[Eran]

I accept that discussions dedicated to anarcho-capitalism properly belong in the Anarchism forum rather than the Libertarianism Forum. That is precisely the prerogative of the site owners.

Site designers and operators have many rights and privileges. Determining the use of language isn't one of them. In normal conversations I define myself as libertarian (subspecies anarcho-capitalist or free market anarchist or voluntaryist - still not sure), as do most other people of opinions similar to myself.

A quick look at Wikipedia and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy seems to confirm that usage.

I had said there were fewer downsides with the one system than the other. One of the downsides of Anarcho-Capitalism is the susceptibility of societies trying to implement its tenets to dissolve under the assault of actors not interested in following its tenets.

Having given the question much thought, I came to the conclusion that neither form of organisation is naturally superior in terms of its stability.

Minarchy carries within it the distinct possibility of enlargement in the scope of the state (akin to the process whereby the scope of the Federal government was enlarged through both formal amendments and informal changes to judicial interpretation). An anarcho-capitalist society depends for its stability on an ongoing consensus regarding the impermissibility of initiation of force, even for the minimal goal of restricting legitimate right-enforcement to one actor (the state).

In both cases, "drifts" in public opinion can move society in either direction.

I do tend to think that clearly-defined boundaries are more difficult to cross than fuzzy ones. Thus the US Constitution contains sufficient fuzziness around the enumerated powers to allow a virtually-unlimited expansion.

A minarchy could have a much clearer constitutional limitation on the power of the majority, though it is very difficult to see how one can authorise a monopoly to use force to protect rights while clearly and effectively constitutionally prohibiting foreign adventurism or PATRIOT Act-like violations of personal freedoms in the name of security.

Anarchy, I believe, draws a much clearer boundary around the legitimate use of force, though there is still fuzziness around the pre-emption of imminent hostilities.

[Phred]

A quick look at Wikipedia and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy seems to confirm that usage.

Please provide a direct link to the section of the SEP which says An-Caps are in fact Libertarians.

The difference between the Libertarian model and the Anarcho-Capitalist model is fundamental and irreconcilable. Laissez-faire Capitalist/Classical Liberal/Minarchist/Libertarian thought holds that government is an essential, non-optional element of a functioning society. Anarcho-Capitalist thought holds that government is not only not essential, but forbidden. There is a fundamental difference here - government vs no government. The oft-offered argument by people reluctant to self-identify as An-Caps is that the difference between the two philosophies is merely a matter of degree. It isn't. It is a binary difference: either there is a government or there isn't. An-Caps often derisively refer to Libertarians as Statists. While perhaps a tad impolite, it is in fact an accurate label.

Anarcho-Capitalism is therefore not a "flavor" of Libertarianism. It is not just a different color on the spectrum. It is a separate and fundamentally different socio-political system.

Minarchy carries within it the distinct possibility of enlargement in the scope of the state (akin to the process whereby the scope of the Federal government was enlarged through both formal amendments and informal changes to judicial interpretation).

All systems run by humans are subject to "mission creep", yes.

An anarcho-capitalist society depends for its stability on an ongoing consensus regarding the impermissibility of initiation of force, even for the minimal goal of restricting legitimate right-enforcement to one actor (the state).

Which is precisely why they are vulnerable to the first group of determined actors who decide to ignore said impermissibility. An An-Cap society can have no effective military.

Anarchy, I believe, draws a much clearer boundary around the legitimate use of force, though there is still fuzziness around the pre-emption of imminent hostilities.

The problem is not in defining the boundaries. The problem is in implementing effective responses to those who don't respect those boundaries.


Phred

[Eran]

Please provide a direct link to the section of the SEP which says An-Caps are in fact Libertarians.

In the entry on Libertarianism we find:

Radical right libertarianism— advocated, for example, by Rothbard (1978, 1982), Narveson (1988, ch. 7; 1999), and Feser (2005)—holds that that there are no fair share constraints on use or appropriation.

Clearly identifying Rothbard as a libertarian.

