitimate in and of itself? But I lost that argument

You didn't. I never said you did. The argument you lost was the one where government evolves out of the need for protection (of rights).

So when I Judo Chop a mugger, that=government?

No. Not sure where you are getting that?

[Free Society]

You cannot possibly defend against a nation-state without government.

Is that a self-evident claim? That because of the existence of state, we can never have the non-existence of a state?

But it cannot exist without threat of force should it be violated.

NAP stands for "Non-aggression Pricniple" it does not stand for "Non-violence Principle" nor does it stand for the "Non-Force Principle". Defense is not aggression

The minute you hire your private militia, you have government.

Well if your definition of government is as ridiculously broad as any group willing to use any kind of force, well no wonder you think we can never be rid of government. Precision of meaning matters. You desperately need some of that precision in how you define your terms.

So when I Judo Chop a mugger, that=government?

No. Not sure where you are getting that?

You wrote:

Force is government. And as I pointed out, you get it either way...

You haven't defined your terms with any precision. That's what I'm talking about. For added frustration you use that imprecise definition to argue against a point that I didn't make; that I somehow believe all violence is illegitimate.

[Free Society]

FS, I don't disagree that government will ALWAYS try to expand and will take as much power as you let it.

Find me a state that historically didn't do this whenever given the opportunity and I'll show you a state that collapsed or ceased to exist before it had the chance.

[Free Society]

^Admittedly I misread the part where you wrote "I don't disagree" sorry. Double negatives get the best of me 🙂

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Find me a state that historically didn't do this whenever given the opportunity and I'll show you a state that collapsed or ceased to exist before it had the chance.

As I said, they ALL do. They always will. It is the nature of power. Having NO government is not an answer, however.

A. You will devolve into government to fight the bad guys.
B. You cannot protect yourself from a nation-state who decides it wants your shit.

And you still didn't answer my question above:

How does an anarchy defend itself against a nation-state with aircraft, tanks and ships (without requiring the population live in caves for generations)?

[Free Society]

As I said, they ALL do. They always will. It is the nature of power. Having NO government is not an answer, however.

You can have governance without political government.

How does an anarchy defend itself against a nation-state with aircraft, tanks and ships (without requiring the population live in caves for generations)?

I did much earlier. Please re-read. But I'll offer another argument here regardless.

1) A free society would not be entirely helpless. In the time since WW2 the cost of defense has dropped to many many many times smaller than the cost of offense. A $20,000 stinger missile is the cure when your plagued by a $20,000,000 helicopter. It's not unfeasible that a free society be able to defend itself from the average nation-state military.

2)The free society would lack a preexisting tax structure and societal institutions and individuals of such a society wouldn't be all that conducive to a state coming in to try and tax the place. It would not be without tremendous cost to the invader that he could transform the free society into a tax farm.

But suppose the nation-state wins? That proves nothing, anymore than the Mongols were proved to have the greater, efficient and more moral society when they were plundering the cities on the Steppes of modern-day Russia. The Mongolian invasions didn't prove the superiority of the Mongolian way of life, it proved the superiority of their horse-archers.

[LynchPin1477]

I'm going to hop into the fray on this a little late. With regards to the Spooner quote, I have three responses:

1) He was right, but let's be clear about what failed. The Constitution is just a collection of ideas, and in our ~democratic system, those ideas have no power or relevance unless a substantial majority of the people agree with and respect them. That is the Achilles heel of any political system that isn't totally authoritarian, anarchism included.

2) Frankly, I've given up on a permanent minarchist to almost minarchist political order, for the reason given above. Even if a majority of people were libertarian today, it would be transient. Societies are going to change on timescales that are some fraction of a generation. I'd be happy to have a society that oscillates between something closer to minarchism than what America started with on one end, and something a bit more libertarian than what we have now. Note that this may still end up being more or less the case in America---on the timescale of human civilization, broad respect for human rights is still pretty new.

(cont.)

[Free Society]

1) He was right, but let's be clear about what failed. The Constitution is just a collection of ideas, and in our ~democratic system, those ideas have no power or relevance unless a substantial majority of the people agree with and respect them.

Yes, that's political culture. If people were moral enough to uphold the limitations of government, especially those encoded in the Constitution, they'd be on their way to being moral enough not to impose a state on their society to begin with.

