For the 500th time. My home town of Detroit is a ready made 157 square mile object lesson in this very thing. Almost half the population is under 40 and practically the whole population is on public assistance because they crank out kids like rabbits and there is no faithful loving responsible family structure to care for the women and children.
[/quote]
No offense, T, but everyone knows that Detroit is pretty much a shithole. I’ve yet to meet anyone who had anything good to say about Detroit. I don’t blame you for having the ideas and beliefs that you have. If I lived in Detroit, I’d probably be praying every night too - that I wouldn’t be shot. Too bad you don’t live where I live, in the suburbs of Denver, and know the people I know. Good folks with good families. Many are fairly liberal-minded and not very religious, at least I don’t think they’re all that religious. We do just find without superstitions and a nanny state. So by all means, preach and pray in Detroit. But please stay out of my neighborhood.[/quote]Mike ol buddy you haven’t been paying attention to me when I speak, but that’s ok. I’m waiting on a recording of your version of YYZ. And if ya don’t have a black and white Rickenbacker 4001 it doesn’t count =]. (I’m actually kinda serious, Id like to hear how ya do) I still think the bass lines in Camera Eye on that album are just as gnarly once you get past the easy intro though much less recognized.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Now, please answer my question.[/quote]
No. I’m kind of over treating austrian-anarchists as if they’re a serious contribution to any discussion. As to why, see this exchange. You won’t understand that, nor would I expect you to. [/quote]
Well, by all means, please provide a list of individuals who are worthy of your discussion. That way we don’t take up precious bandwidth asking you questions.[/quote]
The holier-than-thou attitude from conservatives, especially on this board, is truly funny. They have “experience” and “tradition”. AKA they automatically win.[/quote]
Yeah, we (conservatives) should entertain discussion about the marxist code-word, “society.” Nope, no thanks. There’s two types on this board with whom I will no longer get drawn into lengthy debate, 9-11 truthers and anarchists. I’d rather study. Or, if I’m wasting time, find a post/debate worth getting into. I’m just not doing a friggen debate over ‘society.’
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Now, please answer my question.[/quote]
No. I’m kind of over treating austrian-anarchists as if they’re a serious contribution to any discussion. As to why, see this exchange. You won’t understand that, nor would I expect you to. [/quote]
Well, by all means, please provide a list of individuals who are worthy of your discussion. That way we don’t take up precious bandwidth asking you questions.[/quote]
The holier-than-thou attitude from conservatives, especially on this board, is truly funny. They have “experience” and “tradition”. AKA they automatically win.[/quote]
Yeah, we (conservatives) should entertain discussion about the marxist code-word, “society.” Nope, no thanks. There’s two types on this board with whom I will no longer get drawn into lengthy debate, 9-11 truthers and anarchists. I’d rather study. Or, if I’m wasting time, find a post/debate worth getting into. I’m just not doing a friggen debate over ‘society.’ [/quote]
My point was more to your blithe dismissal of “austrian-anarchists”, not to the society thing. But, again, you prove my point by saying that you refuse to get into a lengthy debate with them. Of course, I’m not saying that you should necessarily, but then don’t make snide remarks or complain about them “lib-uh-turr-eans”, whom you refuse to engage in serious discourse.
My point was more to your blithe dismissal of “austrian-anarchists”, not to the society thing. But, again, you prove my point by saying that you refuse to get into a lengthy debate with them. Of course, I’m not saying that you should necessarily, but then don’t make snide remarks or complain about them “lib-uh-turr-eans”, whom you refuse to engage in serious discourse.[/quote]
I haven’t visited this thread since I posted in it, and after having read it, I’ll bump it.
To your post to Sloth - it’s idiocy. There have been lengthy debates with the “austrian-anarchists” - perhaps you just haven’t participated in them. They are usually quite disappointing.
Sloth was merely borrowing and paraphrasing the common-sense principle that you don’t throw good money (or time or effort) after bad, and having learned the hard way that our resident “li-burr-turr-ee-ans” simply, well, aren’t all that interesting or bright, it’d be a waste of time to get too far down the road in a discussion on “society”.
Here’s a typical and relevant red flag - our resident libertarians are too dumb to realize that even as they say “no such thing as a ‘society’, it is merely a collective construct” and desperately want to have yet another navel-gazing coffeehouse discussion about it, they - sometimes in the same paragraph - refer to a “market” as a collective entity that does certain things: the market “corrects” resource allocation, the market “delivers social justice”, and so forth.
