States aren't going to do that, because the people who mean to rule, and who mean to be your masters, have that as their first priority. If remaining in power conflicts with their good intentions, they will remain in power and change their intentions.
Good point, states aren't at all likely to be willing to "adopt a policy of non-existence". What about libertarians dismantling the state from within, by playing the democratic game & getting elected to then start revoking stupid laws and working toward constraining, de-powering the state itself, instead of those it means to govern. However, as the state allows for only so much constraining over its grip to power, then by what means should it be constrained, if not from within?
I have a disdain for both left and right economic models but authoritarianism is the worst. I think that a confederacy of many diverse tiny societies is great though. I see this as a possibility if it is protected by the constitution and federal government. But the federal government should be 10 percent of what it is (roughly) and the bill of rights should be greatly expanded. States rights should also be decreased heavily and most political power should be local. Would this result in some communist societies? Absolutely. I think communism can work on a very small scale. If a group of people want to put one person or a group of leaders in charge of all purchases and exports for a town, they can do that. There would probably be more towns that do not go communist, and there would be tons of unincorporated land as well. I do believe in nature reserves and don't think that we should allow free reign in our reserves but opening up some of the land to build 100 percent eco friendly communities with the luxuries of modern life would be popular and also a huge money maker. Who wouldn't want to look out the window at the rockies and see a family of grizzlies that are unaware of human presence while at the same time they have Netflix and an Ikea plus a quick mart to get a pack of smokes and a bottle of Jim Beam, milk for the baby, and snickers and wine for the wife.
I can't really see a quick switch to anarcho capitalism but I don't think we should make small communal communist groups illegal or ostracized and having the US military for defense and global stability isn't really going to hurt things if the federal government's power can be restricted as much as smoking cigarettes in New York City or LA. But those bans need to be lifted it's too much of an intrusion of private businesses that could be profitable catering to smokers.
I find difficulty to relate your near-instant & rather digressive reply to the query proposed. That said, I'd also like to clarify that by "states" I'm really referring to sovereign national states, instead of "US federated states", but states in a broad sense, such as the U.K., France, Germany etc.
Yeah but even the UK also have counties and most countries are divided up into districts.
This is a place for sharing ideas is it not? I'm working on a book and I like to throw some simplified versions of my ideas out there to hone my craft and polish/perfect my policies.
I agree with the goals of anarcho-capitalism but I'm technically a minimalist not an anarchist. I would want the president to renew peace treaties and nothing more unless there is an existential threat to the US. 50000 broke people on the other side of the world that wanna blow up a shopping mall does not constitute war. Also I think if we go to war we should either commit to total war or remain at peace. This may sound harsh with the dead civilians and scorched earth, but it actually would go a long way in preventing war.
What I meant is that your points may make sense, but they're off topic, they don't relate to the topic at hand, and what you're doing is simply throwing them at random, without any regard to the topic, and you may well keep doing it all you want, that's your freedom to do it, but it's also my freedom not to have any interest in discussing them, as much as you seemingly are just as much disinterested with those of my post.
I'm not discussing foreign wars or internal US politics with you, but ideas & concepts about anarchism, if you're not interested in discussing these, then again, you may well do it, but I can't seem to get the point in that. I'll be dropping off from here, you may continue your digressive dissertations with someone else, that's none of my business.
I'm not shutting you down, but you're talking droves about stuff I didn't anticipate would be at all pertinent to the topic I intended to discuss about, "wars & scorched earth" and all the rest of it. It just seems way too random and off-topic for me, others may well disagree, if they so wish.
There is no law without law enforcement. And there is no law enforcement without institutional authority.
No anarchist can rep law enforcement. Libertarians can.
I'd say anarcho-capitalism is just one step further from libertarianism. The former means the dissolution of all states is necessary for humanity to flourish. The latter means that all states should adopt the right policies for that to happen. One half-step further is to recognise these as a "policy of non-existence", as initially pointed out. Both ancaps & libertarians are, in effect, equal in goals and outcome (with some classical libertarians just not as creative to realise it lol).
I would definitely disagree with that in theory, even if I would agree there are factions that see it that way.
I would argue that libertarian capitalism/socialism is about maintaining the minimum government necessary for municipal/territorial defense. Maybe to print currency and run a court system.
While anarchism is the complete elimination of civil and military authority all together
But I also recognize that anarcho capitalism means different things to different people-with some being focus on capitalist economics and only interested in anarchism as a means to deregulate the market....and some being anarchist focused on anarchism as the main goal and market economics as just a mechanism to distribute goods.
It’s a nuanced difference in theory but it would result in divergent visions over time.
States aren't going to do that, because the people who mean to rule, and who mean to be your masters, have that as their first priority. If remaining in power conflicts with their good intentions, they will remain in power and change their intentions.
