Becoming An Anarchist w/ Murray Rothbard

Exactly why every consistent minarchist becomes an anarchist.

@JohnRuddick2 Not logical. A weak argument People can and DO form together to own steel plants and the like. They are called publicy listed companies. What they don't do is FORCE OTHERS TO OWN THEM regardless of whether those people want to or not.

I wish I could agree, if only anarchy could be demonstrated in practice (which it hasn’t). Theoretically correct though. Minarchist in the streets. Anarchist in the sheets.

I’m not sure I agree. COURT <> STEEL PLANT (business) COURT PURPOSE: To provide a non-consumable service, a third-party to impartially #adjudicate the #controversy or #injury between 2 or more entities. (This is an ‘after’ action of business.) An action has happened to person without their want. [I have intentionally left out courts being used to license action. This should change.] BUSINESS PURPOSE: To provide a consumable product or service to N entities. An action has happened to person with their want. Yes, the individuals can gather and choose to act in unison and establish a method. This gentleman’s logic is using it as well to try and have us run on anarchism. That is to say the very mechanism that made him change his mind to anarchism is being used to try and implement anarchism. It’s obvious individuals can gather to create X, Y, Z. That’s not the point. The point is that, 1. We have a segment of activity (adjudicating controversy) that requires a process that is beyond reproach. And affects us all whether we like it or not. I cannot choose to not be injured by a jackass. The ability to adjudicate is fundamental. 2. Business activity is entirely different and does not require compelled involvement (no one chooses to be injured) it’s a voluntary act. 3. The issue falls within what is REASONABLE and what is that nexus between humans doing business and the courts. In my opinion it goes to #natural_right_to_contract we need to teach and use contracts much more. This makes adjudication much easier. Right now they are trying to uniform everything so the adjudication is streamlined. This means licenses, red tape…crony capitalism…what we have.

Absolutely brilliant.

mine was this statement by Stephan Kinsella: Accordingly, anyone who is not an anarchist must maintain either: (a) aggression is justified; or (b) states (in particular, minimal states) do not necessarily employ aggression.

Pure logic 🫶✨

Makes sense

I suspect that there is a distinction though. Perhaps around property, and rule of law. The immediate difference b/n a police force, courts etc, and a business, is property and wealth generation. The former protects those things for all, the latter is created by private people.

How do you prevent force being exploited by the rich or a mafia from occurring in an anarchistic society?