We also find:

Libertarianism, then, is not only critical of the modern welfare state, but of states in general. Given that so much of modern life seems to require a state, libertarianism's anarchist stance is a powerful objection against it. In reply, libertarians argue that (1) many of the effects of states are quite negative, (2) many of the positive effects can be obtained without the state through voluntary mechanisms, and (3) even if some positive effects cannot be so obtained, the ends do not justify the means in these cases.

Which actually casts a doubt about whether any statists can be considered strict libertarians.

The difference between the Libertarian model and the Anarcho-Capitalist model is fundamental and irreconcilable. Laissez-faire Capitalist/Classical Liberal/Minarchist/Libertarian thought holds that government is an essential, non-optional element of a functioning society. Anarcho-Capitalist thought holds that government is not only not essential, but forbidden. There is a fundamental difference here - government vs no government.

I agree with the substance of your statement. The difference between us is purely semantic, i.e. whether the term "libertarianism" should be used in the narrower sense to only include those who believe in the necessity for some government, or whether it should be used more broadly to also include anarcho-capitalists and people holding related views.

Which is precisely why they are vulnerable to the first group of determined actors who decide to ignore said impermissibility. An An-Cap society can have no effective military.

I strongly disagree. It is most obvious that individual anarchists will object strongly to the first group of determined actors who, in practice, violate their property rights. They are likely to take actions to forestall or reverse such violations. Further, in the context of an overall anarchist society, the actions of the defenders will be viewed as legitimate, while those of the aggressors as criminal.

It is fair to wonder whether their resistance will be effective or not. I think that depends on circumstances. On the one hand, it is easy to envision a society in which most people contract out their right protection to large, national (or even international) agencies (insurance companies or other right-protection agencies), with such organisations having both the incentive and the means to help repel forces of aggression.

On the other hand, a sufficiently powerful external threat may well overwhelm the anarchist society's resources. But then, it may also overwhelm the resources of a government-protected society.

The problem is not in defining the boundaries. The problem is in implementing effective responses to those who don't respect those boundaries.

Rational cooperating people will find solutions. You and I both believe this is the case with respect to a very wide range of societal problems (welfare, education, health, transportation, product safety, etc.). Why is your belief in the ability of people to rationally plan and collaborate suddenly vanish when it comes to the service of protecting one's property, a service which, to a limited extent, is already provided privately in any number of ways?

[Rothbardian]

What examples? I know of none.

I appreciate your being honest about your ignorance.

First of all, obviously pre-government humanity did not have a government. Yet they had laws, industry, agriculture, cities; a great degree of cooperation and organization, and a distinct lack of war. I don't have any idea what crime was like then, it might be interesting to find out what they even considered crime (the original definition of 'crime' was 'an activity which causes harm to another person'), but it certainly could not have been the hobbesian nightmare so many statists fear.

Off the top of my head:

In the medieval era in England the commoners did not have access to the king's courts nor the church's courts, yet they managed peaceful lives with the exception of the occasional aristocrat deciding to rape and pillage.

Ireland was anarchic for nearly a thousand years, and aside from the occasional dispute was extremely peaceful, as well as productive. During this time ireland was a mix of independent communities that, again, failed to go to war with each other. As a side note, it took the british empire over four hundred years to conquer anarchist england, whereas it took only a few years to conquer statist india.

The western territories of the united states were a modern industrial anarchy complete with private courts, and were far safer than the eastern territories that were under governments. Far safer than anywhere in the U.S. today as well, too, with statistics adjusted to compensate for population change (which should help the statists' case, but alas, the statist position still fails here).

I am sure there are others, but it is late.

I will continue to wait patiently for some empirical or, at least, internally logically consistent justification for the claims that either a government creates safety or that a government is necessary for safety.

Not just my terminology, but the terminology of the site designers who decided which forums were to be centered on which politico-economic system. By the description of this forum and of other forums here, you are an Anarchist (subspecies Anarcho-Capitalist) while I am a Libertarian.