It’s simply no fun.
Another example are historical debates. Our libertarians guffaw about the “Constitution!!!”, and bozos like John S. and Dustin don’t even know what it is in it or who wrote the damn thing.
Libertarians are on the same scale as socialists around PWI - they are smugly confident in their ideology, but possess (and regurgitate) only a small set of information they got a hold of and think has all the answers. Lifticus - the former “communist!” is the perfect example of it.
There, do what you will with it - but this idea that folks won’t engage libertarians on topics is baloney. Libertarians - at least those around here - aren’t interested in serious discussion: they want either a podium or an echo chamber.
…they hope to break from the past, to throw off its “shackles,” and live more “naturally” and without the accoutrements of civilization" This is just absurd. The naivete belongs to the conservative, who believes that “civilization” somehow arises from an all-wise central planner and not the spontaneous nature of society.[/quote]
And, we see more errors. Conservatives don’t think that civilization comes form “all-wise central planners” - this is yet another straw-man. It’s the spontaneous order of society that Conservatives believe in - read Burke.
Conservatives have never believed that an “all-wise central planner” is responsible for civilization, because the belief would make the definition self-refuting - if someone believed that, they’d cease to be a Conservative, because that is anathema to a conservative idea of civilization.
Conservatives believe that the existence of ordered institutions are necessary to keep “all-wise central planning” at bay - however, it is the libertarians that are the handmaidens of the deliverance of the “all-wise central planner”, as the Rousseau-ian disintegration of social restraints and institutions in the name of liberation beget the nanny state they claim to stand against.
Problem is, libertarians are just too damn naive to realize that reality.
Again, this is the problem - you haven’t done your homework.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I haven’t visited this thread since I posted in it, and after having read it, I’ll bump it.
To your post to Sloth - it’s idiocy. There have been lengthy debates with the “austrian-anarchists” - perhaps you just haven’t participated in them. They are usually quite disappointing.[/quote]
I have read some of them. FTR I tend to agree that some of the anarchists on this forum can be somewhat cryptic and over-ideological at times.
However, in these same threads, it is the same story over and over: the conservatives belittling anarchists and making arrogant comments as if they’d won the debate without ever actually debating.
[quote]Sloth was merely borrowing and paraphrasing the common-sense principle that you don’t throw good money (or time or effort) after bad, and having learned the hard way that our resident “li-burr-turr-ee-ans” simply, well, aren’t all that interesting or bright, it’d be a waste of time to get too far down the road in a discussion on “society”.
Here’s a typical and relevant red flag - our resident libertarians are too dumb to realize that even as they say “no such thing as a ‘society’, it is merely a collective construct” and desperately want to have yet another navel-gazing coffeehouse discussion about it, they - sometimes in the same paragraph - refer to a “market” as a collective entity that does certain things: the market “corrects” resource allocation, the market “delivers social justice”, and so forth.[/quote]
Noted. If you can’t use abstractions when referring to human social interaction, you might as well not debate about it.
Well, I must say, I am in some agreement with you in this post. I think I know the threads you’re referring to. Again, FTR, I was shaking my head while reading them as well (not so much Dustin’s, but the one with John S., who isn’t an anarchist AFAIK).
[quote]Libertarians are on the same scale as socialists around PWI - they are smugly confident in their ideology, but possess (and regurgitate) only a small set of information they got a hold of and think has all the answers. Lifticus - the former “communist!” is the perfect example of it.
There, do what you will with it - but this idea that folks won’t engage libertarians on topics is baloney. Libertarians - at least those around here - aren’t interested in serious discussion: they want either a podium or an echo chamber.[/quote]
I don’t necessarily disagree with some of your points, but from what I’ve seen, there tends to be more critical name-calling then actual dialogue from the conservatives here when it comes to debating libertarianism.
If this were true, then conservatives would not be the ones bringing up incredibly outrageous doomsday scenarios every time they talk about anarchy. They would know that the spontaneous nature of society would find a solution to this. I’ve seen too many conservatives become raging statists when debating with libertarian anarchists to honestly believe that conservatives don’t think that the framework of society is created by the state.
The state is central planning. Even in its limited form, it never ceases to be a centrally-coordinated construct.