That is the Achilles heel of any political system that isn't totally authoritarian, anarchism included.

It's not an Achilles Heal, it's the prerequisite to a free society! If the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence was universally applicable, then if we instituted the same document in Pakistan, that shithole should be transformed into a much better place to live. But that's not how it works, because Pakistani society isn't moral enough to respect such principles of liberty.

I don't believe we could abolish our government all-at-once tomorrow because society isn't capable of respecting the principles of liberty or the non-aggression principle specifically. But that's why I'm here, arguing with people online to hopefully change some minds.

(cont.)

[Free Society]

2) Frankly, I've given up on a permanent minarchist to almost minarchist political order, for the reason given above. Even if a majority of people were libertarian today, it would be transient. Societies are going to change on timescales that are some fraction of a generation. I'd be happy to have a society that oscillates between something closer to minarchism than what America started with on one end, and something a bit more libertarian than what we have now. Note that this may still end up being more or less the case in America---on the timescale of human civilization, broad respect for human rights is still pretty new.

I agree, aside from the minarchy bit. Respect for rights is very new, but the work isn't done yet. Those rights need to be enforced and respected universally and under the state system this is not possible so long as there are these political government monopolies.

I think if enough people are enlightened on how to think rationally society will be moral enough, to live without political government monopolies that anarcho-capitalism will be the natural progression of society.

[LynchPin1477]

I appreciate your idealism, but what you are saying is that anarchy requires a fundamental shift in human nature. Will that happen? I suppose it could, but I'm not holding my breath. As far as I'm concerned, the New AnCap Man is no less a pipe dream than the New Communist Man.

[sarcasmic]

So anarchy won't work because of other governments?

You say insurance companies, arbiters, and protection agencies competing with one another will prevent government.

What's to prevent some of those agencies from becoming government?

Yes, a necessary evil.

I wouldn't so much call it necessary as unavoidable.

[Free Society]

What's to prevent some of those agencies from becoming government?

First, the political culture of a society that rejects the validity or pseudo-moral justifications of statism.

Secondly, the competitive forces of the market place. I certainly wouldn't do business with a protection agency that's guilty of crimes and atrocities. In this information age, its a safe bet that most other customers would feel the same.

True monopolies don't come into existence without first having the support of the government. There are a few examples to the contrary like the DeBeers diamond monopoly, which stems from the shear rarity of accessible diamonds. Justice and liberty don't share that quality with diamonds and rare earth metals. But natural monopolies aside, a company would be hard pressed to institute a true monopoly and impose it on the market unless they were doing a bang-up job of delivering their goods and services.

[fuck you tulpa]

To Free Society,

You are not well versed enough in your chosen subject to make these arguments.

You're not convincing at all and your responses are logically inconsistent and useless.

[Free Society]

You are not well versed enough in your chosen subject to make these arguments.

You're not convincing at all and your responses are logically inconsistent and useless.

Great arguments. I'm sure that's par for your course.

[sarcasmic]

First, the political culture of a society that rejects the validity or pseudo-moral justifications of statism.

There you go changing human nature again. The Soviets tried that. Didn't work out so well.

I certainly wouldn't do business with a protection agency that's guilty of crimes and atrocities.

What if they leave you no choice?

a company would be hard pressed to institute a true monopoly and impose it on the market unless they were doing a bang-up job of delivering their goods and services.

If those goods and services involve organized violence, and the company literally kills off the competition, then it would be very easy for it to become a monopoly. Not just any monopoly, but a monopoly on force. Then it doesn't matter if you want to pay for its services or not. It will make you pay, and call it a tax.

[Free Society]

There you go changing human nature again. The Soviets tried that. Didn't work out so well.

I'm not changing anything. I would love for you tell me what specifically I'm leaving out that you do consider. You say I neglect 'evil', it's as if you're not reading anything I wrote to the contrary of that claim.

What if they leave you no choice?

That would be a crime. Here you're essentially arguing "but what if it turned out like it is now?" which doesn't demonstrate why it is that such a scenario would be unworkable, if you yourself suggest that such monopolies are not just unavoidable, but preferable.

[sarcasmic]

That would be a crime.