I had said there were fewer downsides with the one system than the other. One of the downsides of Anarcho-Capitalism is the susceptibility of societies trying to implement its tenets to dissolve under the assault of actors not interested in following its tenets.


Phred

Just curious, but why do labels matter? I've been called an anarchist, a libertarian, a right wing fundamentalist, and a communist. I consider myself a rational emiricist, for me anarchy, or libertarianism (the philosophy at least) is just a conclusion I've reached based on reason and evidence.

[Phred]

Just curious, but why do labels matter?

Words have meaning. That's why there are so many of them. It's easy enough to have misunderstandings in communication even when people use words correctly. It is exponentially more likely to happen if words are used incorrectly.

It's hard enough already to persuade people that Libertarianism/Laissez-faire Capitalism/Classical Liberalism/Minarchism is a sensible way of organizing a society when the system being spoken of is actually Libertarianism. But it's more difficult still to persuade people when what is being proposed is not limited government, but no government. Fairly or unfairly, as soon as people realize that what you are proposing is a complete lack of government, many tune out. I as a Libertarian don't wish to be tarred by the same brush.

By all means feel free to argue for a lack of government, just don't call yourself a Libertarian while doing it, and don't claim that it is the Libertarian position. It isn't. Lack of government is the Anarchist position. Tightly restricted minimal government is the Libertarian position. If you are going to advocate Anarachy, identify it as such. Don't hide behind the (slightly) more acceptable label of Libertarianism.


Phred

[Rothbardian]

Words have meaning. That's why there are so many of them. It's easy enough to have misunderstandings in communication even when people use words correctly. It is exponentially more likely to happen if words are used incorrectly.

It's hard enough already to persuade people that Libertarianism/Laissez-faire Capitalism/Classical Liberalism/Minarchism is a sensible way of organizing a society when the system being spoken of is actually Libertarianism. But it's more difficult still to persuade people when what is being proposed is not limited government, but no government. Fairly or unfairly, as soon as people realize that what you are proposing is a complete lack of government, many tune out. I as a Libertarian don't wish to be tarred by the same brush.

By all means feel free to argue for a lack of government, just don't call yourself a Libertarian while doing it, and don't claim that it is the Libertarian position. It isn't. Lack of government is the Anarchist position. Tightly restricted minimal government is the Libertarian position. If you are going to advocate Anarachy, identify it as such. Don't hide behind the (slightly) more acceptable label of Libertarianism.


Phred

I agree that defining terms and using language correctly is important, but to me labels just seem to muddy the water. I have completely given up on trying to determine what the specific definition for libertarian, anarchist, an-cap, etc, is because no one can seem to agree. And really, if we all accept the validity of the NAP, does it matter what we call ourselves?

That is what I would call libertarianism, a philosophy based on the non aggression principle. Where people disagree is on how to apply that principle. That said, I don't mind whether you call me a libertarian, an anarchist or an atheist. What I am is a rational empiricist, and for me my positions are just conclusions I've reached. Going from minarchist to anti-statism was just a matter of accepting I had made some mistakes in judgement and that my position was flawed, but my take on the non aggression principle didn't change at all.

[Eran]

It's hard enough already to persuade people that Libertarianism/Laissez-faire Capitalism/Classical Liberalism/Minarchism is a sensible way of organizing a society when the system being spoken of is actually Libertarianism. But it's more difficult still to persuade people when what is being proposed is not limited government, but no government. Fairly or unfairly, as soon as people realize that what you are proposing is a complete lack of government, many tune out.

Setting aside the semantic debate, I accept your point as a matter of practice.

The same argument, btw, applies with respect to the elimination of certain government functions that many libertarians (e.g. Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek) would like to maintain, such as public support for education and a minimal social safety net.

In other words, the more radical your position, the more difficult it is to convince people (or even engage them in a dialogue).

Minarchy is just one point on the spectrum between mild libertarianism (e.g. a-la-Cato Institute) and radical libertarian anarchism.