DSEngere

Very stimulating discussion.One thing that stands out to me is how the state must feel when they read responses like "Armed revolution is insane". I think it probably bolsters them a lot, and it's exactly how they want you to feel. When you have most people shouting "even though the state is the bane of society, we will never resist it!", I think that may be counter productive. If you had a much smaller and easier to manage criminal gang on your hands going around and wrecking society, there would be absolutely no question that using force against them would be the proper course of action.

One thing that's troubled me is Cantwell's callous attitude toward generally decent people who have simply been brainwashed their entire lives. Seeing that a lot of us have come from conservative backgrounds (strong police, strong military, etc.) How many of us considered joining the police or military before we became anarchists? I would wager a good percentage. That being said, if I were a cop, I would rather someone reason with me instead of simply shooting me or my family members. I'm not inherently opposed to the use of force, but it must only be used as a last resort against aggression when reason has failed. Your thoughts?

Yes, but what about the "water under the bridge" argument, that the crime dissolves over time?

OK, replace "government" with "group of people" or "company". Surely a company or group of people can jointly own property?

Hi guys. I have a very annoying question that relates to the “taxation is theft” argument. I am about to make an exhaustive, comprehensive, 100% watertight argument that leaves no questions. I am almost there. Of course, taxation is inconsistent with property rights. If I actually own my home/my land, the government has no right to impose laws on my land. It is “my land, my rules”- correct?The problem arises when we consider a totalitarian style state that doesn’t recognize property rights. I was hoping someone could help point out what is probably an obvious problem in my thinking. I am getting hung up on what is probably a very shitty statist argument. As Stefan has said before, a crime dies with the criminal. That being said, Imagine a government steals a bunch of land by kicking people off of it or murdering them. After the owners and government agents are dead and the land has been passed down (like how many Americans own land that was previously owned by Native Americans), the crime is essentially water under the bridge at this point. While this is of course theft and incredibly evil, pretend again that our imaginary government retains “ownership” of its stolen land and continues to pass it from generation to generation of government agents, so that the current owners bear no connection to the original crimes; They have inherited stolen land, but the rightful owners and the thieves are dead. Now imagine that the government has slowly done this with all of the land in the country, so now the government “owns” all of the land and treat all homes as the owners are simply renting from the government. At this point, do they have moral legitimacy to enact things like taxation, etc. because it’s “their land, their rules”? Of course, there is the problem that people who are born onto this government “property” never consented to the rules. Do they have any right to impose any rules at all on people who are born onto the land? I think therein lies the important problem- you cannot impose rules on people who are born onto privately owned land. But I need someone to help me complete this thought. I know that this situation does not apply to most countries, but it represents a potential theoretically morally legitimate existence of a state (even though it originated with crimes, the crimes have passed away). I don’t want to be caught with my pants down on this argument by some full communist. I need to have a 100% watertight argument that taxation is theft and the government is inherently immoral- PERIOD. Please remember that I am playing devil's advocate here to sharpen my argument. I personally would not make this argument because I know that such a scenario would result in a complete and utter disaster. But not everybody is convinced of that. I want to be able to convince these naive people on a theoretical basis instead of going down the "anarchism is practically better" rabbit hole. Any help or moral clarity would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks very much everyone for the insightful responses- they're all much appreciated!

I come asking for some advice. My goal, like most Libertarians/Ancaps, is to convince people of the moral and practical advantages of anarcho-capitalism, and eventually come to our side. I know I can't be the only one who feels like this is next to impossible. So I come asking you what I may be doing wrong (or not doing at all). I spend a lot of time debating people on facebook and in real life. It usually starts with me posting some anti-government status (or comment in real life), article, picture, etc. I'm almost always very calm and respectful (unless my opponent is being an ass). I stick to the evidence and rarely if ever argue from emotion. My suspicion is that engaging in arguments tends to make people cling to their beliefs even harder, simply because their ego is at stake. I certainly see this in myself when I am debating people, especially if they are being rude, because then I feel like I need to crush their arguments into dust. But the big difference between me and my opponents is that I will actually change my mind on a matter (if not during the debate, then afterward after giving it some thought). That's how I became an anarchist- I fought hard from the minarchist position and eventually caved due to the overwhelming evidence against me, even though it was uncomfortable. I can probably count on one hand the number of times people have admitted that I had a good point during a debate/argument/conversation. That's what gets me- I realize that people naturally don't want to be wrong, but how is that aversion so strong in other people? I know the people I debate to be above average intelligence, with more or less the same upbringing as myself. These are people who I know were not abused as kids, to the contrary had pretty good childhoods. I have a hard time buying that they have some kind of deep mental scarring that is holding them back from the truth- I was raised in a conservative family and went to public school my whole life, and I overcame that mental baggage within about 1.5 to 2 years after hearing about anarchism. Other people seem to have a much more difficult time coming to the truth. I find myself saying the exact same things over and over to some people, as if they completely forgot the argument the last time I told them. I've been debating some of the same people for literally years. The funny thing is, people on this board are in a mad pursuit of truth, even at high cost. We LOOK for ways to crack our theories, and put them under high pressure to check for leaks. It seems that most other people are doing the exact opposite- trying to find any way to patch their broken worldview together to salvage their pride and comfort. Is it just that people have too much pride to admit they're wrong (but secretly know it)? Or is it something much deeper than that? Or is it just that I'm a shitty debater? I spend a lot of time trying to convince people and I don't want it to all be in vain. Does anybody have this same experience? If so, were you able to crack through anybody's shell? So far I realize that to remove someone's jacket, I need to warm them like the sun rather than beat them like the wind, so I try to be as un-confrontational as possible. But beyond that, I am at a bit of a loss. Who knows- maybe I am making all kinds of good progress in peoples' minds and they just won't admit it. Maybe I've planted thousands of seeds and will get to witness the harvest at a later time. It's just a bit discouraging to essentially be debating a brick wall for years. Any insight is greatly appreciate. Thanks very much, -Dan

Hello folks. Long time listener, first time poster. I'm from Michigan in the US. I am posting this to learn more about what seems to be the one and only soft spot in my anarchist philosophy, that being Japan's apparent success with gun control. For those who don't know, just look up the stats. The bottom line is that they have scores less gun murders. I thought there had to be a disclaimer, like massive amounts of rape or theft or something that guns deter, but I couldn't find anything. Now, of course I realize that Japan has a completely different history than the USA, as well as a different cultural mentality. I know this plays an important role, but I have a hard time chalking up Japan's stats to just this. Another point I realized is that having low gun crime is not at all worth the cost of enforcing gun law: a massive, all-powerful government who can rule and misrepresent you (think WW2) anytime. Yet still, I feel like I must be missing some important datapoint. It seems that Japan's gun control just works, which baffles me. Anywhere it's been tried here in America, it's been a complete failure- maybe because our country is so full of guns that criminals will always have a much easier time getting ahold of them? I don't know, and that's why I'm here to ask. Thanks very much, -Dan