OK... You're still not answering the question. What if the protection agency says "Pay up or we kill you."?

You call another protection agency and the one demanding money from you kills off the agency you called. Then demands money again. Then what?

if you yourself suggest that such monopolies are not just unavoidable, but preferable.

I said nothing about being preferable. Only unavoidable. Again, I ask you, what stops some agency employing organized violence from becoming a monopoly by killing the competition? It's not like they're selling beer or bread. They're peddling violence. They kill for a living. What stops them from killing the competition, and then killing you if you refuse to pay?

[Free Society]

OK... You're still not answering the question. What if the protection agency says "Pay up or we kill you."?

First off I don't owe a refutation of every possible scenario you put forward. I'm not proposing some kind of central planning afterall. Nonethless, for this example, I'll play ball. I suppose If I must pay up or be killed, I'd pay up. But I'd also be reporting these circumstances to the media, be it news outlets or social networks or whatever. I'd also be going to rival protection agencies and offering them the chance to make a good public relations move and right this wrong. Between market forces like competition and public perception, such business practices wouldn't persist for long nor become widespread enough that this point you've raised would actually invalidate the anarcho-capitalist proposition.

[Free Society]

You call another protection agency and the one demanding money from you kills off the agency you called. Then demands money again. Then what?

How did they do this? Where did they get the resources to literally murder their competition? Does the market support such? Why weren't the more respectable competition strong enough? How did the evil PA get such resources without fostering a good public image for themselves?

I said nothing about being preferable. Only unavoidable.

It seems that you prefer the state system to the anarcho-capitalist system, for whatever reasons you have, practical or otherwise. That seems a reasonable takeaway from this discussion.

[Free Society]

Again, I ask you, what stops some agency employing organized violence from becoming a monopoly by killing the competition?

Again I tell you, economic incentives, political culture, and competition.

It's not like they're selling beer or bread. They're peddling violence. They kill for a living. What stops them from killing the competition, and then killing you if you refuse to pay?

Not all violence is created equal. Nor are they simply selling violence. A hitman sells violence. They sell the dispensation of justice and protection of their customer's life, liberty and property. That's hardly a service you could provide as an institution as nefarious as the PA you describe. If the service couldn't be provided by that company, they would not persist for long and if they persist, it would be a rare circumstance that couldn't be worse than the state-system is currently if most people at this point aren't all-to-accepting of violations of their liberty. Do you really think all that separates a free society from Mad Max and the Thunderdome is a piece of paper and some guys who claim to have the right to plunder?

[fuck you tulpa]

"First, the political culture of a society that rejects the validity or pseudo-moral justifications of statism."

And that's a perfect example of the stupidity of your assertions, when asked what will keep people from taking up arms and enslaving others, your response is "peer pressure" and you ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT WILL WORK.

Why would anyone care what you think after reading that bit of stupidity.

[Virginian]

your response is "peer pressure" and you ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT WILL WORK.

It would work, for a time anyway, on another planet. A planet settled entirely by libertarian colonists. Then the statists would emerge, do to Libertopia would they did to the USA, and people who wanted to live free would leave for another planet.

A frontier is an absolute necessity for liberty. It's why the statists have done so much to sabotage space travel.

[LynchPin1477]

This. *Any* political system, short of total Orwellian despotism, requires that a significant majority of people respect its norms and rules and willingly follow them. The history of America and the West at large demonstrate that people are willing to accept a system that tilts more towards liberty for extended period of times. It has yet to be demonstrated that people will accept true minarchy, let alone anarchy.

[Free Society]

This. *Any* political system, short of total Orwellian despotism, requires that a significant majority of people respect its norms and rules and willingly follow them.

Pretty much yeah. If a sizable majority of people didn't respect the power of political elites, what power would they have?

The history of America and the West at large demonstrate that people are willing to accept a system that tilts more towards liberty for extended period of times. It has yet to be demonstrated that people will accept true minarchy, let alone anarchy.

The failure of minarchy is not a similar failure of anarchy. There's different ingredients in those systems, namely the state. The failure of political monopolies to respect the limitations superficially placed upon them is what's inevitable here.

[LynchPin1477]

The failure of political monopolies to respect the limitations superficially placed upon them is what's inevitable here.