I have seen you make the statement (perhaps in this thread, don’t care to look back) that anarchists want to “destroy the hard-fought civilization” or something like that. You are speaking of the state here. If you were truly being logically consistent and believe in the spontaneous ordering of society, you would know that eliminating the state would not cause civilization to break up and fall apart into chaos. Therefore, your belief must be that a central planner is the one who keeps civilization afloat.
This is what I don’t get about conservatives: do you appreciate the economics of the free market, or do you just have some strange dislike for state poverty programs? It never ceases to amaze me that the same people who argue so ardently for a free market in healthcare, cars, or food will suddenly turn around when it comes to other things and not be able to see the ingenuity of the market in solving problems of poverty and the like. I would say that the unhampered market forces would render the nanny-state obsolete and would better be able to provide for the poor - not ALL of the poor - but many of them.
A stateless society, just like a statist one, has a constitution to it. EITHER one depends upon the will of the people to enforce its claims and ideology. If an anarchist society comes about that doesn’t have anarchists in it, it will suck. If a statist society comes about that only has anarchists in it, it will suck. The reason why we have so many people who want a nanny state is because they believe it will help them, NOT because it actually does very often.
Come on man, let’s just drop this stuff and actually have a conversation without resorting to petty remarks.
Well, I must say, I am in some agreement with you in this post. I think I know the threads you’re referring to. Again, FTR, I was shaking my head while reading them as well (not so much Dustin’s, but the one with John S., who isn’t an anarchist AFAIK).
[/quote]
Care to point to the threads where I showed my historical inaccuracies and where I clearly stated the wrong person who wrote the constitution(James Madison)?
Well, I must say, I am in some agreement with you in this post. I think I know the threads you’re referring to. Again, FTR, I was shaking my head while reading them as well (not so much Dustin’s, but the one with John S., who isn’t an anarchist AFAIK).
[/quote]
Care to point to the threads where I showed my historical inaccuracies and where I clearly stated the wrong person who wrote the constitution(James Madison)?
You are right on one thing I am no anarchist[/quote]
No. Didn’t mean to throw you under the bus, buddy, but I do remember some thread along these lines.
If this were true, then conservatives would not be the ones bringing up incredibly outrageous doomsday scenarios every time they talk about anarchy. They would know that the spontaneous nature of society would find a solution to this.[/quote]
Anarchy is a doomsday scenario, which is why Humans have never in the course of history opted for it. But that is an aside.
More importantly, this “spontaneous order” you keep talking about has, in fact, solved these problems: by creating a state. Societies have always, always, always formed some kind of a state to deal with certain social issues that otherwise are not dealt with.
And here is the problem yet again - when a society “spontaneously orders” all kinds of institutions - family, community, religion, markets - the Anarchist is ok with these as legitimate outgrowths of what the society “spontaneously ordered”. But when a society creates a state, suddenly such a creation by society is unexplainably illegitimate. All other institutions societies create to promote civilization are ok - but the one instituition of “the state”, created by every society we have ever known to deal with some of society’s most basic problems, is the one institution the Anarchist thinks “wrong”.
Well, societies create solutions via the state - the most obvious example being dispute resolution. Societies want a functioning state, just like they want families, neighborhood associations, and churches. So, your idea that a stateless society would “solve” the problem by “spontaneous order” is right - they would create a state, like they always have.
The state doesn’t create society - the state is an agent of society to do certain things the society wants accomplished. There is nothing “statist” about this viewpoint.
Yes, but it is subject (in a republican form of government) to popular oversight and accountability.
No, I am not speaking of the state here, I am speaking of all the “little platoons” that order society. Libertarians - especially the anarchists - don’t believe one institution is better than another: they are all moral relativists. In other words, they don’t care what spontaneous order occurs - one thing is just as good as another.
Well, that is the opposite of “civilization”. Certain institutions or social actions are worse than others, and civilization means avoiding the bad ones in favor of the good ones. Liberatarians don’t care what comes about, as long as people are free to get to that conclusion - liberty is an End rather than a Means. Thus, civilization is not protected.
You would be totally wrong - unhampered market forces wouldn’t render a nanny-state obsolete; it would lay the groundwork for feudalism.
Moreover, this kind of thinking (it should be pointed out) isn’t “classical liberalism”. There is nothing of this kind of laissez-faire in the Scottish Enlightenement (Adam Smith didn’t call for “unhampered market forces”, nor did his contemporaries), nor did even Hayek (in the Road to Serfdom, he notes the a state has a role in basic welfare and correcting market failures).
