A couple of useful links to a recent mises.org article, containing a link to a paper from the "anarchy isn't practical" side. Since this discussion (well, argument) is a common theme here I thought there might be some interest in these articles as they articulate, in a fairly concise way, many of the point and counterpoints that are brought up here.

http://blog.mises.org/archives/010500.asp

http://www.la-articles.org.uk/FL-2-2-3.pdf

The discussion in these articles is phrased as a "minarchist" vs "anarchist" debate, but the arguments on behalf of minarchists sound a lot like what the statists in this forum say.

Well, many of the statists on this forum are minarchists.

Also, I have a friend who refers to himself as a "theoretical asymptotic anarchist and applied lessarchist." Which I tell him translates to "pussy."

hehe, lessarchist. I like it.

.

What are you if you prefer to live in ACland but don't think it will ever exist?

If you don't support aggression then you are a voluntarianist.

"I'm a conscientious objector!"

"What?"

"You know, a coward."

You've already shown your support for first appropriation as basis for land rights. Legitimizing the initiation of force and other non-voluntary action is inherent in such a principle.

I'm not sure if i consider myself an ACist, but I think it's far more likely in twenty years than it is now, and I don't think it was even possible before the internet.

Please don't drag this into every thread that anyone who is an ACist posts in

It is a legitimate response to ACists like Nielsio who claim their philosophy is based on non-aggression and voluntarism.

If they want to stop recycling that rhetoric, then it doesn't need a response.

Nobody is using this rock. I pick it up and use it. Where's the aggression?

Please give me back my rock

Please don't post about ACism ever again.

Why not?

Hahaha

Give me a break. This is (ostensibly) a thread about the practicality of an anarchist system, not whether or not ACists are overzealous in their assertions of logical consistency and so forth. We already have a recent enormous thread for that, and the logical consistency argument says nothing to the sustainability argument, so it's not relevant. You're doing the same thing that ACists are accused of doing when they go into a thread about whether or not a certain policy makes any sense and just starting right off with "tax is theft, all policies are necessarily evil, etc". Make relevant comments only, please.

But we all know that anarchism isn't practical. We've had anarchy and governments developed from it. So talking about consistency is fine.

Initiating of force against the soil?

Non-aggression is meant in regards to other moral agents and their property.

No pussy for you then! Evolutionary biology FTW!

But more on-topic, I think we already live in a world-wide functional anarchy (although I suppose the "functionality" is debatable). This is just a question of perspective. It's every person for themselves.

Just certain folks learn how to milk the system they inherit, and gain/abuse/flaunt power and control over others who are less savvy or more passive. But it's not like there's any inherent "meta-legitimacy" to any of the "systems" currently "in place".

If, like the author linked to in the OP, you believe in the ideals of ACism but don't believe it will ever happen, then why do you think advocating it is preferable to advocating a more likely alternative, such as greater libertarianism? If the "achievable" goal is greater liberty and less coercion, don't you think it's possible that advocating what is currently a very fringe, extremist point of view would be more likely to hamper your efforts than advance them?

It just seems like there are millions of people from all walks of life who are in favor of less government intrusion, but the idea of completely eliminating the gov't is so alien to them as to be off-putting to the point of labeling ACers crackpots. So it just seems to me that if you don't believe ACism will ever happen, then you're making the great the enemy of the good by advocating it over likely alternatives.

Force against anyone who traverses said soil against your wishes. But you already knew that.

It's relevant to Nielsio's post. I can't help it if in every AC debate, some ACist comes along claiming his philosophy does not include initiation of force. If you want someone to flame, Nielsio's post was right there waiting for you.

And see the very post above. Yes we had a 500+ thread about this, and Nielsio was active in that thread. Then just as predicted, he comes along in the very next thread on the subject and acts like "what force, against the soil?"

Give ME a ****ing break.

So I've created some crops and if I try to stop someone from walking over them I'm initiating force?