Except that is isn't the political monopoly that fails, it is the voters. Which is to say political culture and morality (as defined by libertarian values) of a majority of the people. Which all circles back to the same argument about human nature.

[DesigNate]

I like the way you think Virginian.

Space Travel NOW!

[Free Society]

And that's a perfect example of the stupidity of your assertions, when asked what will keep people from taking up arms and enslaving others, your response is "peer pressure" and you ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT WILL WORK.

I said the market and societal institutions. You should type with more ALL CAPS it makes your arguments seem way less juvenile.

[sarcasmic]

I said the market and societal institutions.

You still never explained how.

How does the market and societal institutions stop people engaged in organized violence except with organized violence?

You never explained that.

You say there would be competing security agencies. What is a security agency other than men who employ organized violence? What is to stop one of these agencies from killing the competition, creating a monopoly for itself, and then levying taxes on everyone?

You never explained that either.

[Free Society]

You still never explained how.

How does the market and societal institutions stop people engaged in organized violence except with organized violence?

Are you joking? I directly answered several times. Protection agencies, insurance companies, courts and arbitrators, and political culture are all market and societal institutions.

How does the market and societal institutions stop people engaged in organized violence except with organized violence? You never explained that.

The anrcho-capitalist aversion to organized violence that you keep mentioning is entirely your own making. Once again, not all violence is aggression, not all violence is illegitimate. If more than person comes together to help one another defend, that's organized violence and it's entirely legitimate. So of course I didn't explain that because I think you're smart enough and/or intellectually honest enough to know that I'm not arguing against all violence or that I'm arguing that liberty doesn't need defense. Just stop with the strawman crap, please.

[Free Society]

You say there would be competing security agencies. What is a security agency other than men who employ organized violence?

People who sell a service that is not simply organized violence and certainly not a service that sells illegitimate violence.

What is to stop one of these agencies from killing the competition, creating a monopoly for itself, and then levying taxes on everyone? You never explained that either.

Yes I explained it so many times and you apparently didn't notice. Not my problem.

[Free Society]

You've repeatedly mistaken anarcho-capitalism for pacifism. I've differentiated numerous times, so please stop with that strawman line of argument.

[DesigNate]

How are you going to create this political culture without expunging people like Boehner, Santorum, Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, Obama, etc.?

[Cytotoxic]

Anarchism requires The New Anarchy Man every bit as much as Marxism requires The New Soviet Man. Unworkable collectivist fantasy.

[Free Society]

Anarchism requires The New Anarchy Man every bit as much as Marxism requires The New Soviet Man. Unworkable collectivist fantasy.

Doesn't the British parliamentary democracy not need a 'different man' than you'll typically find in Somalia? Doesn't the creation of a theocratic government like that of Iran require a different sort of man than you'll typically find in Canada?

Similarly, if anarcho-capitalism is to even be attempted, the culture needs to change. That's not a radical argument, it's not that Soviet New Man bullshit. But thanks for the reductio ad Marxum

[sarcasmic]

Doesn't the British parliamentary democracy not need a 'different man' than you'll typically find in Somalia? Doesn't the creation of a theocratic government like that of Iran require a different sort of man than you'll typically find in Canada?

Nope.

Similarly, if anarcho-capitalism is to even be attempted, the culture needs to change.

A lot more than culture needs to change. Human nature needs to change.

[Free Society]

Nope.

So enlighten me, when can we expect the founding of the Islamic Republic of Canada? Or when will the sunshine and rainbows of a constitutional democratic republic bless the lands of Libya?

A lot more than culture needs to change. Human nature needs to change.

What exactly about human nature have I overlooked?

You never explained that

[Free Society]

How are you going to create this political culture without expunging people like Boehner, Santorum, Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, Obama, etc.?

Expunge them? I'll leave it to voters replace the likes of Obama with more of the likes of Obama. You change the culture by spreading the message of liberty and inviting people to think rationally.

[LynchPin1477]

Let me put a question to you in good faith, then. Why hasn't anarchy emerged in the drug trade? It seems to me like the necessary ingredients are there. The government that surrounds it isn't all that different than non-ancap governments that would surround an ancap nation. Police and the courts intervene in the drug trade from time to time, but they have neither the love or respect of the drug traffickers or that culture.