No, it doesn’t, because you have no means of enforcing your rights under said constitution.
Another example are historical debates. Our libertarians guffaw about the “Constitution!!!”, and bozos like John S. and Dustin don’t even know what it is in it or who wrote the damn thing.
[/quote]
I wasn’t even going to bother responding, but since you mentioned me and called me a bozo I felt the need to point a few things out to you.
You need to calm the fuck down in this forum. We all get it. You hate libertarians and their politics. You think we are dumbasses, clowns, idiots, and in this case bozos. You really should cut that out. The blatant name calling and personal attacks get old, especially when I seriously doubt that you would say these things face to face to me or any other of the other libertarians. Their are other conservatives here that can debate without acting like 12 year old. Give it a try sometime.
If you hate libertarians so much, why do you insist on posting in these threads? Just to call people names? To read your own writing?
I have a formal education in history. Just because I choose not answer your questions doesn’t mean that I “don’t know what is in it”. Am I a scholar on the subject of the Constitution? No, and I admitted that I was unaware (or couldn’t recall) of some of the questions you asked. Others, I just chose not answer.
I wasn’t even going to bother responding, but since you mentioned me and called me a bozo I felt the need to point a few things out to you.
You need to calm the fuck down in this forum. We all get it. You hate libertarians and their politics. You think we are dumbasses, clowns, idiots, and in this case bozos. You really should cut that out. The blatant name calling and personal attacks get old, especially when I seriously doubt that you would say these things face to face to me or any other of the other libertarians. Their are other conservatives here that can debate without acting like 12 year old. Give it a try sometime. [/quote]
I am not “uncalm”, so there is nothing to settle down about. ANd yes, I would use the same words face to face as I do on PWI - it’s part of my charm.
Secondly, you reserved the right to “make fun” of certain people in another thread, and likewise, I am reserving the same right when confronted by certain people here. “Gander” rule, Dustin - if iti’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander. Bothered by that? Well, if you can’t take, don’t dish.
Most importantly, twasn’t I that poisoned the well of debate by and among libertarians and others. If you (too) are disappointed at what has become of the debates re: libertarians here, don’t look outward, look inward.
Read above in my post to Dabba - it’s a thoughtful critique of his position. I look for debate here - bona fide debate - not an echo chamber or a bunch of clapping seals always in full agreement with me.
I like my ideas challenged and I like to challenge other people’s ideas. That is what debate is. That is why I come here, although it’s not nearly as good as it used to be.
That is fine, I don’t care about that - but then, don’t make assertions that have no basis in fact or reason and expect me (or anyone else) not to call you on it.
For example, I don’t care if you are a “scholar” on the Constitution or not - what I do care about is when you (and others) try and make a bone-headed assertion that simply isn’t true in support of “libertarianism”.
When you do so, you provoke discussion about the wrong-headedness of your claims, and thus you get - wait for it - debate over what you said. Don’t like it? Find a different hobby and stop your perpetual whine over people who happen to disagree with you and then have the audacity to actually point out why.
I am not “uncalm”, so there is nothing to settle down about. ANd yes, I would use the same words face to face as I do on PWI - it’s part of my charm.
[/quote]
I doubt that, but I’m more impressed that you actually, perhaps the first time I’ve ever seen it, showed a bit sarcasm in this forum. A sense of humor, if you will.
Charming indeed.
Now see, this goes back to the sarcasm and sense of humor you typically don’t show. Those pictures were funny. I even had other individuals that expressed that to me and they aren’t libertarians. They understood what I was getting at - that Americans tend to be ignorant of the world around them. Not sure why you took offense to the pictures.
Plus, I wasn’t making fun of anyone in the thread (other forum members). I wasn’t personally attacking anyone and usually don’t unless provoked.
I had no problem with the debates either way as I don’t care if people agree with me or not. Many don’t so I’m use to it. My gripes are they way in which some of you (conservatives) operate in these threads.
I have never whined over people disagreeing with me. Never, not once. As I said, it’s pretty common for people here to disagree with me.
But is not wrong for me to take issue with someone who has never met me to call me “dumbass” and/or an “idiot”? I know this is the internet (serious business), but if this is a forum for reasonably serious debate, I don’t see why it has a place here.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Anarchy is a doomsday scenario, which is why Humans have never in the course of history opted for it. But that is an aside.[/quote]
No, instead, in their most primitive state (and even recently), they have opted for the most brutal governments imaginable.
