Why I became an anarcho-capitalist libertarian

[shagster01]

You seem to be espousing a view based on special pleading. If you believe in anarchism (anarchical capitalism) then you ought also let people decide for themselves what is moral and what is not. You can't say that it is great to have laws prohibiting abortion and then say that people should be allowed to have what drugs they please. As soon as you impose morality on them you have established government and the rule of law.

But there is a reason why governments generally oppose drug abuse. And I think you have misunderstood the nature of government if you think that it is to impose morality on people. Government/the state doesn't care a rat's bottom about morality. If it did, it would never have separated the state from religion. The reason states oppose drug abuse is that as a whole, it creates populations that are not working at their best.

If drug abuse were, by its nature, limited to a small number of people, the state wouldn't care. The state doesn't regulate mountaineering or base jumping. Drug regulation is not about wielding the big stick but is everything to with the state's responsibility to promote the well being of the state as a whole. Drug abuse is clearly so common that it requires regulation because wholesale abuse endangers the life of the state.

And since you mention it, I would argue the same for homosexual marriage. Because the marriage institution is essential to the state because it is primarily in marriage that children are brought up to be sound, responsible individuals and the concept of homosexual marriage eats away at this.

Homosexuality is, by it's nature, limited to a small number of people (around 2%), many of whom don't want to get married, so I don't see your point here.

 

[Desert Reign]

Homosexuality is, by it's nature, limited to a small number of people (around 2%), many of whom don't want to get married, so I don't see your point here.

Well, you quoted me but ignored what I said. But in order not to derail a perfectly good thread on anarchism, let me just say that if only a small few of the 2% who are homosexuals want marriage to accommodate them, then this is not a state issue. I don't see why the state should legalise abnormality. No amount of legalising will make homosexual marriage normal.

 

[shagster01]

Well, you quoted me but ignored what I said. But in order not to derail a perfectly good thread on anarchism, let me just say that if only a small few of the 2% who are homosexuals want marriage to accommodate them, then this is not a state issue. I don't see why the state should legalise abnormality. No amount of legalising will make homosexual marriage normal.

You are saying the government doesn't care about morals unless it affects a big chunk of society but they should if it involves homosexuality?

 

[resodko]

WTC #7 was hit by a 767?

two of them! :banana:

 

[Christian Liberty]

You seem to be espousing a view based on special pleading. If you believe in anarchism (anarchical capitalism) then you ought also let people decide for themselves what is moral and what is not. You can't say that it is great to have laws prohibiting abortion and then say that people should be allowed to have what drugs they please. As soon as you impose morality on them you have established government and the rule of law.

This is a valid problem with ancap, hence why I've begun changing my position as I mentioned in my post.

But there is a reason why governments generally oppose drug abuse. And I think you have misunderstood the nature of government if you think that it is to impose morality on people. Government/the state doesn't care a rat's bottom about morality. If it did, it would never have separated the state from religion. The reason states oppose drug abuse is that as a whole, it creates populations that are not working at their best. EDIT: Here I mean 'working' generally. Not just that such people are less productive in employment but there is a general loss of efficiency in society through increased health care and crime.

If drug abuse were, by its nature, limited to a small number of people, the state wouldn't care. The state doesn't regulate mountaineering or base jumping. Drug regulation is not about wielding the big stick but is everything to with the state's responsibility to promote the well being of the state as a whole. Drug abuse is clearly so common that it requires regulation because wholesale abuse endangers the life of the state.

And since you mention it, I would argue the same for homosexual marriage. Because the marriage institution is essential to the state because it is primarily in marriage that children are brought up to be sound, responsible individuals and the concept of homosexual marriage eats away at this.

Since people are individuals, I would argue that even if drug use increase the chance that one will be a criminal (which I'd grant) that doesn't mean all drug users are criminals, and those that haven't violated the rights of anyone else should be left alone. As for health care, that's an argument against redistribution.

Gay marriage... I'm more inclined to agree with you on this one because we are talking about the State endorsing immorality rather than merely allowing it. That said, I prefer the government to not define marriage at all.

 

[Nimrod]

You seem to be espousing a view based on special pleading. If you believe in anarchism (anarchical capitalism) then you ought also let people decide for themselves what is moral and what is not. You can't say that it is great to have laws prohibiting abortion and then say that people should be allowed to have what drugs they please. As soon as you impose morality on them you have established government and the rule of law.

You should be able to do to yourself anything you want. i.e. DRUGS.

What you don't have the right is to do harm to another. Abortion, steal, rape.... and other moral laws.

 

[Nimrod]

But there is a reason why governments generally oppose drug abuse. And I think you have misunderstood the nature of government if you think that it is to impose morality on people. Government/the state doesn't care a rat's bottom about morality. If it did, it would never have separated the state from religion. The reason states oppose drug abuse is that as a whole, it creates populations that are not working at their best. EDIT: Here I mean 'working' generally. Not just that such people are less productive in employment but there is a general loss of efficiency in society through increased health care and crime.

The government doesn't cares about the productivity of individuals. If it did, government would not exist as they are the most slothful, wasteful workers in the world.

The question you need to answer about the Drug War is....who benefits? Psssst. Follow the money.

State prisons benefits. Police benefits. Big Pharm. Politicians.......

 

[Desert Reign]

This is a valid problem with ancap, hence why I've begun changing my position as I mentioned in my post.

Thanks for saying so.

Since people are individuals, I would argue that even if drug use increase the chance that one will be a criminal (which I'd grant) that doesn't mean all drug users are criminals, and those that haven't violated the rights of anyone else should be left alone. As for health care, that's an argument against redistribution.

You seem to be viewing the question solely from the viewpoint of the individual. A person who isn't a criminal but who abuses drugs to the point of needing social welfare, or indeed the need for anyone to look after them, is raising the level of unhappiness in the society. If you have an accident and someone helps you or the state helps you, then everyone is happy because it is a rallying point. But if through your own actions you cause others to have to help you, then that is only the opposite.

Gay marriage... I'm more inclined to agree with you on this one because we are talking about the State endorsing immorality rather than merely allowing it. That said, I prefer the government to not define marriage at all.

Agree in principle but as I said I don't think the question is immorality but abnormality. We may believe this is immoral because we are Christians but the state takes no care of what religion we are. You can argue with homosexuals till you are blue in the face over the morality of their acts but I have found that they can't answer me back when I insist that their acts are in fact abnormal. It's a general principle of debate and competition: you adopt a lesser position that you know is more easily upheld than a stronger position which can be beaten down.

You should be able to do to yourself anything you want. i.e. DRUGS.

What you don't have the right is to do harm to another. Abortion, steal, rape.... and other moral laws.

Tell me that increasing the amount of taxes I have to pay to help people who not only voluntarily take drugs but who in addition pay no taxes themselves is not doing harm to me.

The government doesn't cares about the productivity of individuals.

Well, isn't that what I have just said? 0/10 for listening.

 

[Nimrod]

Tell me that increasing the amount of taxes I have to pay to help people who not only voluntarily take drugs but who in addition pay no taxes themselves is not doing harm to me.

Where does ana. cap. say government should tax people so they can help the drug users? In an ana. cap. society, government would not be providing these services to users.

Well, isn't that what I have just said? 0/10 for listening.

No. Go look what you wrote.