|
XOmniverse (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I think they should be permissible under a voluntary framework but I am skeptical that they would function all that well.
elsargente (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
i take it you consider yourself an "anarcho-capitalist". what are your thoughts on the non-capitalistic brands of anarchism (libertarian socialism)?
NickyTheHeel (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Very well-presented. I'm an already-converted (from small 'l' libertarian) anarcho-capitalist but in looking through your stuff I am impressed. I'll be going through your vids for awhile.
Subscribed.
kulza23 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Roy Childs' "Open Letter to Ayn Rand" is also a good read.
aaron0883 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
i think that my conversion was pretty simple. 1 I accepted that Rand is not innately perfect. 2 I came to the conclusion that the NAP is correct, and must be consistently applied 3 There is absolutely no way to have a form of government without violating the NAP 4 I discovered that anarchy is not a suicide pact by reading possible ways for it to work. 5 Accepting that i would be shunned by most Objectivists for my sins.
OpineTime (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Can't wait!
D4rkReaver13 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I've read up somewhat, but I always have the same doubts.
The agencies MUST be unified under OBJECTIVE principles. Saying they are allowed to be "disparate" is allowing them to make laws and enforce them arbitrarily/subjectively. Either there is one proper definition of rights and force, which needs to be universalised, or there isn't. If there is, a unified structure is required - i.e. a government. Or a "meta-agency" if you'd rather discard the negative connotations of the word government.
jwoodswce (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
BP,
Again you are dropping context.
X said that he planned to address an Objectivist audience with argument consistent with its basic tenants. Therefore, limited to that mission as stated by X, I provided five cases that he should legitimately and substantively address.
I made no attempt within a few hundred characters to develop a complete argument for a state.
Who are the "they" that you are talking about? I cited five ideas.
jwoodswce (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I will concede that the parallel between anarchism and feudalism is uncommon. I had never heard it prior to developing that parallel as a joke; only to determine that they highly correlated.
However, I did start that line of humor from a _Foreign Affairs_ article describing actual market based anarchy in the third world with the author making the connection to medieval history.
brainpolice2 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
It's rank assertions that what they said was true or constitute a rational justification for a state. |