[quote]More importantly, this “spontaneous order” you keep talking about has, in fact, solved these problems: by creating a state. Societies have always, always, always formed some kind of a state to deal with certain social issues that otherwise are not dealt with.
And here is the problem yet again - when a society “spontaneously orders” all kinds of institutions - family, community, religion, markets - the Anarchist is ok with these as legitimate outgrowths of what the society “spontaneously ordered”. But when a society creates a state, suddenly such a creation by society is unexplainably illegitimate. All other institutions societies create to promote civilization are ok - but the one instituition of “the state”, created by every society we have ever known to deal with some of society’s most basic problems, is the one institution the Anarchist thinks “wrong”.[/quote]
There is a fundamental misunderstanding here. When I speak of spontaneous order I am speaking of the voluntary economic interactions between individuals. The state indeed emerged, but not from voluntary interactions between individuals, but from a psychological presupposition. It is presupposed as being necessary, and therefore is not a part of the spontaneous order that I speak of.
And dispute resolution is one area that is increasingly being settled by the market ironically enough.
Yes, the state is the means by which the diversity of individual ends is reduced to a set of common ends. It is far from an agent of society, though. It is more an agent of whomever happens to be controlling it at that moment. If it was an “agent of society” it would have emerged voluntarily.
Ideally, but how many times have constitutional republics failed to provide their promises? The state has always increased its size, year after year, nearly without fail, despite having a constitution to restrain it. Constitutional Republicanism was a great idea, but it is falling apart before our very eyes (and has been for quite some time). A written constitution is only meaningful insofar as the people believe that it should be upheld. It is not self-enforcing. It is not omnipotent. I’d prefer market forces to act as checks and balances rather than paper guarantees.
Not sure where you’re getting this from. Indeed there are some anarchists who are moral nihilists (IE they don’t believe that morality can be objectively defined), but there are none I know of who want to propose a society that could turn chaotic from a spontaneous order. There are none I know of who advocate lawlessness, chaos, or think that it would come about in a stateless society (of course it could, just as it could in a statist society, it depends upon the people).
Libertarian ends are libertarian means. They are interchangeable. If they are not, then they are not libertarian.
Feudalism? Funny enough, one of the only systems in medieval Europe (that I’m aware of at least) that wasn’t feudal is the one that anti-statists most often point to in terms of how private law might work. That is, medieval Iceland. Are you familiar with that system at all?
Who is mentioning anything about classical liberalism? You do know that economics has progressed since Adam Smith, right? Hayek wasn’t an anarchist, never claimed that he was. However, he was more laissez-faire than I think you’re giving him credit for here.
Sure you do. Only in a stateless society, you have options (and hence competition and hence improved service, etc.).
[quote]Dabba wrote:
Again, I find myself agreeing with the conservatives here. These quotes DO describe conservatism. They show the unflinching dedication to age-old institutitions simply because they are, without questioning their origin or their place in society.
They romanticize and act as if these institutions are necessary and just simply because they exist, and have so for a very long time.[/quote]
Not at all. It’s rather this: just because something (an idea, a law, a princple, an institution) is old doesn’t mean it’s obsolescent.
And it’s this: that you should first understand what you wish to pull down.
And conversely, just because something is new doesn’t mean it’s useful, good, or valuable, etc.
The libertarians are the Romantics - they hope to break from the past, to throw off its “shackles,” and live more “naturally” and without the accoutrements of civilization - it’s the very definition of Romanticism. And it’s, well, naive.
[/quote]
No one is saying that old, traditional institutions are necessarily “obsolescent”. Rather, we are saying that questioning these institutions’ necessity is a good thing. You’re setting up a strawman. I don’t necessarily believe that old things are bad or that new things are good.
On the contrary, libertarians recognize the failures of conservative governing and its lack of an ability to restrain the state.
“…they hope to break from the past, to throw off its “shackles,” and live more “naturally” and without the accoutrements of civilization” This is just absurd. The naivete belongs to the conservative, who believes that “civilization” somehow arises from an all-wise central planner and not the spontaneous nature of society.
You’re going to have to back up your claim that libertarians are romantics and conservatives aren’t when it was not a large group of libertarians, but conservatives who gathered around the holy temple of Lincoln in order to romanticize about the past. I’m not even condemning it, in fact I really like Glenn Beck, but don’t kid yourself here.
