Lysander, I posted a follow-up to your post over at Thomland. I didn't jump in and answer any questions (I will, but I have a killer cold right now and am almost asleep), but I DID suggest that folks on the board post their questions on some libertarian boards. I will be curious to see if anyone does. They are happy to jump all over you and rapid-fire questions at you, but I doubt they feel as secure posting their questions where they know there are hundreds of libertarians just itching to respond.

By the way, here's a link to the thread to which Lysander is referring:  http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2011/03/ask-libertarian-me-what-they-b...

Thanks AZOG,..... I mean steve_dubc.  It was probably a mistake to make the offer considering the response I've gotten.  But hindsight is 20/20.  I was just tired of the same old "without the government, society would collapse into fiefdoms controlled by international corporations with private armies enforcing their decrees." 

Whoa!  Maybe you could offer to just answer one a day?

Wow, they actually moved your thread. What a reaction - they don't like what you're saying so they put you in the basement. It's now in the "lounge/feedback" section.  Too funny.

Well, so far it look like we're up to the following 8 questions:

1 - Isn't using force to prevent externalities inconsistent with the non-aggression principle?

2 - How does anacap handle externalities?

3 - How does anacap handle the "free rider problem"?

4 - How does anacap handle pervasive racial discrimination by an overwhelming majority of people?

5 - Do you believe that liberty is basically synonymous to a free market?

6 - How could large companies be prevented from gobbling up small companies until only a very few companies had a monopoly on just about everything -- giving themselves almost complete control over every aspect of our lives?

7 - Who would own the Mississippi river? Who would own all the tributaries and creeks?

8 - How would air pollution be handled?

You know what would be really cool? A "common objections to anarcho-capitalism faq". I'm sure people have responded to these questions over and over and over again. It would be cool if you were having a discussion and a question came up, you could just point them to that particular quesiton in the FAQ and go from there. No need to rewrite over and over the responses to these objections. Each question coulud also provide links to articles on the subject for an in-depth follow up.

Anyone know if there is a FAQ (or FAQs) out there that answere these questions?

Yeah, Weedwacker is in the house. Thanks for coming over to lend a hand.

Ah2's most recent post regarding property rights is going to take some effort to work through. He naturally has a valid point about the interconnectedness of something like a river system. I think that he is mistaken to assert that only a government can protect such a resource through regulation. I'm sick and pretty done for the night, so I'll have to take a whack at it tomorrow.

Well I don't know about you guys, but Azog has been blocked from the Thom Hartmann board. Well, I guess that's one way to win an argument. You'll have to carry on without me, at least until I create a new user id.  Damn, I was getting to like Azog.

Banned?  I didn't read it that carefully but I didn't really see personal insults or the like, do they ban people just for not having their mind right? 

One thing that's really interesting is the pervasive mindset that "how are you going to handle this, or how are THEY going to handle that".  The notion that there has to be some superior entity to design and control everything and solve problems.

Here's my issue with forums and these conversations in general: if you make the perfect faq, present flawless logic, and have no holes in the arguments, do you think that those with opposing views will even consider your views? In my experience 99% will just write you off with an ad homenim or just ignore you.

Weedwacker,

Your post was very well written.  Thanks for the help.

Nich,

I think you are probably right.  Most people, especially self-styled progressives, are not as open minded as they claim.  It still amazes me that their fear of a free (but hardly unregulated) market will trump any common ground they have with libertarians.  They claim to be anti-war and pro-civil liberties but they basically want an all powerful fascist State to combat the imagined power that corporations would have in a free market.

Stevo_Dubc,

Thanks for your posts.  You explained many of my positions better than I did.  But in fairness to me, I was a bit overwhelmed.  I think most progressives would rather believe all the lies about libertarians (minarchist and anarchist, alike) rather than discuss the actual issues.

I haven't seen either of you back over there. So did either of you guys get blocked?

@Nich - As LysanderSpooner said, you're probably right. He and I have discussed before whether it's worthwhile to argue with progressive types. As you said, they may never change their minds. But of course we know this going in. But it does help to point out weaknesses in our position, and it may help to convince a lurker. The debate is intended for the audience, not the two participants.

Anyway, if I resurrect my self over at Thomland, I'll let you know, Lysander. And if anyone hangs out anywhere that isn't so ban-happy, let me know and I'll join you over there.

Just tried to logon and found out that I have been blocked.  It's probably for the best.  As far as I'm concerned, the progressives of the Thom Hartmann type are thinly disguised fascists.  They dress it up with terms like democracy, but they support nothing short of a bully/nanny State.  Ironicallly, they support these policies in the name of fighting fascism!

Don't know if this is still needed/wanted, but here's a good summary of common objections to libertarian anarchism, by Roderick Long:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html

Regarding the conversation Lysander, Weedwacker, and I were having over at Hartmann's, I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this particular argument http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2011/03/ask-libertarian-me-what-they-b...

His baisic argument is that there is no way to assign property rights to a river. "It is IMPOSSIBLE to assign property rights to something that is inherently transient and part of a vastly interconnected eco system. "  That's the assertion. I think that the proper response is that, even if it is impossible to precisely track any particular molecule of water, some form of property arrangment will offer a better way to protect the resource from the tragedy of the commons than state ownership.

Note that he also makes an argument that private mediation cannot work because the mediators will always work in their own self-interest. I believe this argument is much weaker. He is making the assumption that it truly would be in the best interest of a private mediator to be corrupt. I think that this is a weak assumption. Besides, one could say the same thing about government courts, which leave the consumer with no viable alternative.

Getting back to the whole "only the state can properly manage 'the commons'", if anyone has any thoughts on this, I'd love to hear them, or if there are any papers you can point me to I'd be be interested.

Well isn't this nice from ah2:

I am going to assume that since neither Frank, nor Azog, nor rigel, or any of you other freemarketers have replied to my last post above that I pretty much hit the nail on the head. If you guys can come up with a workable solution to the legitimacy issue, dealing with externality effects, and freerider issues using Libertarian principles without contradicting your fundamental beliefs, I would really love to hear it.

Wow, doesn't that just add insult to injury.

@Weedwacker - Thanks for joining us over at ZeroGov. You are right in that his argument is farily in depth. I think one of the things that made it a little imposing to me at first is that he is saying a lot of thing that are true. Yes, a waterway is a complex interconnected system. Yes, air travels great distances and can carry pollutants. Yes, every human action involves some degree of entropy where some sort of waste product is created. Yes, all of that is true.

It is his leap to assuming that the only effective way to manage these problems through the government.

@Lysander - Yes, I think Block would be a good source for understanding how a resource like a river could be managed voluntarily. Also, I tend to agree that the clincher for accepting liberty is the moral argument. But you would be amazed at the number of people who simply don't care. Social contract, you can always leave, the majority rules, etc are what you run into.

@Weedwacker - Yes, it is very tiresome to continually respond to the "how would xyz work?" barrage. I can't be sure if the people really don't know the answers to these questions, or if they just throw them like a boxer throws jabs.  There's this one particular guy, polycarp2 over at Thom's, who will always point out the possible problems with a voluntary solution but never admits any problem with the statist solutions. His argument in favor of fiat money is that Spain experienced a period of inflation as gold from the new world flowed into its economy. Therefore, gold would never work as moeny.  It's too unstable. lol.

Anyway, we'll see if ah2 is man enough to continue the conversation over at Bill's site. I doubt he will, but that in itself will say something important about the statists.