Thanks for the clarification. My comment(s) was aimed to get you and me to think deeper on the issues of anarcho-libertarianism. I also wanted to make sure you understood what you were saying. I believe the goal has been accomplished. I appreciate your patience with my prodding.

The anarcho distinction is a lofty one and in my opinion of the highest intellectual understanding. It requires a person to strip themselves of emotionalism (fear) and embrace the belief that most people, given the chance, strive to do good.

We must constantly be rigorous in our thinking because our detractors judge humanity as inherently evil and use emotionalism (fear-of no government) as a means to attack our position. It’s very important that we constantly sharpen our definitions and be precise in our thinking. As a mathematician, I’m sure you understand.

It is always a pleasure to have writers on this site, like yourself, who are attempting to challenge themselves and others. The result is producing better thinkers, writers, and representatives (in many ways disciples) of the freedom movement.

Alpheus, good luck on your intellectual journey and having read your blog, I see your well on your way…

Oh, there’s certainly room for improvement! For example, what would happen if women can sell their children to a couple who would like to adopt? Or even just freely drop that child off to the family? In both these cases, though, such actions are currently illegal. Indeed, it costs tens of thousands of dollars just to adopt a child!

For some reason, we (as a society, that is: I somehow doubt that Austrian economists have this problem!) have become convinced that only the State has the best interest of the child at heart, and that individuals, even parents, will do all sorts of evil things to children, without State intervention.

As for myself, I would propose that transferring custody of a child, regardless of the circumstances, is the right of every parent (so long as both parents are in agreement to the initial transfer), and that any abuse of that child after the transer–up to and including slavery and prostitution–should be on the heads of the persons who commit the abuse. The only way that the abuse should be on the originators of the transfer, would be if it could be proven that they knowingly transferred custody to someone for abusive purposes.

The funny thing is, if you could pay someone to adopt a child, that would likely decrease the abortion rate–yet, the State will not permit it, because it would be “trafficking” in humans.

My point continues to be that the idea that things like drug use and abortion being consequence free in an anarcho-capitalist society a misnomer, and that one can advocate anarcho-capitalism and be pro-life without any contradiction. You just can’t directly force anyone to be pro-life under such a system.

I think the problem I have is your use of the word punishment as somehow synonymous with choice. If I take the wki definition of punishment, it reads:

The authoritative imposition of something negative or unpleasant on a person….in response to behavior deemed wrong by an individual or group.

The problem is the word “imposition” which means forcing ones will on another. It implies a violation of ones person and property. This is a contradiction of libertarian ethics.

If I choose not to give my inheritance to a family member, I have not imposed on anybody. I’ve only made a choice.

If I don’t hire someone because they didn’t pass a drug test…again, I have only made choice. There has been no imposition or force.

Though I do not want to get into a debate on abortion, it follows the same logic.

Let me conclude that discussions on personal choice and what ones does with their free will, within the parameters of property rights, is one of psychology and not libertarian in nature. The fact that you have brought these issues up makes me question your understanding of anarcho-libertarianism. It seems to me you’re trying to rationalize anarchy through the precepts of minarchy.

My point has been, and continues to be, that “punishment” for things like drug use and abortion can exist in an anarcho-capitalistic society, and likely will–but such punishment will not involve state agents breaking down doors, dragging the offender to court, and then sending that person off to prison.

Heck, we can see shadows of this even today: while it technically isn’t illegal to convert to a religion different from your parents, for example, it darn well is legal for your parents to disinherit you for doing so.

With all do respect, you seem to be lacking a deeper understanding of basic libertarian concepts such as non-aggression and property rights. Those ideals are deeply rooted among the few who are anarcho-libertarians.

To embrace those ideals it is understood, regardless of how a person may feel about someone’s actions or choices…it does not allow for the persecution of others through violence and property violation.

You might say libertarians are the most tolerant of any political persuasion. In simple terms, we believe people should mind their own business.

Your comment implies that you envision (and would actively participate in) a society where people do mind what others do with their property…and that is not an anarcho-libertarian vision but a vision no different then what we are living today.

Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government.
All peaceful, voluntary economic and social associations are permitted; consent is the basis of the social and economic order.
Justly acquired property is privately owned by individuals and voluntary groups, and this ownership cannot be arbitrarily voided by governments.
Government may not redistribute private wealth or grant special privileges to any individual or group.
Individuals are responsible for their own actions; government cannot and should not protect us from ourselves.
Government may not claim the monopoly over a people’s money and governments must never engage in official counterfeiting, even in the name of macroeconomic stability.
Aggressive wars, even when called preventative, and even when they pertain only to trade relations, are forbidden.
Jury nullification, that is, the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, is a right of the people and the courtroom norm.
All forms of involuntary servitude are prohibited, not only slavery but also conscription, forced association, and forced welfare distribution.
Government must obey the law that it expects other people to obey and thereby must never use force to mold behavior, manipulate social outcomes, manage the economy, or tell other countries how to behave.
—————————————————————————-

Sorry about lost formatting These principles just about guarantee that the rich will get richer through monopoly and price fixing while the majority of the people become “free” industrial serfs.

As Lou Rockwell’s friend, Gary North noted:

http://www.garynorth.com/public/7833.cfm

The US Constitution was written to produce the exact government we have.

I’m talking about anarcho-capitalism, for crying out loud! Under this system, there’s only one “law”: your contract, the lawyers advising the parties, and the judge that the parties settle on; perhaps “police services” companies may be involved, too.

In an anarcho-capitalist society, I would expect that formal “marriage contract” would be much more clear, in terms and consequences of breaking them, than the current system of state-granted “marriage licenses”. I would also expect that more cause would be needed to break these contracts, than is currently given in divorce law. This is in stark contrast to current law, where married people are expected to “know” the law, and where it can change under the feet of the two parties with little notice.

To think that you could use recreational drugs, or have abortions, in absolute impunity, in an anarcho-capitalist environment, is a bit silly: those who care about such things (such as myself) will establish consequences for such things.

All the things you mentioned there could be solved through private contracts. Companies and individuals should be free to decide whether they want to establish, in the contract, whether drug use should be a cause for dismissal. As for the divorce thing… anything is accepted as “valid cause”, even today. I don’t think the US or any other western country forces people to stay together as a couple if one of them doesn’t want to be in that situation anymore.

You married someone who turned out to be a drug user? File for divorce, get away. Want to stay with this person and try to save him or her? Then do that. I don’t think there is a need for an additional law specifying that people should be allowed to divorce in case one of the members of the couple is a drug user.

I oppose the illegality of drugs, for example–but I do not condone recreational drug use, nor do I expect consequences for recreational use to go away. Indeed, recreational drug use should be punishable: it should be valid cause for divorce, for dismissal from employment, for the withholding of funds from charity, and for disinheritance. In a free society, I would not condone imprisonment for anyone who uses drugs recreationally, but I do not have to support such a person, or to associate with such a person, either.

To someone who commits murder, I would even go so far as to say that such a person may be declared an outlaw, with the right of the survivors of a victim to take the murderer’s life, for any reason.

Why couldn’t the same types of things happen to those who have an abortion? Surely, if I value the life of even the unborn, wouldn’t I pursue such actions? And if the entire society valued the life of the unborn strictly enough, it may be difficult for someone who aborts a baby to find a judge who will abstain from declaring such a person an outlaw, as previously described!

Having said all this, in an anarcho-capitalist society, I would suspect that the father of an unborn child will have more rights to preventing an abortion than he currently has in our system of law.

One of the restrictions I am likely to choose for myself is one of size: if a company is big enough that employees need to have identification, I will likely not want to work there. That doesn’t mean that I have to oppose businesses that choose to be so large that IDs are necessary; nor would I want a law passed against such things.

I think that in this case Mr. Paul’s religious convictions are conflicting with his libertarian values, as i think he hopes local regulation would ultimately lead to regulation that would favour his religious conservative views over what he percives to be liberally biased federal regulation on these matters. This would be the case for same sex amrriage as for abortion.

No. It is very problematic. Your capacious idea of legal jurisdiction belonging to the owner of a condo is absurd. The only “law” agreement that I would submit to is the one that pertains to the surface area of my couch alone, which is very liberal compared to the Hole In A Sheet Principle of governance. I challenge you to google “hole in a sheet” and witness what “real” liberty is like. Slave.