The rules and "regulations" that exist within the drug trade are largely imposed by culture and market forces. And about that culture--the upper echelons of the drug trade are hardly incapable of reason and intelligent thought. It is well within their capability to agree to divide their territories peacefully, employ their own private protectors, and mutually agree to peaceful, independent arbitration in case of disputes. Heck, in doing so, they may even be able to build up enough of a positive PR campaign to be respected in mainstream society, or at least significant segments of it.

And yet the reality is turf wars and violence. So what is missing to bring about peaceful anarcho-capitalism? And from where will it come if attempted in some other segment of the population?

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Another straw man, at least as applied to the libertarians on The Independents, Reason, and some of the commenters here.

But just as he finds it convenient to equate all libertarians with their anarchist faction, so it is convenient to lump all SoCons together with Santorum.

Ask a prog about Rand Paul and his positions on abortion, marriage and guns. The prog will say that these positions are pure SoCon.

[Free Society]

"Conservatism isn't an ideology..."

It's not an ideology it's science, he says basically. LULZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[kmc212]

Rick Santorum is fucking dumb!

[kmc212]

The "sharing economy" is libertarianism in practice. I guess Santorum didn't pick up on that. He just a statist. He wants government delegation for everything.

[AdamJ]

He wants a job and knows he can't get one if there is no government.

[WC Varones]

Comparing gays to dog molesters doesn't work in practice.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Santorum is simply in denial. His "people" have had their heyday, have failed miserably, and are losing their grip on the helm. That infuriates him and he's fighting for the survival of his "species".

Fuck him. The Republican party WILL BE a libertarian party and there is not a goddamned thing he and his authoritarian establishment can do to stop it. People are sick to death of being told how to live their lives by these monsters.

[Cytotoxic]

The only things that will prevent the GOP from becoming libertarian are 1) apathetic/fatalistic 'emo-tarians' that don't bother trying 2) bad candidates or others that get knocked down in the primaries. Like the bunch on Tuesday before last. Anti-immigration nutjobs will be a short-term problem but they couldn't even maintain their grip on the Texas state GOP.

[CGeary44]

I saw "libertarian hosts discussion with conservative Rick Santorum," and I thought, hey, this will be great! I couldn't even make it through the interview. First the obviously premeditated--and forced--"plug my hole" joke then insisting on talking over the top of Santorum when he was trying to answer a serious question, Kennedy turned what should've been a excellent discussion of ideas into something worthy of Maury Povich or The View. #growup

[Virginian]

#growup

Holy shit that's ironic.

[GILMORE]

#selfawarenessislame

[Rhywun]

#enoughwiththegoddamnhashtagsalready

[GILMORE]

#whatitmakesmeseemhiptotheyoungkids

[Free Society]

I'm proudly unaware of the function of hashtags.

[GILMORE]

Function?

I thought they were just "Hey! Look at me! I'm a dick!"-markers?

They *do* something?

[GILMORE]

Although, not to detract from your apt observation VA; they did have something of a point up until they raised the Douchebag Flag

I think after Kennedy's performance with Wolfowitz, there should have been a policy to let Matt and Kmele (or a ringer like Nick)... or hell, *anyone* that could keep their temper... have first crack at interviewing guests before releasing Berserker Harpy(aka Kennedy) on them.

[Virginian]

I don't watch the show. I only read the comments.

[GILMORE]

Kudos =

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_IlNbsILLE

[CGeary44]

Uh, yeah, it was kind of intended to be. But that's the thing about irony, and sarcasm for that matter. If the audience doesn't pick up on it, everyone ends of looking stupid. #mybad #letstrythisagain #nevermind

[Loki]

#growup

#youfirstshithead

[Paul.]

It's good to know progressives and Rick Santorum are in total agreement.

[GILMORE]

"Rick Santorum: Libertarian Ideas 'don't work in practice'"

I suppose it would have been too much to ask for Kennedy to calmly note,

"Well, last I checked, 'Rick Santorum' Doesn't Work in Politics At All; and meanwhile, the leading GOP contender for a presidential run - Rand Paul - happens to be a leading spokesperson for 'libertarian ideas' - so I guess we'll let history be the scorekeeper for that one, Rick"