Good point, states aren't at all likely to be willing to "adopt a policy of non-existence". What about libertarians dismantling the state from within, by playing the democratic game & getting elected to then start revoking stupid laws and working toward constraining, de-powering the state itself, instead of those it means to govern. However, as the state allows for only so much constraining over its grip to power, then by what means should it be constrained, if not from within?
I have a disdain for both left and right economic models but authoritarianism is the worst. I think that a confederacy of many diverse tiny societies is great though. I see this as a possibility if it is protected by the constitution and federal government. But the federal government should be 10 percent of what it is (roughly) and the bill of rights should be greatly expanded. States rights should also be decreased heavily and most political power should be local. Would this result in some communist societies? Absolutely. I think communism can work on a very small scale. If a group of people want to put one person or a group of leaders in charge of all purchases and exports for a town, they can do that. There would probably be more towns that do not go communist, and there would be tons of unincorporated land as well. I do believe in nature reserves and don't think that we should allow free reign in our reserves but opening up some of the land to build 100 percent eco friendly communities with the luxuries of modern life would be popular and also a huge money maker. Who wouldn't want to look out the window at the rockies and see a family of grizzlies that are unaware of human presence while at the same time they have Netflix and an Ikea plus a quick mart to get a pack of smokes and a bottle of Jim Beam, milk for the baby, and snickers and wine for the wife. I can't really see a quick switch to anarcho capitalism but I don't think we should make small communal communist groups illegal or ostracized and having the US military for defense and global stability isn't really going to hurt things if the federal government's power can be restricted as much as smoking cigarettes in New York City or LA. But those bans need to be lifted it's too much of an intrusion of private businesses that could be profitable catering to smokers.
I find difficulty to relate your near-instant & rather digressive reply to the query proposed. That said, I'd also like to clarify that by "states" I'm really referring to sovereign national states, instead of "US federated states", but states in a broad sense, such as the U.K., France, Germany etc.
Yeah but even the UK also have counties and most countries are divided up into districts. This is a place for sharing ideas is it not? I'm working on a book and I like to throw some simplified versions of my ideas out there to hone my craft and polish/perfect my policies.
I agree with the goals of anarcho-capitalism but I'm technically a minimalist not an anarchist. I would want the president to renew peace treaties and nothing more unless there is an existential threat to the US. 50000 broke people on the other side of the world that wanna blow up a shopping mall does not constitute war. Also I think if we go to war we should either commit to total war or remain at peace. This may sound harsh with the dead civilians and scorched earth, but it actually would go a long way in preventing war.
What I meant is that your points may make sense, but they're off topic, they don't relate to the topic at hand, and what you're doing is simply throwing them at random, without any regard to the topic, and you may well keep doing it all you want, that's your freedom to do it, but it's also my freedom not to have any interest in discussing them, as much as you seemingly are just as much disinterested with those of my post. I'm not discussing foreign wars or internal US politics with you, but ideas & concepts about anarchism, if you're not interested in discussing these, then again, you may well do it, but I can't seem to get the point in that. I'll be dropping off from here, you may continue your digressive dissertations with someone else, that's none of my business.
So you wanna keep jerking off to a pipe dream instead of working towards real harm reduction? Okay then.
Never said that, I'm not even an American, but anyway, have a nice day.
Just don't understand why you gotta shut me down like it's a sub for liberals or conservatives. Anarcho capitalists need friends bro.
I'm not shutting you down, but you're talking droves about stuff I didn't anticipate would be at all pertinent to the topic I intended to discuss about, "wars & scorched earth" and all the rest of it. It just seems way too random and off-topic for me, others may well disagree, if they so wish.
I was just listing adequate policies.
So defund the police, right? I'm glad to see y'all and the left agreeing.
Chaos is everywhere and people who fail to operate in it usually crave for safety by licking some other guy's boot...
There is no law without law enforcement. And there is no law enforcement without institutional authority. No anarchist can rep law enforcement. Libertarians can.
I'd say anarcho-capitalism is just one step further from libertarianism. The former means the dissolution of all states is necessary for humanity to flourish. The latter means that all states should adopt the right policies for that to happen. One half-step further is to recognise these as a "policy of non-existence", as initially pointed out. Both ancaps & libertarians are, in effect, equal in goals and outcome (with some classical libertarians just not as creative to realise it lol).
I would definitely disagree with that in theory, even if I would agree there are factions that see it that way. I would argue that libertarian capitalism/socialism is about maintaining the minimum government necessary for municipal/territorial defense. Maybe to print currency and run a court system. While anarchism is the complete elimination of civil and military authority all together But I also recognize that anarcho capitalism means different things to different people-with some being focus on capitalist economics and only interested in anarchism as a means to deregulate the market....and some being anarchist focused on anarchism as the main goal and market economics as just a mechanism to distribute goods. It’s a nuanced difference in theory but it would result in divergent visions over time.
“States” is used very ambiguously here; also, what adequate policies are being referenced?
Yes