And I will leave you with some quotes from Friedrich Hayek’s brilliant essay, “Why I am Not a Conservative” (It should be noted, of course, that when he says “liberalism” he is referring to classical liberalism, although it would nowadays be considered libertarianism.):
“As has often been acknowledged by conservative writers, one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead. There would not be much to object to if the conservatives merely disliked too rapid change in institutions and public policy; here the case for caution and slow process is indeed strong. But the conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate to whatever appeals to the more timid mind. In looking forward, they lack the faith in the spontaneous forces of adjustment which makes the liberal accept changes without apprehension, even though he does not know how the necessary adaptations will be brought about…The conservative feels safe and content only if he is assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change “orderly.””
“Conservatives feel instinctively that it is new ideas more than anything else that cause change. But, from its point of view rightly, conservatism fears new ideas because it has no distinctive principles of its own to oppose them; and, by its distrust of theory and its lack of imagination concerning anything except that which experience has already proved, it deprives itself of the weapons needed in the struggle of ideas. Unlike liberalism, with its fundamental belief in the long-range power of ideas, conservatism is bound by the stock of ideas inherited at a given time. And since it does not really believe in the power of argument, its last resort is generally a claim to superior wisdom, based on some self-arrogated superior quality.”
“Follies and abuses are no better for having long been established principles of folly.”
F.A. Hayek[/quote]
Your F.A. Hayek quotes deserve their own thread for discussion I think. Very complex thoughts and I don’t agree or disagree with either in their entirety, but several things bother me about these quotes. I simply don’t have the time to give it the thought I should to respond.
No, instead, in their most primitive state (and even recently), they have opted for the most brutal governments imaginable.[/quote]
Incorrect - governments over time have not uniformly been one thing or another. Further, you seem particularly unaware that in the primitive and semi-primitive world, the heightened level of security that a “government” provided (via outright monarchy or ‘strongman’ orders) was far preferable to the dangers of the surrounding world.
A modern example of that shows up over and over in Africa - in the power vaccuum of anarchy, ‘strongmen’ rise to power, and people prefer it to the alternative.
The point is “opting” for brutal governments has a track record of historically being preferable to “anarchy” and that should tell you something.
Well, your first mistake is that you are speaking of “voluntary economic interactions between individuals” - humans don’t engage exclusively in “economic” interactions, and thus the order of their interactions must encompass far more than economic issues.
And the state emerged to not only protect property (a latter development), but also to provide physical safety (economic and non-economic), order relationships, peacefully solve disputes between citizens, and order society generally in accordance with norms.
And yes, the state is “presupposed” as being necessary, just as other institutions that serve society’s functions are “presupposed” as being necessary. It is one of a menu of several.
And your comment simply doesn’t make sense - why would something that is presupposed as necessary not be a part of spontaneous ordering of society? “Spontaneous” doesn’t mean “random”.
Well, completely false. This simply isn’t true. Private dispute resolutions - i.e., arbitration - are only legitimate because you have the ability to take your arbitration award and get it enforced by a state or federal court. Without the backstop of government-provided courts, there is no arbitration.
It did emerge voluntarily. If you have evidence to the contrary, provide it. You haven’t.
You worry about the overconcentration of the state, yet won’t recognize the potential overconcentration of private power in an anarchic state (i.e., feudalism). You run the same risk - you merely replace one tyrant with another. And no, “market forces” wouldn’t remedy that in the long run.
For my part, I don’t want overconcentration in any sphere.
All of them are, if they are honest with themselves.
Right, it could, the point being that Anarchists are more than happy to permit an arrangement for it to happen, all in the name of doctrinal purity. Humans are of a savage nature, and strip away the guardrails (private and public), as Anarchists want to do, and you uhnleash that savagery.
Oh, Anarchists can “suggest” that this end-result not occur, but because of their commitment to absolute, doctrinal non-coercion of any kind (public or private), they are powerless to prevent it.
I’ll opt for an alternative - civilization.
Well, you;ve made my point for me - and demonstrated that Libertarians can’t be anything but moral relativists.
Enough to know it transitioned into statism.
I am mentioning it to make a point.
Uh, no you don’t. In a stateless society, you have no contractual relationship with anyone w/r/t to your rights (that wouldn’t help much anyway, but it is an additional obstacle). If your rights are infringed upon by one of them, you have no means of recovering from them or vindicating your rights.
You mention “options”, but never offer one. If you have one, say so. I suspect you don’t.