Coercion

[Death Aflame]

After some reading today I feel the need to read further into Rothbards works on Anarcho-capitolism, since so far the only logical problem with what I have read so far is that it would leave the potential for an oppressive monopoly.

I see this as kind of a pointless arguement against it, since the alternative is to just go ahead and build the framework for an oppressive monopoly (government) right off the bat.

I think when discussing anything along these lines, all parties must be able to agree on self ownership (without getting into dualism arguements), the non-aggression principle and land-use occupancy as foundational and vital to freedom.

I am not too familiar with Rothbard directly, but I have read about him in second-hand accounts by other authors. I think the term anarcho-capitalism is unsavory and I prefer the more inclusive term market anarchism, a more accurate umbrella of where my beliefs fall.

Some things I am still wary about in Rothbard's thought include private defense forces. I think force might better serve a given community in a consumer cooperative structure. Should their be competing firms of force in any one community? I am not sure, as I haven't thought much about the topic.

Obviously it's important, as one of my statist liberal friends always asks me when we get into political discussions, "Who has the guns?"

 

[Dak]

The question that is at least on equal footing as "Who has the guns" is "Who controls the money".

The problem when discussing any form of government or non-government is you cannot get around the fact that there will always be people who will seek to manipulate any possible loophole in the system, which are impossible to completely eliminate. I support minarchy, or something close to it because when the state is removed, the common man cannot overlook aggression as excusable because it's from "official" source.