The wondrous, non-coercive philosophy of anarcho-capitalism

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you tell us what your problems are then we can talk about them. Maybe you are right and the DRO system would fail. Fine. But let's figure it out.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to hear your thoughts. Did this sound good to you? Did it reflect the sort of (non-coercive) society in which you'd want to live, raise children, etc?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would I want to live in this society? Compared to what?

[ QUOTE ]
You do realize he is talking about murderers, rapists, con men and child molesters, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely not correct.

Molyneux is quite specifically talking about "people who might become criminals," as indicated by their dropping their coverage by (purely voluntary, completely non-coercive, of course) DRO's. He states this unequivocally at 8 min, 0 seconds into the recording:

"However the stateless society goes much, much further in preventing crime, specifically by identifying those who are going to become criminals." [emphasis Molyneux's]

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

"However the stateless society goes much, much further in preventing crime, specifically by identifying those who are going to become criminals." [emphasis Molyneux's]


[/ QUOTE ]

So what? If i think your going to become a murderer should i sell you a gun? I would hope not. If I think your the kind of guy who would rape someone would i sell you the ingredients to make GHB? God I would hope not.

[plzleenowhammy]

Listen to the next podcast.. "I was describing an extreme situation not everyday social relations".

[plzleenowhammy]

Also, you are perfectly free to not have a DRO if you're willing to live on your own land, grow your own food etc. You could also start your own DRO.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Listen to the next podcast.. "I was describing an extreme situation not everyday social relations".

[/ QUOTE ]

Jogger,
The podcasts at freedommainradio are in a lot of ways designed for people who already agree with basic precepts, and are for the composer a method of expression. In a lot of them he is discussing ideas he is currently still fleshing out and is doing so in a medium which is not conducive to editing and refinement. If you are interested in some of the precepts of libertarian and AC justice Rothbard is a great place to start. Specifically I enjoy chapter 13 of "The ethics of liberty" punishment an proportionality. Here is a link to the (free) audio book the ethics of liberty.

[Borodog]

This is the best you have? That in a free market someone might refuse to do business with you? How coercive!

You crack me up dude.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
Listen to the next podcast.. "I was describing an extreme situation not everyday social relations".

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, he did make that remark, in response to listener comments that his vision of AC utopia was "even more soul-crushing than government". (That's a direct quote from podcast 3, btw.)

Of course in the original podcast, the soul-destroying sh*t he was talking about was a response, not to a crime of any sort, but to someone who opted out of DRO's, because that could be taken as a sign that they might wish to commit a crime.

So I have to say I find his defense in cast 3 rather disingenuous: the "extreme" situation to which it is a response is somebody who could not afford to pay, or simply did not wish to join, a DRO.

Not only is Molyneux's DRO system just as coercive as the government, the manner in which it's coercive is quite plainly worse. The government will (at worst) jail you for non-compliance with tax policy. DRO's will force your wife to divorce you, then starve you to death. No exaggerations: this is precisely what he said in his 'cast.

Given a choice between DRO's and a mugging, I'd prefer to be mugged, and it's not close. To call AC non-compulsory, at least according to this guy's vision, is simply demented.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the best you have? That in a free market someone might refuse to do business with you? How coercive!

You crack me up dude.

[/ QUOTE ]
One of the following is true:

1. You did not listen to the podcast.
2. You did listen to the podcast, but are so far gone that you failed to recognize just how bad it is.
3. You're did listen to the podcast, and did recognize the horror it entails, but are going to pursue your agenda anyway, and have decided to feign innocence/ignorance as a means of damage control.

Certainly if you listened to the podcast, you know this: "In a free market someone might refuse to do business with you?" in no way represents Molyneux's vision.

Sincerely, of the possibilities, I hope you simply didn't listen (and if this is the case, I hope that now you will).

Good luck,
Jogger

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Listen to the next podcast.. "I was describing an extreme situation not everyday social relations".

[/ QUOTE ]

Jogger,
The podcasts at freedommainradio are in a lot of ways designed for people who already agree with basic precepts, and are for the composer a method of expression. In a lot of them he is discussing ideas he is currently still fleshing out and is doing so in a medium which is not conducive to editing and refinement. If you are interested in some of the precepts of libertarian and AC justice Rothbard is a great place to start. Specifically I enjoy chapter 13 of "The ethics of liberty" punishment an proportionality. Here is a link to the (free) audio book the ethics of liberty.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll check it out. Thanks T.
-J

[Nielsio]

jogger,


The ACists here know voluntary solutions when they see them.

If you think Molyneux or someone else is describing a coercive situation, then you may logically show how that is the case.


The argument from morality (the argument from consistency):
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux7.html


Two applications of universality to disprove positive rights:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux9.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/molyneux/molyneux10.html


(all found in podcast form as well, I think)